Arts and crafts are terms that are often used together but they must have a difference that sets them apart. Both are made by people but crafts usually have an intended use. This might mean that art is only useless beyond sensory impact because all else would be considered a craft. This would eliminate a lot of the things many consider art from the category. One example would be architecture because it serves the purpose of providing shelter. Perhaps then art and craft are overlapping. Art’s purpose seems to be at least in part to make an emotional impact. Architecture does so. When one thinks of a spooky house one usually thinks of a Victorian and we often think professional when we see a large mostly glass building. These buildings are appealing to emotions while still serving a purpose making them both an art and a craft. They differ in that a craft can be functional while only appealing to a person in its usefulness while an art can appeal to emotions while serving no practical purpose. The problem in my last post then still stands because it is hard to determine whether money making ability is a use in the way it is meant when one separates art from craft. A film is made to appeal to the senses in order to make money. An individual viewing it has no use for it except for its emotional impacts but the individuals that produced it do. Thus movies would be on the borderline. Advertisement would probably be considered a craft because the viewer has the potential to learn about products from it and the producer has the purpose of selling those products. Advertising then serves a use for people, making it a craft. It would also be an art because it does appeal to emotions.
When determining what is art would the views of the creator or the viewer be more important?
The perception of the viewer and the creator may be intertwined unexplainable while trying to use there insights to define art. An artifact lying behind glass in a museum may have been seen by its creator as a survival tool while todays viewer would gawk at this piece and wonder how the creator made something with minimal equipment. A painter could spend all year mapping out were specific colors should lie on a canvas to be most intriguing to the human eye and expect incredible results only to find his or herself completely disappointed by the art worlds reaction. Both the painting and the survival tool may be art. The viewers response may be negative or positive on a piece of work and same being said for the creator. With this being true the views of one experiencing art and the creator may or may not have any importance on defining art. This raises the question what makes a person qualified to say what art is.
ReplyDelete