Plato was (or so I have been told) very reactionary about this sort of thing and went on about the greek concept of 'techne' which means 'skill' in the broad sense. He said that 'art' which was not practical was useless and took a very dim view of poets and musicians, prefering the creativity of craft as purer art. Its all in the 'Republic' somewhere but i'm probably absolutely mangling this as philosophy isn't my field. Plato prob. just liked the rippling muscles of the craftsmen. We all know about the ancient greeks don't we, thought with their brains by day and their dicks by night.
I enjoyed our little intellectual spat, Mississipi. It's nice to be kept on one's toes and given a run for yer money. I can't wait for the effing Plato backlash now, q.v.:
"I am a doctor of philosophy and what you say about Plato is facking rabbish, actually ..."
sit back and wait ...
stevie
'effing Plato'....sorry Steve my knowledge of necrophilia is gladly lacking.
Actually philosophy is not really my thing...I prefer to say what I think.
I'll come out of the closet and admit that I studied philosophy, albeit for only one year. I found myself becoming unbelievably introspective and so I came out into the light, adjusted my mole-like eyes and got on with the real world. However, I was fond of old Aristotle. A man of ethics. (in joke, very poor).
Sorry, now what was this thread about again?
(goes off whistling, dreaming of college days
Yep, philosophy will suck the life out of you, no question. We had noticed, Mississippi that you like to say what you think. That is what endears you to us all on ABC. I thankfully have not studied this killer subject so really have no idea NO IDEA what I am talking about.
Ah, university days, when beer was 5p a pint and came in plastic glasses...
stevie
I studied phil. for one term and it sucked the life out of me. You did well to survive my dear wolfgirl. The thread was about making the effortbon poetry or how quickly can good stuff be written. It got quite hairy at times. No pu intended, wolfy.
steve
I suppose what Mississippi is saying is that nobody can define art and put restrictions on it. To an extent this is true, but it is what has caused such a mess in the modern art world. If anything becomes art just by calling it art, then you end up with a situation where nobody is really interested in it anymore.
It may be just semantics, but I would tend to agree that a really excellent piece of pipe-fitting is high craft, not art. But sport I think can become art, when it is at its very best - because it can become more than just winning and about something moving and stylish. If Liverpool's pass-and-move football of the early eighties had never won them a trophy it would still have been worthy of itself.
So I'm arguing myself around to Mississippi's viewpoint anyway that art is a slippery concept and defining it just gets you into trouble. Speaking personally, I would not want to see literature go the route that 'art' has taken - for my own view and I can give no more weight than that, I don't think cut and pasting is the same as writing, although there is obviously some creativity in the selection process.
What I was actually saying Andrew, is that EVERYBODY can define art, but only for themselves. And they shouldn't be so arrogant as to assume that their definition is either the only one or the most accurate and important one. Neither should they feel they have the right to impose it on others.
Now this is only my opinion, unworthy as it may be, but how you can say that 22 men kicking the hell out of a piece of cow hide can be art and the highest results of one man's efforts using his skill and talent is only 'craft' of which ever height is beyond me. And before you start lecturing me on the skill and talent of footballers I would like to say that over the years I have noticed that football fans seem to glaze over when ever their minds drift towards the relative merits of their favourite players/team. It also seems to be incomprehensible to footy fans that there is a section of the community that finds anything football related a complete and utter bore. Mostly over-paid inarticulate kids that got lucky because their feet did their thinking instead of their heads. Ok, I am a little jealous of the cash but certainly not anything else.
Oh, and lastly, while I'm on your case, I wasn't being overly sensitive about the 'royal we' in another thread, I was simply trying to point out that the use of it presupposes that we all feel the same and it isn't true! I've noticed that it is spreading like a plague throughout the forums. Can people not say 'I' instead of 'we' or is it that by using the word they feel as though they are expressing someone else's opinion which they simply wish to endorse without taking any responsibility for original thought, perhaps fearing a personal backlash. Nobody speaks for me except me and I am perfectly happy to express my personal opinion and take what ever flack it draws.!
Within the restrictions of my opinion being no more valid than anyone elses (which is an unspoken caveat with all of my postings - I have strong opinions, but I don't necessarily believe that I am right about everything, or even most things)
I think Mississippi that you have made an assumption that I would view art as something higher than craft. To be honest, I think I could have a go at Tracy Emin's bed, or even Hirsts shark, if I had enough cash; but I couldn't plumb in a bathroom suite or fit a gas cooker. I have far more respect for craftsmen than artists.
If I had to purge the world of 80% of artists or 80% of craftsmen, there wouldn't be much inner argument before the artists went.
Thinking it over, there must be a spectrum within which craft and art blur - it would not be too controversial to say that Stravinsky's violins and Chipperfield's tables are 'works of art'.
Cooking is perhaps another - the top chefs can create meals that can convey sensations and emotions and push the boundaries of their field.
My revised position, having thought through the arguments made on this forum, is that (i) any kind of task or skill has the capacity to become art, but (ii) not all do and (iii) art is not something superior to craft, it is something 'other' it has another quality (iv) the best definition I can come up with is that my definition of that quality is something which is effectively 'useless' other than for artistic purposes, or where the things that make it particularly artistically pleasing are an embellishment to the objects functionality.
Do you mean Stardivarius' violins?
Funnily enough I agree with one of Mississippi's points that :
1 it is not true that you cannot define art. For @!#$'s sake, If you cannot define something it probably doesn't exist. It might be very ahrd to define, but if we can experience it, we can define it. that is what language is for, ergo:
2 The only definition of art that is going to be any use to you is your own and you have a perfectly acceptable right to discuss it, explore it and try it on other people. You are only right in the sense that this a definition is true to you and makes sense of your world. Likewise other people's defionitions. If Missy didn't gthink that people's individula opinions were 'RIGHT' in a very finasl sense of the word, he would not be so forthright with his own.
3 art is not 'useless'. That is just a Wilde-ism. Art (and I mean by this literature, music, poetry, painting, pop songs, films, collages etc etc tec) is there to interest, or to entertain, or to challenge, or to comfort, or to inform or to appall or to simply express, but not for no reason. If it can be read, heard or understood it is purposeful, and NOT useless.
4 I don't understand what you mean when you say that art is useless except for a'rtistic purposes', isn't that like saying art is only usefull as art. Like saying 'what is rice? It is rice.' it does not answer the question. Can you elaborate, beacause I think i see what you are driving at?
Wow, that was quite a purge. I haven't been online for days so i had quite a few thoughts to 'dump'.
write soon guys
s
It wasn't an assumption about you in particular Andrew but I have to admit that I've always felt 'artists' see themselves as being superior in vision, expression and in the production of their work to 'craftsmen', who frequently appear to be employed in jobs considered by society in general as 'labour'.
I find your remarks about the level of respect you accord artists viz a viz craftsmen interesting and enlightning because personally I see little or no difference between the two. Using my own yardstick, an example of art almost always requires a high degree of craftsmanship and craftsmanship a high level of artistry. I would not distinguish between the two although I recognise that 'art' is frequently produced to be aesthetically pleasing without any other apparent function. I believe that the satisfaction and stimulation of the mind to be immeasurably important and therefore that this is function enough.
Your remark about Stradivari is also very interesting because it is in fact the sound that they make that they are famous for, the quality of the workmanship isn't actually very high. The secret of the sound lay in the material he used not in his skill as a luthier, so as an article they are not the pinnacle of the instrument makers art. Also, in the hands of a non-violinist they make an appalling racket!
It's often occurred to me that if shipwrecked on an island it would be better to have a survival expert as a companion than Michaelangelo or Bill the Shake.
I've also always felt a little indignant that people in certain areas of employment, e.g. doctors, lawyers, accountants, dentists and teachers style themselves as 'professional' people. What the hell are the rest of us? Amateurs?
By the way, if you're going to have a go at Emin's bed I'd advise you to change the sheets, I've heard they are 'soiled'!
Steve, Missi gives the definition above - by useless I mean having no intrinsic purpose other than an aesthetic one. And re violins, my brain just went on a wobble. I'd often wondered whether they were all that great to actually play...
Art isn't useless, but it has no purpose other than to please or to provoke thought - these are very worthwhile purposes in their own right, but they are rather more intangible than others.
A well-made, elegant table has an aesthetic and a practical purpose, whereas a painting doesn't - unless you're Picasso and you burn them to keep warm. If I don't admire the table, I can still eat my dinner off it, whereas if I don't like a painting, that's pretty much the end of it for me.
"Professional" isn't the half of it, Missi. After seven years of taking exams, people still look down their noses and say 'well, of course you're not QUAL-i-fied'.
Pages