I usually make a distinction between ‘craft’ and ‘art’. Craftsmanship is an important part of artistic endeavor, yes, but it’s not enough—it’s necessary but not sufficient. It’s a limiting factor. A skilled artist is necessarily also a skilled craftsman, but not vice versa.
If I assume you’re using art to refer to skill in producing, your arguments become much clearer to me. But I do think there’s an important distinction your terminology isn’t reflecting.
I would have to agree—this is a reasonable way of talking within aesthetics (or the study of art generally) - the distinction is made between “art” and “craft”, where (to put it simply) “art” is making something good and unique for the first time, and “craft” is skillfully making it again. But “art” is used more broadly too, and I think the intuition here is more in line with its use in “martial arts”. I think whatever term we use is going to be somewhat ad-hoc, and folks here seem to have latched onto ‘art’. It doesn’t seem damaging to me, and seems to be useful as the appropriate sort of propaganda.
That still isn’t the terminological usage I’m referring to. ‘Craft’ is the ability to design and construct a form with the desired properties, usually (but not always) dealing with concrete, physical forms. ‘Art’ is the ability to utilize craft in the service of aesthetics.
Craft is taking the raw materials of a canvas and paint and combining them in such a way that they match your intention. Art is having aesthetically powerful intentions and expressing them.
The second point: ‘propaganda’ is precisely what we should be avoiding.
I usually make a distinction between ‘craft’ and ‘art’. Craftsmanship is an important part of artistic endeavor, yes, but it’s not enough—it’s necessary but not sufficient. It’s a limiting factor. A skilled artist is necessarily also a skilled craftsman, but not vice versa.
If I assume you’re using art to refer to skill in producing, your arguments become much clearer to me. But I do think there’s an important distinction your terminology isn’t reflecting.
I would have to agree—this is a reasonable way of talking within aesthetics (or the study of art generally) - the distinction is made between “art” and “craft”, where (to put it simply) “art” is making something good and unique for the first time, and “craft” is skillfully making it again. But “art” is used more broadly too, and I think the intuition here is more in line with its use in “martial arts”. I think whatever term we use is going to be somewhat ad-hoc, and folks here seem to have latched onto ‘art’. It doesn’t seem damaging to me, and seems to be useful as the appropriate sort of propaganda.
Two thoughts:
That still isn’t the terminological usage I’m referring to. ‘Craft’ is the ability to design and construct a form with the desired properties, usually (but not always) dealing with concrete, physical forms. ‘Art’ is the ability to utilize craft in the service of aesthetics.
Craft is taking the raw materials of a canvas and paint and combining them in such a way that they match your intention. Art is having aesthetically powerful intentions and expressing them.
The second point: ‘propaganda’ is precisely what we should be avoiding.