Episode 2: Vaughn asks, "What about Art vs. Craft"

Woooo. Boy.

Where to start?

Art, from the old-french and Latin ars, meaning made with skill or great craftmanship

Etymologically related to artifact - meaning made by humans.

So yes, this ole nugget is rife with opinions and the opportunity for feelings to get hurt.

Foremost among the confusion/disagreements are getting bogged down in semantics. "Art" has come to mean different things at different times in different contexts. And while those contexts may be similar, I think it's disingenuous to not consider what context we're applying the word when we also apply it to an image or object.

Things can be "artful" without being art. Or could be produced by an "artisan."

Example: I played bass extensively during my youth. I scrimped and saved to buy a beautiful, hand-built, "artisan" crafted imported German bass. It is lovely and amazing and I still own it 20 years later.

(Note: This is not my actual bass. It is currently in climate-controlled storage, but it is identical to this guy.)

I do not, nor have I ever, thought of or considered this to be an art object. Could I cast a Duchampian lens over the bass and "consider it as if it was an art object." Sure I could. But I don't. This was made as an instrument to be played and appreciated and loved, but it was not made with any intention outside of being a beautiful and well-crafted instrument. The artisans and craftsmen were not concerned with the emotional weight of using imported wood from the Democratic Republic of Congo and how the history of European colonization completely ravaged those people. (Yes I know the Congo was actually under Belgian control, but I feel the point is valid.)

Each component was selected with purpose, though that purpose was for performance or availability, or cost. This object is a tool, a tool used to make art. It is not unlike a paintbrush or hammer and chisel.

That isn't to say that an artist cannot also make a musical instrument. Several semesters ago Vaughn invited Austin-based artist Steve Parker to speak to us about his work.

https://steve-parker.net/

His work is examining and questioning how we both make and perceive sound and altering how we interact with our sound-based environment.

And that's where I begin to draw a line of demarcation.

Artist's intent.

Artists' purpose.

Normally, I'd use to term "Fine Art," "Contemporary Art," or "Academic Art" to categorize these works. But I feel like those titles have been somewhat usurped by the small community gallery hegemony hawking inauthentic turquoise jewelry and mystic images of wise chieftains and serene pastoral landscapes painted in muted pastel blue and pink watercolors.

But the trouble persists. How do we differentiate between works like "The Fighting Temeraire" or "Christina's World" from a Bob Ross painting of "happy little clouds." Not to discredit Bob Ross or his career, but surely there is an apparent difference in these works' scope and intention.

And if you're coming at me with the argument that Bob Ross fits into a discussion of these works, I'm not sure we can seriously have a conversation about this topic.

To the subjects of pots: Potters, pottery, potent potables. How do these works and these artists fit into this little game? Pottery is humanity's oldest artist endeavor. Humans have been producing them for several millennia. Throughout the study of art history, we are shown the practice at different times for different uses across the world. We enjoy viewing and interacting with the works as both artifacts and artwork, although we must view these works through the lens of their unique setting. throughout the overwhelming majority of human history, these objects were created with a specific and distinctive purpose. Aesthetics were an afterthought. The objects were worthless if they did not perform their function. Their worth was in the duty performed.

Does that mean that they could not/are not beautiful? No, they absolutely are. I frequently find myself enamored by the flow and form and texture of contemporary pottery. Does that mean that an art object cannot also have a utilitarian purpose? They absolutely can! But in the context of a graduate program, what is making pots about? What is the purpose of making pots?

I'm not a ceramicist, so I can't speak to those specifics. But I can see the refinement and purity of repetition. But what are these objects made for? Are they made to be on a pedestal? To be analyzed and pondered as one would look at a work by Barbra Hepworth? Are these works doing the same thing? Are they asking the same thing of us as viewers? Once again, I think we have to consider the context of the work...

As a graduate student, I feel that it would be expected that a student is pushing the envelope and asking new and exciting questions about their work. Time spent simply painting fruit bowls or pulling cylinders or bowl forms is better saved for another time and place (undergrad?) That isn't to say that these activities couldn't play a part in a graduate student's art practice, but I would expect greater substance from their intentions than just producing things. I'd like to think we're beyond the point of congratulating people for making a thing. Sometimes it feels like everyone and everything is getting put right up on the fridge,

This then poses the question, "Is bad art still art?"

Is an "artwork" being valued as "craft" simply because it is failing to do what "art" should be doing?

And here's the thing. Why is "craft" a dirty word? Why doesn't craft have a place in our museums? Craftsmanship: something we highly value. Pristine and fine examples of underwater basket weaving deserve a place of accolade. But comparisons to the work of Rodin, maybe not. And as students in an academic art program, we should be looking and thinking about art in academic terms. The way we discuss the figurative forms of the prehistoric Cycladic islands isn't the same way we should examine and discuss our current work. These bronze-age peoples didn't have the philosophies of modernism/post-modernism to look towards and weren't faced with a couple of thousand years of image-making as a legacy informing their work.

I feel like this approach is helpful when viewing works outside of the established ethnocentric western-ish art establishment. As we saw with the dissolution of the Académies and the contrarian nature of the Duchampian/dada-ist movements, there will always be those challenging what is and can be considered "art."