I tend to think of "art" more as the creative side of it. And "craft" is more the technical side of it. Like, the portrait is the art. The painting is the craft. If that makes sense?

Or "craft" also kind of carries a more pragmatic connotation. That it's like, music is art; woodworking is craft. (But this is also pretty reductive because there's clearly pragmatism to art and artistry to craft.) I mean, there's a reason it's "arts and crafts." They might be different, but they're related.

I would define art as the selective reproduction of elements as an aesthetic practice.

I would define craft as the collection of technical skills relating to an aesthetic or pragmatic practice.

These are mainly unimproved definitions, as I have not had many chances to discuss the definition of art, though I have wanted to for many years. They are subject to revision, and I would like to hear what you have to say about this.

Abstract art fails both of those definitions but (hopefully) conveys beauty.

I'd define "art" as "aesthetic or creative expression". There are a number of skills involved with it which become stronger independent of the ways art is used.

I guess a good definition of "craft" is something that applies a personal sense of artistry and the skills associated with it to some kind of field of expertise. "Crafts" have a lot of technical and/or physical and/or muscular things associated with them as well, whereas art is just the raw expression.

Furthermore, I believe that crafts can be learned while art cannot -- art is subjective and inherent, whereas crafts are just practical skills that use whatever someone's artistry is.

I'm not sure what you mean by "abstract art".



What the Tek quote said was:



He did not say that if you are not attempting to convey a concept/emotion/etc. then you are not making art.

Perhaps abstract art has no room in my definition (though I would doubt that, depending on what you mean), but there is definitely room in the definition given in this quote. Perhaps the way it was worded does not quite reflect his intent accurately, but I cannot assume that.

(Semantics to the rescue once again.)

This is kind of a wild thing to assert. I get that abstract art isn't for everyone, and not everyone is going to feel moved by the same things, but abstract art isn't just about conveying some sense of beauty (which, not for nothing is an aesthetic thing). More often than not, abstract artists are using their artistry to convey an emotion or elicit an emotional response.



Kinda disagree with this assessment as well. "Creativity" might not be something one can learn, but no one just sort of innately knows how to create their art. Obviously, much will depend on the form in question, but arguably most artistic forms do require years and years of study and practice. Novels, cinema, poetry, painting, architecture: all forms of art that people ultimately have to learn.




I'd maybe take the weird position of, all aesthetics are ultimately attempting to evoke something. Not everything is super deep or anything, but I mean, why would you care at all about the aesthetics of your living room if said aesthetics didn't bring you a sense of comfort or calmness?

It's interesting that you should say this.

Do you make a distinction that also allows for something like a specifically-designed room layout that communicates, expresses or evokes something? Is that outside of the realm of "simple aesthetics", which is why you did not allow for that in that statement?

I ask because, at least in my personal experience, room layout is actually something that I use as a coping and stress-management mechanism. I semi-regularly redesign my den and move all of my furniture around based on particular emotional needs that I need that sanctum to respect and represent. When other people see how I've arranged this room, it communicates something to them as well.

OK, so you're making a distinction between "simple aesthetic" and "sophisticated aesthetic", and it appears to be categorized by either implying a generality or communicating a specific. Do you think that that's an accurate description of how you think of it? If so, do you also recognize that there are things that are general but less general, or specific but less specific, and that it may be more accurate to reality to look at the collection of these things as a spectrum instead of two categories?

Awesome, thank you for actually thinking about it. Take your time.