The term ART has become confused over time with colloquial usage. E.G., an "art" exhibition displays paintings and/or sculptures but the fine arts encompass dance, music, plays, story-telling, poetry, painting, sculpture and occasionally items that are, over time, elevated from "craft". The difference may be arbitrary but, I would argue, is not down to "the eye of the beholder", as though an individual can decide on a personal whim what is ART and what is CRAFT. It is quite possibly a truism that "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder. But beauty is not a pre-requisite of art [e.g. the paintings of El Grecko], nor of craft [tribal war/death masks]. But there well may be some validity in claiming that true art is often determined as such by the many eyes of many beholders over time, which principle in no way concedes to the notion of the individual "eye". So what are some of the differences between art and craft? Craft is predominately an object and remains so, although there are exceptions like say, juggling or acting or whip-cracking. Essentially, a craft is utilitarian.Art is not, [not to say that art is useless, far from it], but craft is distinguishable by its functionality. ART affects the many, pertains to and contributes to culture, is emotive, value-laden and societal. Art is determined as such generally by a collective philosophical determination and acceptance, usually over time. Craft is obvious and immediately accepted for what it is and its purpose is obvious. Art can often be attributed a moral value. Craft has no morality. Consider examples. The Sistine Chapel, Brahm's concerto and Swan Lake would certainly have been considered admirable at first, but nobody would argue decades later that they are not art. Such things point mankind to matters beyond the mundane. The writings of Shakespeare and Dickens contributed to actual culture change. Early religious paintings leave society with a record of its religious development. When a primitive society had no alphabet [written], to pass on knowledge and advance its culture it used rock-art, which is one of those examples of craft elevated to art. Mankind would be far more beastial without art. What is or is not art is not determined by an individual's likes or dislikes. One may dislike classical music, hate the Mona Lisa or be repulsed by a Caravaggio but one's opinion does not disqualify art from being art. In a similar way, I happen to "love" the Valiant Torque Flite among cars and the Spitfire airplane gives me goosebumps but I could not class them as art. I do not like Andy Warhol's art, but it is art. And I venture to claim that, for all the reasons given so far, the post-terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo will one day class those cartoons as ART. The eye determines beauty, not what is art.
No comments:
Post a Comment