Craft and Art
It's something that has crossed my mind from time to time, but hadn't found a way to articulate: how do you describe the diffrence between Craft and Art? There are occasions where I have seen quality craft - in visual art or writing, perhaps - where I could say, "Yes, this person has mastered their craft, but something is missing. It isn't art."
Recently, I've been reading my way through Art & Fear: Observations On the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking
by David Bayles & Ted Orland. This little book has been chock-full of wonderful observations about the creative life. So, I was delighted to encounter the following paragraph addressing this --
In essence, art lies embedded in the conceptual leap between pieces, not in the pieces themselves. And simply put, there's a greater conceptual jump from one work of art to the next than from one work of craft to the next. The net result is that art is less polished - but more innovative - than craft. The differences between five Steinway grand pianos - demonstrably works of consummate craftsmanship - are small compared to the diferences between the five Beethoven Piano conerti you might perform on those instruments. (p. 98)
I wanted to do a Happy Snoopy Dance when I read this paragraph because it captures the distinction I had been searching for.
There have been times when I've encountered works where the craftsmanship is excellent, even pleasing, but that somehow does not contain the "extra something" that art does. There is one well-known comic book artist who is a supurb craftsman, whose works are beautiful, even iconic, but who (for me, at least) doesn't quite get over the rail into art. There is something of a sameness to his work that takes all surprise away. "Oh, that's a piece from Big Name Artist," you say on seeing something new from him. Heroic iconography beautifully rendered. By contrast, there is another comic book artist whose work almost always engages me by way of his energetic style. Pages from him are always an adventure of new perspectives. I said "almost always" because the exception to his usual effect came when he was saddled with a woefully inadequate script.
There are also occasions when I've run into the work of someone who has the potential to deliver true art but whose craftsmanship needs work. Some folks who fall into this category only need the lightest of nudges about the necessity of improving their craft. They throw themselves into the "practice, practice, practice" and study necessary to polish their craftwork, and zoom! their learning curve shoots up. Others have been patted and praised for the vision of their art that they do not see the necessity of working on their craftsmanship. The problem is that because they become disinterested in craft, their work begins to lose its internal structure: the bones won't hold up the body.
There are some artists with apparently inadequate craft who still produce wonderful works of art. You might wish, "Oh, please improve this aspect of your craft!" but in the end because the art remains fresh and surprising you relent. The craftsmanship that is there is enough to carry the art.
Once we get beyond the distinctions of art and craft, the last bit is whether or not the work touces the individual. There are some works that I readily acknowledge are of superb craftsmanship and brilliant art which do not touch me. And I realize that is because my responses to life are not enough of a match to that of the artist: we're just not enough on the same wavelength. but in those cases, I feel no need to call the artist a failure. Quite the opposite: I praise the artist for both his craftsmanship and artistry, and just say that it doesn't speak to me.
So, in the future, I'm going to remembr this way of describing the distinctions between craft and art. Thanks to Bayles & Orland.