Art v. Craft? Skill v. Talent v. Creativity? Critiquing someone's work?

Cafe Society
1

I’m part of a FB group for people interested in various fiber arts, and there was something of a kerfluffle yesterday when discussing the lines between art and craft, the relative merits of skill and creativity, and how critical it’s appropriate to be when discussing someone’s work. The OP in question was, imo, being rather a bit of genitalia, and what could have been an interesting, potentially useful discussion instead became total typical “did not/did too” FB drama, and was ultimately locked and deleted. So I bring the discussion to you folks, where people can “Oh hell no, that’s bullshit” and nobody can be unilaterally booted from the conversation simply because the OP doesn’t like their opinion or way of expressing it.

Essentially, she was annoyed at how complimentary people often are toward work she considers “incompetent.” She especially took exception to people classing beginner yarn as art and felt it was disrespectful and dismissive of the years of practice she had put into building her skills, and thought such praise kept people from looking critically at their own work and trying to improve. There were accusations of people outright lying when they praised someone’s work, pointing out that sometimes people post pictures of “falling apart piles of fluff that look like vomit” and people still say nice things.

The following are my thoughts on the subject, in no particular order.

1.) I think it’s a great thing to always look at your work with an objectively critical eye, because finding the weak points in a work is the first step to improving the next work. That’s highly constructive. At the same time, I think it’s very easy to be hypercritical of your own work, finding and exaggerating flaws you might not notice if someone else made the exact same thing. That’s highly destructive, and it’s the biggest barrier I’ve found to getting people to try new crafts. Newbies are so, so prone to being unduly harsh on their work. They make a beginner effort, compare that effort to the work done by the person teaching them, and then they get down on themselves and their work. It drives me crazy, it really does, even though I do the exact same thing when I try something new.

2.) I think when evaluating someone else’s work, you should always grade on a curve. It’s not right or fair to expect really awesome technical skills from someone who is just beginning, and your comments should reflect that. Actually verbalizing the qualifier is optional, as I think most beginners understand that when you tell them something looks really good, you mean it looks really good for a beginner.

3.) When evaluating someone’s work, it’s important to not fall into the trap of thinking that because you like something or think it’s pretty it must be good, or because you don’t like something or find it ugly it’s bad. I don’t like white metal jewelry, especially with white stones; it’s just not even the tiniest shred attractive or appealing to me. That doesn’t mean that someone who designs a well-balanced, dynamic setting and casts it with white gold and diamonds made something bad. It just means I don’t like it.

4.) A vague criticism is the worst critique you can possibly give. Saying something is crap, or ugly, or you don’t like it is meaningless in isolation. It doesn’t point to any specific failure or weakness, or give the artist/crafter any point at which to focus their efforts at improving, or even distinguish between actual failure/weakness and a basis mis-match of aesthetics. Say that the yarn is underspun, or the colors ran together and got muddy, or the proportions look unflattering or even that you just don’t like those colors together. That’s meaningful criticism.

5.) Skill is a wonderful thing, and something we should all strive for, but when deciding if something is art, I rely far more on how much creativity/heart went into the work than on how well it’s executed. Bad art is still art, and brilliantly-executed craft is still craft. My aunt, for example, makes baskets. Beautiful, amazing, impeccably woven baskets. They are NOT art. Not because baskets can’t be art, but because she goes and buys a pattern, gets the exact reed called for in the exact colors called for, and follows that pattern to the letter. There is not one single shred of her in any of them, never that moment where she asks herself “But what if I did x instead of y?” By contrast, my niece makes jewelry. She’s 10 and kind of manually ham-fisted, so it’s usually not well-executed. But she pours her whole heart into it, and her choice of color and shape and proportion just has her personality written all over it. One could reasonably class her work as art–or maybe we need some other term to describe passionate craft that doesn’t necessarily have something to say about the world.

2

The problem is that art and craft really aren’t the same things, and that craftsmanship isn’t artistry. It’s very difficult to separate the two, but they’re really separate things.

However, an artist (i.e., a real artist) I know pretty well once told me, “You have to know the rules before you’re allowed to break them.” She expects artists to demonstrate technical proficiency.

3

I would add:

6.) What some people say about someone else’s work has no bearing at all on the merits of your work (this is directed at the FB OP). There is no currency of criticism that is cheapened by going easy on beginners. And different practitioners should never be compared to each other, lest the critic lose friends on all sides.

4

I think things should be graded on a curve, yes. And unless we are asked to critique individual skills, we should approach everything as if it were finished exactly as its creator intended, rather than viewing things as desperate for critique.

This is a big deal in poetry (my chosen art form). I used to participate extensively in poetry critique, attempting to help people refine their skills, and I found that when I approached a work as something needing refinement, I was extremely critical, where if I approached it as a finished work, I injected less of “Well, here’s what I would do to finish this, were it mine” and more “Here is my reaction to your work, which is solely yours.” I think in critique, we can often think of ourselves as almost co-creators of the work, thinking we can push the person one way or another. Or, not just that we can, but that we should!

So, I try to react to the work on its own terms, only get critical when asked, only get specific when asked, and approach all works as if they were a finished product, even if they don’t look like it yet. I find I get really good reactions from people, and they value my insights and opinions more than if I were stomping all over their work, trying to “fix” it.

5

Eye of the beholder and all that. The skill of the artist is unrelated to the quality of the art, the quality is a subjective opinion. Very skilled artists or craftsmen can produce bad art, and I with less than a modicum of artistic ability have on rare occasions produced something pleasing to the eye. So criticism of the skill is pointless if the result is perceived as artistic. Criticism of the artistic result is fair if one does acknowledge when skill is demonstrated.

6

Bad art isn’t necessarily art. Not everything intended to be art ends up as art.
Craft is something else. The way we use words, “artistry” can apply to a well-crafted thing, a well-planned and -executed thing, as well as something that actually turns into art.

“Very good for a beginner” is kind of a put-down, I think. I don’t know about all craft projects, but there’s really no reason for a knitted thing or a crocheted thing to look like it was made by a beginner, even if it was. Obviously more skilled people can handle more challenging things.

In critiquing writing, a group I’m in has this rule, the sandwich method. Find something good, that works. Then mention things that could be improved. Then end with something else positive (“nicely typed” etc.).

7

Interesting comments. My medium is quilting and I sometimes think this about other quilters. I show what I made and they say “What pattern is that?” and I say I made it up based on traditional patterns but I choose what fabric is where, etc. Some folks can’t make anything without every step outlined and someone teaching them the whole way. Which doesn’t mean the execution isn’t really good (then they hand it over to someone else to quilt but that’s another peeve). I can’t say I make art either, because I am comfortable staying within a general set of rules, but I do have the joy of “it’s mine and I can make it however I want!”

ETA: And I find myself completely unqualified to judge “art quilts” and quiltish fiber arts. The beauty of quilts to me is the math and geometry so when things don’t line up ON PURPOSE and things like that, I can’t bear it. But that’s OK, it’s just not what I do.

8

I would argue that intent is actually the critical part of art. However, “bad” art–art that is poorly crafted–is generally less likely to fulfill its intent. It’s still art; it’s just unsuccessful art.

9

Definitions are useful things. Stating definitions so people can see if they are actually using the words the same way is helpful. At least you can realize you disagree over the word meaning. It helps communication. Otherwise you find yourself in a fistfight with someone you actually agree with but don’t realize it.

I don’t think something stops being art because of skill level. However, I perceive folks are distinguishing “art” to refer to a creative endeavor, whereas doing a skill to a set pattern and instructions is performing a craft. One can be skilled in the craft without exhibiting art, and one can be very creative but not have developed skill through experience.

Some other people might not be making that distinction, and calling the activity itself as a form of art. In that manner, something doesn’t cease being art just because it’s poorly done. High school football isn’t any less of a sport than NFL football, just because the players are less experienced and can’t do as much. If something is a craft, it is a craft whether done by a master or a beginner. Skill level doesn’t change it’s status. One might say the same thing about art, or not, depending on definitions.

As for critiquing someone else’s works, I do have a story. Back in college, one night at a party someone pulled out some oranges and did a little juggling. It was entertaining and an interesting way to break the ice, and I thought it might be fun to try. A couple years later, I picked up a book on juggling with some bean bags and set out to try to learn. And I spent several months practicing, getting where I didn’t need the wall to keep from throwing the beanbags too far away from me, and getting where I could carry the pattern for more than a couple throws.

So after several months, I thought I would show my family what I was working on, and I pulled out my beanbags and managed to juggle the basic three pattern without dropping for twenty seconds or so. I was so excited. And they looked at me, and said “That’s nice, what else can you do?” That unconsidered remark basically killed my desire to do it any more. If you’ve never tried it, it is difficult to conceive of just how tricky it can be to keep the beanbags moving consistently, so you can catch and throw. Small deviations in throw mean you are reaching all over the place, which means you drop things.

If someone is beginning and developing a skill, it is thoughtful to take them at their level and praise them for what they have accomplished rather than dismiss their efforts and say “what else can you do?”

If someone asks you for critique, you can evaluate their skill, but keep in mind their experience level. It’s not fair to hold a little league quarterback to NFL standards.

10

My favorite “sure, she’s skilled at what she does, but she doesn’t add the creativity bit which makes it ART” moment comes from college.

I had attended a jazz band concert, featuring one professional jazz musician and a bunch of college student wannabe jazz musicians.

After the concert, I heard a friend from the audience say to a performing friend. " Wow, those flute solos were really awesome"

Performing friend said “yes, she’s an excellent flute player, but she’s no jazz musician, those solos were written out for her note by note”. He wasn’t dissing her, just pointing out that some of the less awesome solos had been played by performers who were learning how to improvise (and maybe were less skilled with their instruments), and so even if they weren’t as cool to listen to, they were worthy of admiration in their own rights.

With respect to my own work-- I like being praised, and I try to say “thank you” and not be too quick to downplay my role in the creation of the object. (I spin, and I knit). What is most fun to look at isn’t always the stuff which took the most effort or the most skill to create. And I think with most crafts, there is a learning curve, and while good instincts (or expensive materials) can produce pretty objects quickly, high quality workmanship takes time to acquire.

11

Craft + Creativity + Criticism = Art

With art, intent is important, and so is evaluation. It can’t be said to be art until somebody else sees it and reacts to it. Art is supposed to make people feel something. There are many, many artists who hardly ever show their work. Art is usually very personal and criticism of that hard to receive. Are those private drawings in an unopened sketchbook art? Or those stacks of canvases in the closet? How would we even know?

Also:
Criticism + Tact = “Interesting”

12

I used to belong to a fiction critique group (after years of such in college as well). Useful critiques are mostly about craft. “I think it would strengthen the story to work in a more vivid physical description of the bartender, who is, after all, going to be so important in chapter four.” Praise is something different. That’s for emotional support. “The way you set up the death of the duck was so moving.”

Quilts and other fabric arts, which I also do, are an uneasy mix of traditional craft, with an emphasis on repeating stitch for stitch what others have done before you with exactitude and only a very modest venture into personal vision (like change up the color scheme a little), and visual arts, which have nearly the opposite set of standards. Useful critique would depend on what the maker was aiming for. Fabric arts can be hastily slapped together but effective visually as wall art, or perfectly accomplished but deathly boring – yet hardwearing, useful, well-made objects.

As others have stated, beginners are extremely sensitive. In fiction-writing, where people tend to be autobiographical as well as unusually highstrung as a group, you are treading in a minefield. I’ve seen a lot of mortified tears of humiliation even with the gentlest suggestions.

13

Art is subjective and if someone says they honestly like a work, take their word for it. It’s obvious that sometimes the public sometimes loves trash (50 shades of gray, anybody?). Even if you think they’re not being totally honest, it’s art, and you’re basically commenting on a piece of someone’s soul so it’s tactful to be gentle. jsgoddess has the best approach in my opinion and it’s the approach I use. Critique is something I only give if specifically asked for, and then I usually keep it simple unless they tell me to rip loose. Even then, I only comment on technique inside the given art form they’re trying to aim for - their use of perspective or lighting or anatomy, for instance. Art is too subjective to be able to critique anything else without basically saying, “I don’t like that you like to draw cartoon women” or “I don’t like that you like psychedelic colors”

I don’t think most artists at heart need a constant feed of critique. They will grow on their own and do new things on their own for the most part if they have an urge to go above and beyond what they’re currently doing. And not all artists have to grow to masterpiece levels. If they’re doing what they do as a method of de-stressing or to get their jollies, it’s not really important that they grow up to be Van Gogh. They can just do what they feel like doing and stay mediocre if it makes them happy to stay there.

For the most part, the people I find who look for critique are so far down the barrel that it’s almost worthless to try. I’m talking someone who has an almost zero idea of anatomy, perspective, or lighting. They’re asking for critique as a way to get attention. The other artists are either cringing, “Please don’t notice all the terrible things I see in my own art. I know it can be better!” or saying, “I like it…that’s just how I draw noses…don’t really care if you don’t like it.”

And if they’re trying to make money off of it, that’s a whole different beast than if the art is “good” - all that matters if the public wants it or can be convinced to want it.

14

Can’t agree with you there. My poems are not a piece of my soul. They are revelatory, to some extent, but they are not me.

15

Yeah. Most of my paintings are simply my sudden visions of something that would look cool. No more and no less. Sometimes I have something to say, but not ususally. I don’t pour my soul out onto a canvas. I pour paint onto a canvas.

16

Some other people put their soul in, and you can’t always know which kind a person is, so it’s best to assume that all of them are revealing a piece of themselves with their art. By “soul” I don’t mean, “my deep dark terrible secret desires” or anything, I mean, what they believe makes up a part of their individuality. They can think of the way they draw noses as THEIR way to draw noses, it’s THEIRS, so you commenting on how you think their noses could change to include more shapes comes across as a direct affront on their specific style and therefore themselves. That’s what I’m talking about.

A person who doesn’t feel a specific connection to their art and just makes what looks cool without feeling any particular ownership or investment in their time and skill with the art…I don’t understand that on a fundamental artistic level to be honest, if that’s what you two are trying to say you feel towards your art.

ETA: Like, I believe art can only be made by the individual. Nobody else could come up with the exact same art as you because they have different lives and experienced different things and have different preferences. The art is unique, and it’s uniqueness is a reflection of your preferences and skills. If that explains it better.

17

Honestly, I think you’d do better to use this description than “soul.” I don’t have a soul, and when someone writes a poem and says they’ve put their soul in there, I assume (and haven’t been wrong yet) that they are not really serious about writing well, but just think emoting on a page is enough.

Yes, my poems are individual. People who know my work can spot a new one of mine, even if my name is not on it. But if my reaction to someone’s suggestion about a line or word or strophe is to say “Well, that’s how I write” then I’m not ready to hear what other people have to say and should keep my work to myself. “How I write” can suck. It’s no defense.

18

Yeah, I’m not so specific about the public space. I think people are free to comment on art and the artist is free to ignore comments at will if they want. I wouldn’t hold an artist to some sort of standard simply because they want to tap the internet on the shoulder and say, “Hey, look what I made! Y’think anyone else might like it too?”. If they put it out on the internet and they’re not prepared for critique they didn’t ask for, I’m not going to think worse of them because I don’t think that’s a necessary component of being an artist.

I guess my take on art is that an artist isn’t required to make art other people like, or art that is even good. Art comes first from yourself and so as long as you are satisfied with it, that’s fine.

ETA: Please note, art made on commission is another thing entirely that does have standards set to it. I’m approaching this from a point of view where the artist has not been hired for work.

19

I don’t know about that, really. Every new knitter or crocheter I’ve ever known, it’s been kind of obvious in those first few items that they were still learning the ropes. Maybe not obvious to people who don’t do either craft, but obvious to me. Even on a basic square washcloth, the newbie’s work isn’t going to look like the veteran’s. The tension is almost always uneven, the foundation row is usually super-tight, often the rows stagger just a little bit as people accidentally increase or decrease. Because honestly, the challenge in knit/crochet isn’t in learning to combine the stitches in fancy ways, it’s in learning to do the stitches well and consistently.

I think that was probably a large part of the disconnect on FB, yes. I think the “everything made by artistic means is art” contingent ran up against a rather vocal “only a rigidly-defined handful of things produced by this artistic means count as art, and this isn’t one of those things” kind of gal.

I’m sorry your family was so shitty to you. I look on juggling the way my husband looks at spinning–no matter how little progress you’ve made, it’s still way better than I could do.

20

Like I said above, I don’t do critique when it’s not requested.

You’d be amazed how many people ask for comments on poetry, then shriek about their souls. Sorry, their ~souls~. And reply to any suggestions with “Well, I don’t do revisions” or “That’s how I write” or “I’m happy with it.”

Or my personal favorite: “I don’t need to read poetry. Poetry is who I am.”