It’s worth noting that Piero Manzoni did design the labels on the cans of his shit. Which takes some technical skill to do, particularly in the days before Photoshop.
Art is not a property. It is a function.
I’m not comfortable reducing the discussion about “what is art” down to “crafstmanship”. To my mind, a crafter is someone who produces objects of mostly utilitarian value, which may also be beautiful to behold. These objects can be mass produced, are often produced in quantity, or more rarely done as a one-off. A beautiful woven scarf is crafted. A nice wooden chessboard can be crafted. A crafter could make you a kiln-fired serving platter.
Art is something more than crafting. It produces feelings in the viewer - these feelings may be pleasant or uncomfortable. It may cause discussion or disagreement. Some art certainly does require good craftsmanship skills as an initial starting point, while other art does not.
Craftsmanship skills are not necessarily a prerequisite to producing ALL forms of art.
Craftsmanship alone is not enough.
One wall of my boss’s office is lined with crayon pictures that his 5-year-old daughter drew. There’s not a lot of skill, but I really enjoy them. I’d say that they are art.
When you do something better than the majority of the humanity. At a minimum.
Craftsmanship alone is not enough to be “art”. Neither are the aesthetics. It’s a combination of the two.
Better by whose standard?
You’re arguing against a point I didn’t make.
“Necessary” <> “Sufficient”.
I take back all the mean things I said about you.
I would extend that; I am saying that art does not necessarily need craftsmanship at all, and can still be considered to be art. This is where I suspect you would disagree; You would posit that craftsmanship is a necessary component of all art.
Absolutely.
A blue sky full of fluffy white clouds is aesthetically pleasing. But if I am led by an “artist” outside and told to look up, you cannot call that “art”. There was no craftsmanship component.
A work of art that required no craftsmanship whatsoever on the part of the artist (like the “readymades” of Duchamp, for example) or the crumpled paper of Creed that takes minimal (or I would say trivial) amount of skill or effort is not “art”.
So we’re back to the Mona Lisa not being art, because I don’t find it aesthetically pleasing.
Which is not to say that it can’t be a brilliant commentary on something, just it ain’t art.
Your problem.
For the record, Terr is absolutely one of the morons I’ve pitted.
Let’s hope he’s not put in charge of anything. Ever.
And now you’ve agreed with me–your definition leads to there being no distinction between art and not-art.
Wrong.
Is scratching your ass when it itches “art”?
Regards,
Shodan
Then who judges the aesthetic and craftsmanship portions of your definition? Shall we appoint a panel?