= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Go Forth and Create the Art! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (104)
Well, it's also commonly called 'art'. And I do believe folks are interested in this sort of thing - aside from posts about this site, it seems like that's what most of the content here is about.
A lot of artists will tell you the same thing about, say, taking a good photograph or painting a good portrait.
Those things take talent of a kind that can't be taught.
Arts are those things that require skills that can't be taught - either because we don't know how or because it's not possible. Maintaining motorized vehicles is generally a science, but there are people whose expertise extends to listening to an engine run and tell what's wrong with it - without being able to explain what information they're paying attention to, how they're processing it, or how others could do the same. That's an art instead of a science.
"it seems like that's what most of the content here is about."
Virtually no content here is about that. At most, some of the material is about being about that.
It seems like you're taking a common folk view of how art works. Good art comes from good theory, hard work, and practice - just study how any of the Renaissance greats came to be.
But perhaps we've reached the point in our discussion where data becomes relevant, and I haven't any citations handy.
I usually make a distinction between 'craft' and 'art'. Craftsmanship is an important part of artistic endeavor, yes, but it's not enough - it's necessary but not sufficient. It's a limiting factor. A skilled artist is necessarily also a skilled craftsman, but not vice versa.
If I assume you're using art to refer to skill in producing, your arguments become much clearer to me. But I do think there's an important distinction your terminology isn't reflecting.
I would have to agree - this is a reasonable way of talking within aesthetics (or the study of art generally) - the distinction is made between "art" and "craft", where (to put it simply) "art" is making something good and unique for the first time, and "craft" is skillfully making it again. But "art" is used more broadly too, and I think the intuition here is more in line with its use in "martial arts". I think whatever term we use is going to be somewhat ad-hoc, and folks here seem to have latched onto 'art'. It doesn't seem damaging to me, and seems to be useful as the appropriate sort of propaganda.
Two thoughts:
That still isn't the terminological usage I'm referring to. 'Craft' is the ability to design and construct a form with the desired properties, usually (but not always) dealing with concrete, physical forms. 'Art' is the ability to utilize craft in the service of aesthetics.
Craft is taking the raw materials of a canvas and paint and combining them in such a way that they match your intention. Art is having aesthetically powerful intentions and expressing them.
The second point: 'propaganda' is precisely what we should be avoiding.