art + artefacts
This essay is a follow-up to the aesthetic moment, but was also intended for some publications in my current promotional push. Hence the original essay is largely left out of this.
"This leads us to the problem that 'art' as commonly used is an extremely broad term. [1] It has to cover the aesthetic moment, [2] it has to be those conscious artefacts and recordings of an aesthetic moment, and [3] it has to be the technical, formal, critical and commercial infrastructure dedicated to creating, disseminating and preserving those artefacts and recordings [...] it doesn't seem in any way consistent to remove any one of these three items from the description. The only one with any real autonomy is the aesthetic moment, but it's impossible to separate from the other two."
In a previous essay (excerpt above) I concluded that the 'aesthetic moment' can be in any experience, however pleasant or unpleasant. It was thus one of three parts of art including also the conscious artefacts and recordings, and the infrastructure of creation, dissemination and preservation. What I would like to look at now is what I identified second, the conscious artefacts and recordings of aesthetic moments, what seems most readily identifiable as 'art'. Specifically the relationship between the two major components of this; the tools, materials and process by which the artefacts and recordings are created, and the artefacts and recordings themselves. I am interested in how there often seems to be a spurious division between them as 'craft' and 'art' respectively. I will look at: first, why this 'craft'/'art' split might be; second, whether this split stands up to examination and whether it harms the way we think about 'art'; and third, is there any alternative?
Before we start it needs to be clarified that 'artefacts and recordings' is a slightly misleading phrase as it does not cover the full range of what we might crudely call 'products'. The major gap in it is performance, especially where the performance is not recorded or not intended to be repeated. For the purposes of this discussion I will assume performance to be included in the term 'artefacts and recordings'.
My particular area of interest is poetry, and the supposed 'craft'/'art' split is very pronounced. For some reason, perhaps lack of wider recognition, perhaps just tradition, poets are frequently very defensive about their form, and keen to emphasise the formal and intellectual rigour required. This often leads to an overemphasis on the 'craft' element of poetry, and an assumption that 'art' cannot exist without 'craft'. Rules pertaining to rhythm and the aural effects of words together are seen as intrinsic to the form, as though they have been uncovered by a quasi-scientific process of experimentation. Whereas in fact they have come about by accident, contingency, and whim. 'Craft' then, and the specific technical skills and knowledge one is assumed to require, become almost the definition of poetry.
This has an unhealthy effect on how 'art' is seen. It is either an indefinable product of genius, the result of experience and rigorous 'craft', or a happy accident. In all of these it remains unpredictable, indefinable, and beyond the conscious control of the writer (the inescapable contradiction being that this renders the notion of 'craft' irrelevant). It also means that 'art' is something outside of poetry, raising the question of why one would bother writing poetry in the first place.
But why has this split come about? I would say as a result of those accidents, contingencies and whims which have led to the development of the 'craft' of poetry. As a result of its history. 'Art' is seen as a separate entity, outside of poetry; it is the same 'art' that can be found in paintings or music. Poetry just happens to coincide with it at certain points. Anything that is outside the accepted rules of poetry is either not-poetry, or something new to the form innovated by inspiration. In this circular formulation poetry is defined as the technical 'craft' of poetry, as examined earlier, and 'art' is sometimes the product. Each has its separate realm, and the poet
attempts to bring the two together. It is as though the 'craft' cannot also be 'art', and as though 'art' cannot also be 'craft'.
Does this split stand up to examination? And what harm does it do to our perception of poetry? There does seem to be a certain logic to the split, especially if we take 'art' to be separate, perhaps a more refined manifestation of raw aesthetic experience. In this analysis 'craft' has developed from perhaps quite haphazard beginnings to the most effective way of revealing 'art'. And as we already determined, 'art' in this analysis is also unpredictable, meaning that 'craft' only provides a relative statistical advantage in producing 'artistic' work. However, this in no way invalidates the idea of a 'craft'/'art' split. What is more of a problem is that 'poetry', in terms of 'craft', as with painting or any other art form, is self-defining inasmuch as something is either poetry or not-poetry. This self-definition excludes 'art' because neither all 'craft' is 'artistic', nor does all 'art' come from 'craft'.
Although I dislike it intensely, I find this difficult to argue with. And while it would seem to be consistent I think it does harm the way we think about 'art'. I dislike it because it suggests that 'art' needs to be mediated through 'artists' with a special sensitivity. I dislike it because it suggests that 'craft' skills only achieve 'artistic' value because of the intention of the 'artist'. I distrust it because it treats 'art' as simultaneously a separate, abstract realm, and as something which only has meaning in terms of human experience.
So is there any other way we can look at 'craft' and 'art' in the artefacts and recordings of aesthetic experience? My personal inclination would be to throw away the notion of 'art' in this context, with all its elitist connotations, and instead talk simply of 'craft'. This would have the advantage of getting rid of the superstition of 'art' as something removed from everyday life. I would rather, as I have done elsewhere, place the emphasis on the 'aesthetic moment', which can be accessed by anyone at any time by any means. 'Craft', then, is the means by which humans generate the conscious artefacts and recordings of aesthetic moments. This leaves aesthetic experience as a matter of chance perception, and 'craft' as part of the attempt to give that personal experience a meaning in a wider social context.
"This leads us to the problem that 'art' as commonly used is an extremely broad term. [1] It has to cover the aesthetic moment, [2] it has to be those conscious artefacts and recordings of an aesthetic moment, and [3] it has to be the technical, formal, critical and commercial infrastructure dedicated to creating, disseminating and preserving those artefacts and recordings [...] it doesn't seem in any way consistent to remove any one of these three items from the description. The only one with any real autonomy is the aesthetic moment, but it's impossible to separate from the other two."
In a previous essay (excerpt above) I concluded that the 'aesthetic moment' can be in any experience, however pleasant or unpleasant. It was thus one of three parts of art including also the conscious artefacts and recordings, and the infrastructure of creation, dissemination and preservation. What I would like to look at now is what I identified second, the conscious artefacts and recordings of aesthetic moments, what seems most readily identifiable as 'art'. Specifically the relationship between the two major components of this; the tools, materials and process by which the artefacts and recordings are created, and the artefacts and recordings themselves. I am interested in how there often seems to be a spurious division between them as 'craft' and 'art' respectively. I will look at: first, why this 'craft'/'art' split might be; second, whether this split stands up to examination and whether it harms the way we think about 'art'; and third, is there any alternative?
Before we start it needs to be clarified that 'artefacts and recordings' is a slightly misleading phrase as it does not cover the full range of what we might crudely call 'products'. The major gap in it is performance, especially where the performance is not recorded or not intended to be repeated. For the purposes of this discussion I will assume performance to be included in the term 'artefacts and recordings'.
My particular area of interest is poetry, and the supposed 'craft'/'art' split is very pronounced. For some reason, perhaps lack of wider recognition, perhaps just tradition, poets are frequently very defensive about their form, and keen to emphasise the formal and intellectual rigour required. This often leads to an overemphasis on the 'craft' element of poetry, and an assumption that 'art' cannot exist without 'craft'. Rules pertaining to rhythm and the aural effects of words together are seen as intrinsic to the form, as though they have been uncovered by a quasi-scientific process of experimentation. Whereas in fact they have come about by accident, contingency, and whim. 'Craft' then, and the specific technical skills and knowledge one is assumed to require, become almost the definition of poetry.
This has an unhealthy effect on how 'art' is seen. It is either an indefinable product of genius, the result of experience and rigorous 'craft', or a happy accident. In all of these it remains unpredictable, indefinable, and beyond the conscious control of the writer (the inescapable contradiction being that this renders the notion of 'craft' irrelevant). It also means that 'art' is something outside of poetry, raising the question of why one would bother writing poetry in the first place.
But why has this split come about? I would say as a result of those accidents, contingencies and whims which have led to the development of the 'craft' of poetry. As a result of its history. 'Art' is seen as a separate entity, outside of poetry; it is the same 'art' that can be found in paintings or music. Poetry just happens to coincide with it at certain points. Anything that is outside the accepted rules of poetry is either not-poetry, or something new to the form innovated by inspiration. In this circular formulation poetry is defined as the technical 'craft' of poetry, as examined earlier, and 'art' is sometimes the product. Each has its separate realm, and the poet
attempts to bring the two together. It is as though the 'craft' cannot also be 'art', and as though 'art' cannot also be 'craft'.
Does this split stand up to examination? And what harm does it do to our perception of poetry? There does seem to be a certain logic to the split, especially if we take 'art' to be separate, perhaps a more refined manifestation of raw aesthetic experience. In this analysis 'craft' has developed from perhaps quite haphazard beginnings to the most effective way of revealing 'art'. And as we already determined, 'art' in this analysis is also unpredictable, meaning that 'craft' only provides a relative statistical advantage in producing 'artistic' work. However, this in no way invalidates the idea of a 'craft'/'art' split. What is more of a problem is that 'poetry', in terms of 'craft', as with painting or any other art form, is self-defining inasmuch as something is either poetry or not-poetry. This self-definition excludes 'art' because neither all 'craft' is 'artistic', nor does all 'art' come from 'craft'.
Although I dislike it intensely, I find this difficult to argue with. And while it would seem to be consistent I think it does harm the way we think about 'art'. I dislike it because it suggests that 'art' needs to be mediated through 'artists' with a special sensitivity. I dislike it because it suggests that 'craft' skills only achieve 'artistic' value because of the intention of the 'artist'. I distrust it because it treats 'art' as simultaneously a separate, abstract realm, and as something which only has meaning in terms of human experience.
So is there any other way we can look at 'craft' and 'art' in the artefacts and recordings of aesthetic experience? My personal inclination would be to throw away the notion of 'art' in this context, with all its elitist connotations, and instead talk simply of 'craft'. This would have the advantage of getting rid of the superstition of 'art' as something removed from everyday life. I would rather, as I have done elsewhere, place the emphasis on the 'aesthetic moment', which can be accessed by anyone at any time by any means. 'Craft', then, is the means by which humans generate the conscious artefacts and recordings of aesthetic moments. This leaves aesthetic experience as a matter of chance perception, and 'craft' as part of the attempt to give that personal experience a meaning in a wider social context.
Comments