4 ms·

> The purpose of art is to express one's self; the purpose of a craft is utility. That is the clearest distinction I've seen yet between these. Thank you for t

> The purpose of art is to express one's self; the purpose of a craft is utility. That is the clearest distinction I've seen yet between these. Thank you for that insight.

empath75 8y ago
Scott McCloud defined it thus in "Understanding Comics": “Art, as I see it, is any human activity which doesn’t grow out of either of our species’ two basic instincts: survival and reproduction.”
claudiawerner 8y ago
It's not a particularly new insight, most of us have this idea through intuition and it seems to be popular in the philosophy of aesthetics - the question comes when we have certain items like watches or even beautifully written computer programs, or mass-culture "art" which arguably exists to serve the utility of making more money. There's even an art to writing well, but we could do with the utility of a bullet point list, etc.
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
IMO the purpose of art is psychological and emotional concentration, distillation, and abstraction. You can express yourself in all kinds of ways, but the ways that connect with an audience are the ones that create a novel and intriguing experience. One of the most reliable ways to generate resonance and intrigue is to generate some element of psychological/cultural/emotional insight and mirroring. Technical skill in a medium is nice to have, but if there's no emotional payload or cultural reflection it doesn't work well as art. Some reflections are superficial, over-familiar, and banal, which is where art drifts into cliches and entertainment. Others are so rich and deep people have argued about them for centuries. Code in itself is unlikely to do any of the above. It can be made with skill and elegance, and even with a certain kind of self-expression. But there isn't usually much artistic psychological mirroring in - say - a kernel scheduler or a device driver. You can argue that you need psychological insight to write good applications - and that's true. But the difference is that art gives an audience a staged non-trivial experience and insight into itself. Code doesn't usually do that. It doesn't even try to. (Which is also why generative art is often so dull - it's just code statements flapping around semi-randomly with no expressive purpose or insight.)
placebo 8y ago
It's a nice distinction. I wonder whether we can go further though, and not even need that distinction. Here's my take on it. Any human endeavour is worth its salt if it succeeds at discovering and expressing beauty. It can be a mathematical proof, a theory in physics, an elegant algorithm, a painting, a dance, a novel, a relationship - the list is as endless as the number of ways humans can come up with, and can be as deep and complex and subtle as they wish to make it, but it always comes back to finding and expressing beauty.
- canhascodez 8y ago
  Keats famously said something quite similar, but this to me seems a bit reductionist.
  - placebo 8y ago
    I'm embarrassed to say that I wasn't aware of Keats' writings and your comment sent me to get more educated about him, which I found very interesting, so thanks for that :) Not sure in what sense you find the view reductionist, but I suspect it could be from inadequately expressing what I mean

> The purpose of art is to express one's self; the purpose of a craft is utility. That is the clearest distinction I've seen yet between these. Thank you for that insight.

empath75 8y ago

Scott McCloud defined it thus in "Understanding Comics": “Art, as I see it, is any human activity which doesn’t grow out of either of our species’ two basic instincts: survival and reproduction.”

claudiawerner 8y ago

It's not a particularly new insight, most of us have this idea through intuition and it seems to be popular in the philosophy of aesthetics - the question comes when we have certain items like watches or even beautifully written computer programs, or mass-culture "art" which arguably exists to serve the utility of making more money. There's even an art to writing well, but we could do with the utility of a bullet point list, etc.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

IMO the purpose of art is psychological and emotional concentration, distillation, and abstraction. You can express yourself in all kinds of ways, but the ways that connect with an audience are the ones that create a novel and intriguing experience. One of the most reliable ways to generate resonance and intrigue is to generate some element of psychological/cultural/emotional insight and mirroring. Technical skill in a medium is nice to have, but if there's no emotional payload or cultural reflection it doesn't work well as art. Some reflections are superficial, over-familiar, and banal, which is where art drifts into cliches and entertainment. Others are so rich and deep people have argued about them for centuries. Code in itself is unlikely to do any of the above. It can be made with skill and elegance, and even with a certain kind of self-expression. But there isn't usually much artistic psychological mirroring in - say - a kernel scheduler or a device driver. You can argue that you need psychological insight to write good applications - and that's true. But the difference is that art gives an audience a staged non-trivial experience and insight into itself. Code doesn't usually do that. It doesn't even try to. (Which is also why generative art is often so dull - it's just code statements flapping around semi-randomly with no expressive purpose or insight.)

placebo 8y ago

It's a nice distinction. I wonder whether we can go further though, and not even need that distinction. Here's my take on it. Any human endeavour is worth its salt if it succeeds at discovering and expressing beauty. It can be a mathematical proof, a theory in physics, an elegant algorithm, a painting, a dance, a novel, a relationship - the list is as endless as the number of ways humans can come up with, and can be as deep and complex and subtle as they wish to make it, but it always comes back to finding and expressing beauty.

canhascodez 8y ago
Keats famously said something quite similar, but this to me seems a bit reductionist.
- placebo 8y ago
  I'm embarrassed to say that I wasn't aware of Keats' writings and your comment sent me to get more educated about him, which I found very interesting, so thanks for that :) Not sure in what sense you find the view reductionist, but I suspect it could be from inadequately expressing what I mean