More thoughts on art vs. craft. And a change of heart.

The other day, I posted about art vs. craft, and boldly claimed that art "is when you try to do something that hasn’t been done before, whereas craft is when you seek to match or improve on what already exists." But two comments have made me believe I was wrong.

First, Sam posted "'bollocks' to having to stand back and consider whether or not something has been done before" and Dave posted that "Craft is an ability. Art is sometimes the end product of that craft."

They are both right, I think. Although I still consider myself a craftsman, because I'm just not ready to believe that my songs go beyond craft to art.

So, here's a question: is an audience required to seperate craft from art, or can the individual decide for himself? I'm going to say it's up to the individual. Obviously, if you want to sell your "art" then the crowd matters, but otherwise, if you find a bottlecap on the ground and think it's special, well, it is. I did not use to think this way. I kept thinking that there must be standards, especially for talent, but over the years, I've learned that there cannot be. Yes, you can say whether singer A is more on key than singer B, but who an individual likes more is individual. So while some folks would swear up and down that Steve Perry of Journey is a "better" singer than Dylan, I say Dylan is brilliant and Perry a windbag/cliché. And I'm right, so long as I'm only talking about what I like.

Any more comments? This is something I can think about all day and all night. I do, in fact.