On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Betty Brennan wrote:

> Yes, I agree there is no answer that we would all agree on.  However,
> Mr. Webster went out on a limb and defined art.
>
> art:  1. skill acquired by experience or study: knack 2. a branch of
> learning:  one of the humanities  3.  systematic use of knowledge or
> skill in making or doing things  4.  the use of skill and imagination
> in the production of things of beauty; also:  works so produced 5.
> artfulness
>
> From that point of view it is something that is produced via a
> technical skill.

It's also true that there are lots of technically skilled artists who
produce vacuous, cliched work, so technical skill is no guarantee
of good art in and of itself.  It is a shame, though to see work by
artists who have interesting ideas, but don't have the technical means to
bring them to life.  In the applications that cross my desk, I see plenty
of examples of both these situations.  When I teach introductory art
classes I tell my students that the more technique they acquire, the more
choices they have in terms of self-expression, and the more likely
they'll be to bring their ideas to realization.  If Betty is seeing many
art graduates who can't complete a simple color-matching exercise, as she
previously observed in another post, I
think she's right that they have been failed by the institutions they
attended.

There also have been artists who created an exciting body of work within
the limitations of their technique, so that is possible.  But sometimes when
they try to expand upon that or try something new,
their efforts fall flat and their reputations fade.  A look at 10 or 15
year old art magazines demonstrates how quickly
stars can fade.  So technique, craft,
whatever you want to call it, is important as a means, but it's not an
end in itself.

--Helen Glazer, Exhibitions Director
Goucher College
Baltimore, MD USA
[log in to unmask]