Between Art and Hobby

[Tamar]

So, when it comes to most artistic things, I'm pretty lame. I have no skills with pencil or brush, I can't photoshop eyes on a smiley face, and I stare at most 2D surfaces with the intent to add words, not pictures.

But I can paint miniatures.

Not to the ridiculous level of some, but I'm still pretty good. But is it art?

I had this discussion with some friends of mine. I'm taking paint, mixing colors, shading, blending, highlighting, and giving a unique touch to a model, but in the end all I really interpret is what color I want it to be. So is this art... or is it just a hobby? Like when the phrase "arts and crafts" is used... is this the latter?

I'll put up some examples when I figure out how to host them, and let the masses decide, but I was just curious to hear some other opinions on it.

[Joe]

Hey, I think of the strip as my hobby and it's art. Post your stuff!

[Justin]

To me, "craft" implies a new object is being made (e.g., a hat, a chair, a plushie Bob-omb). Art, then, would simply be something more intended to appeal to the senses. They're not mutually exclusive--an art piece can involve craft and a craft can certainly be artsy--but that's the distinction I use.

[myscribbles]

Definition of Art:

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

in other words, something that grasps a viewer's emotional in my personal understanding ^_^

[Lizzy]

Hahaha I love this question. But yes, according to modern art theory, what you do is actually considered art. Just think of it as closely resembling Duchamp's idea of "ready-mades." Also, because you're manipulating the object with your own hand what you have created technically becomes your own copyrighted artwork. However, we're sort of in this nice little transition period where PoMo is morphing into something else, so this idea of anything goes may fizzle out in the next couple of years since fine art and the Renaissance/Neo-Classical appeal are slowly drifting back into mainstream art.

But quite honestly, I would consider your model painting to be more of a craft in the sense of a hobby or skill. You are not looking to express anything to a viewer, you're painting models because you enjoy it. I'm not saying that material studies (formerly known as craft artwork) carries no meaning, but rather that it is meant to be useful. If you paint Warhammer figurines, you paint them in order to play the game, thus they are useful to you. Now I'm also not saying that you can't enjoy doing artwork and make something that would be considered fine art.

The major differences between what would be considered low-brow art and high-brow art is that low-brow only depicts information with no bias or context behind it while high-brow expresses the emotion or attitude about a subject to the viewer, the viewer receives an experience rather than just information and is allowed to ask the question, "Why?" These are the differences between illustration and communication arts; it's actually an insult to be called an illustrator by someone who considers themselves to be a communication artist.

Oh, the modernist movement, how we adore you.

[Smarms]

Hahaha I love this question. But yes, according to modern art theory, what you do is actually considered art. Just think of it as closely resembling Duchamp's idea of "ready-mades." Also, because you're manipulating the object with your own hand what you have created technically becomes your own copyrighted artwork. However, we're sort of in this nice little transition period where PoMo is morphing into something else, so this idea of anything goes may fizzle out in the next couple of years since fine art and the Renaissance/Neo-Classical appeal are slowly drifting back into mainstream art.

But quite honestly, I would consider your model painting to be more of a craft in the sense of a hobby or skill. You are not looking to express anything to a viewer, you're painting models because you enjoy it. I'm not saying that material studies (formerly known as craft artwork) carries no meaning, but rather that it is meant to be useful. If you paint Warhammer figurines, you paint them in order to play the game, thus they are useful to you. Now I'm also not saying that you can't enjoy doing artwork and make something that would be considered fine art.

The major differences between what would be considered low-brow art and high-brow art is that low-brow only depicts information with no bias or context behind it while high-brow expresses the emotion or attitude about a subject to the viewer, the viewer receives an experience rather than just information and is allowed to ask the question, "Why?" These are the differences between illustration and communication arts; it's actually an insult to be called an illustrator by someone who considers themselves to be a communication artist.

Oh, the modernist movement, how we adore you.

So what does that make my writing, something I do solely for my own enjoyment, and something I do not to express anything to a reader, but to put my own thoughts, ideas, and spirit onto paper?

[Lizzy]

So what does that make my writing, something I do solely for my own enjoyment, and something I do not to express anything to a reader, but to put my own thoughts, ideas, and spirit onto paper?

Look at it this way: You wouldn't write something with literally no meaning behind it, you're not going to piece a bunch of random sentences together that don't make sense. You're still telling a story, allowing anyone who reads your work to evaluate it through the context that you give them and the context in which they live in. I'm guessing what you mean is that your work is completely personal and you're not looking to publish, but that doesn't make it not art. A reader would still be able to get something from it if they read it, correct? If you write down your thoughts, ideas, and most importantly your spirit then yes, that definitely makes it art. It's a tricky line, since art can physically exist without an audience but mentally cannot. If there is no one to see your work, then who can and cannot say that it exists or that it even is art?

Here's another way to look at it: We do not consider news articles to be pieces of artwork, just as we consider illustration to be low-brow. It's completely factual, it's just depicting information. There's really no meaning to either whatsoever, it simply exists and when you're done evaluating it you think to yourself, "Okay, I got it." However, there are different realms that exist in both of these genres that can be considered high-brow. You can have a very informative book or picture, but both of them can actually stir emotion and make you question concepts that you once held as ultimate truths.

[blackrose2220]

isn't art suppose to be in the eye of the beholder?