Gilda

First, I want to make a distiction between little a art and big A art. Little a art may be any sample taken from a particular artistic medium, while big A Art is in some way a special form of that medium.

In comics for example, every comic book is filled with art. Watchmen is Art. Beetle Baily is art. Krazy Kat is Art.

1. So let's look first at little a art. What is it that distinquishes art from non-art? Does the faux wood grain paper on top of the steel and fiberboard table that I use for a computer desk qualify as art? Is the plain white cover on a J. D. Salinger book art? Is the skin used for this forum art? Is the label on the diet Pepsi bottle on my desk art? Is a picture of Jesus immersed in a bottle of urine art? Why or why not?

Personally, I'd say all of those are art. I'd define art as anything humans do that isn't purely functional. If the table in front of me had a bare top, it wouldn't be art. But the decision was made at some point to put a wood grain paper cover on top of the fiber board. They could have used a plain black, or uncolored paper (which would have been roughly manila colored), but someone must have thought the table would be a little more attractive with the woodgrain than without. It's not great art, not Capital A Art, but it is art.

2. Now let's look at Art. When we say of something, "That's a work of Art," we're taling big A art. What is it that distiquishes Art from art? Is just an example of highly skilled craftsmanship, or is there something else that's required?

Ask any comic nerd who the greates writer of all time is and you'll get a variety of answers, perhaps Stan Lee, Alan Moore, Charles Shultz, or a handful of others. Ask the same group of nerds who the greatest artist is, and the general concensus will be Jack Kirby. Kirby's artwork isn't as pretty as, say, Neal Adams, Alex Ross, or John Byrne, but he's almost always placed above them. So what's the distinction? In this case, it's the fact that he just about single handedly invented or perfected most of the conventions of modern sequential storytelling, and did so better than almost anyone has since.

So does being first make one more of an artist than those who copy, even if those who copy do so with more skill? If it isn't craftsmanship, what is it?

I've heard Ron Howard described as being a consummate professional at the craft of movie making, but lacking the artistic vision that distiguishes the great directors such as Scorsese.

So what exactly is it that distinquishes highly skilled art from Art? Is there a difference at all? How can you tell what it is?

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert