Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnFen | Hacker News Reader

> I'm onboard with the idea that knitting, sewing, embroidery and other crafts can be considered art.

I didn't even realize that there was any sort of debate on this point!

> Even though it doesn't typically fall under the "fine art" umbrella doesn't mean it's not filled with know-how and love.

"Fine art" is art that serves no practical purpose. It only exists as artistic expression. But it's not even the most common sort of art. There's functional art (sewing, etc), there's commercial art (advertising, etc.), and so forth. That they aren't "fine art" doesn't carry an implication that they aren't art, or that they are some sort of inferior art. They're just art that also serves a purpose other than being art.

View on HN

I have a 'fine art' degree. I embriodered, crocheted, machine knitted and beaded my work. I have made bowls and cups and forks and knives.I think your perception of what fine art is is not quite on point. Ceramics, Fibers and Jewelry/metalsmithing are majors that are considered Fine arts. Fine arts are the more traditional arts (painting,sculpture, printmaking, ceramics,photography, illustration, fibers, jewelry/metalsmithing, bookmaking as opposed to media arts (digital and timebased), and art and design (fashion, interior design, industrial design). Many 'fine artists' are multimedia artists incorporating several of the above. Although there is a craft vs art debate in certain circles it is the elite few that hang onto the idea that fine art is above craft. Art museums are full of functional art including clothing, dishes, suits of armor, etc.

Since I'm not an artist, I was really just going by the dictionary definition of the term. The very first definition is all the dictionaries I just checked is a variation of "Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility."

However, the third in them all is a variation of "Something requiring highly developed techniques and skills." That definition, though, seems uselessly broad.

So, I'd say that neither of us is wrong, exactly. We both are just ignoring the effects of context.

> Art museums are full of functional art including clothing, dishes, suits of armor, etc.

Absolutely, and as it should be. Art museums should have a greater breadth than just pure fine art. I would also add that pure fine art can, and very often does, incorporate elements of functional art.

To me, the dividing line is "is the art piece intended to be used for a practical purpose, or is it intended to be only experienced as art?" If the former, it's functional art. If the latter, it's fine art regardless of whether or not it could technically be used for a practical purpose.

My primary point, though, is that "fine art" has a technical meaning that is not synonymous with "better" or "real" art.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com