Two years ago my wife and I took a little trip to Indiana to see a display of quilts. To tell the truth I wasn't too keen on the idea at first but I changed my mind the moment we walked through the front door. I was only used to seeing quilts as decorations on a bed. But here before me was a completely different quilt. There were stunning geometric patterns, of course, but there was also some quilts that featured images instead. All made with fabric and carefully stitched together. All were breath taking.
At home I have a small quilt square (block?) made by my Great-grandmother. Apparently she had made several in preparation for assembling a quilt but never completed the project. This square has been matted and framed and was given to me by a cousin. After the Indiana trip I took a moment to look at it closely for the first time in 25 years just to renew my appreciation for it.
I mention this because my wife recently met a board member of an "art space". This lady was a painter and had a piece or two displayed there. When my wife inquired about other types of art she was informed that the art space only displayed "fine" art. The inference was that only paintings were to be considered "fine" art. All other displayed pieces were considered crafts.
There is ample room for debate here. There's no question that the line between art and craft is sometimes blurred. Other times is seems to be very distinct. I'm not sure I would want to clearly define it. To paraphrase the Supreme Courts ruling on pornography, "I don't think I can define it but I know it when I see it."
There are similar, ongoing discussions in the world of movies and television. The line between art and entertainment also gets pretty blurry at times. And I'm not always sure what the criteria is. I've seen projects referred to as "artistic" until they become very successful and start earning a lot of money. Then they are merely "entertaining". I'm confident there are similar arguments in the field of publishing.
The music world has had these debates for years. Popular music is designed to be disposable. A song is all over the radio (or other outlets) for a short time. Singers are very successful for a short time. And then they are replaced by the new "flavor-of-the-week". They don't show up again until the "oldies" station plays them or at a high school reunion.
But even there, some music has transcended and stands the test of time. Some songs continue to have an impact several decades after their initial release. If we look to jazz we see it too. Jazz began as fun dance music. Now it's taken very seriously and even studied at college.
Somehow we think that classical music is above it all. But Mozart didn't know he was writing "classical" music. He was composing music in a style that was popular in his day. An opera by Rossini would be the equivalent of a Spielberg movie today. Although privately a very devout man, Bach composed a lot of sacred music because his employer, St. Thomas Lutheran Church, demanded it.
Defining art is a fool's errand. There will always be some lunk-head like me to challenge it. And to make matters worse, not all art is great art.....or even good art. So if you like it. If it brings you pleasure then that should be enough. May your life be filled with art.....no matter how you define it.