Bill Pirkle <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>I do hope my recent post about art vs. craft does not start a fire storm
>of criticism.  I was trying to separate music in to two categories 1) music
>where the composer hoped to stir emotions in the listener and those where
>the composer was experimenting with musical ideas which may or may not stir
>emotion in the listener, but the composer did not necessarily have that
>intent.  Chopin's etudes are a good example of the 2nd type, although
>several are quite emotional.  His 2nd movementt of the Fmin concerto is
>a good example of the 1st.

I think this distinction between "craft" and "art" can and should be made,
but not for the reasons Mr. Pirkle gives.  Craft is a skill that can have
varying degrees of success and excellence.  Art is superior to craft,
although a subspecies of it, because it makes something so distinctive and
unique as to be inspired or inspirational or both.  For example, Haydn is
an artist in the sense he devised the trio form of music, but his numerous
trios are largely crafts.  Mutatis mutandis, Haydn's quartets.  Whatever
"emotional" attachment a listener, crafts person, or artist imputes to the
work is largely insignificant in these distinctions.

Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
[log in to unmask]