I doubt there's an answer to your question, but it has moved this thread into a more interesting area.
First off, I completely agree with you, Derek.
For my tuppence worth, which means little to most people, I would say "craft" is the activity of refining something using an unusual level of skill and care in order that it reaches a high standard of function. In the case of your pictures, their function, it seems to me, is to appear as attractive and interesting as possible with the materials you have used. By this definition, they succeed admirably. They are certainly enjoyable to look at and most people would struggle to replicate them due to the technical level of skill involved. Certainly no non-photographic people could produce them. They also require an "eye" for design colour and spatial arrangement which is not to do with purely technical ability and some might argue this is a crossover into the sphere of art.
However, "Art" for me is an object or action that stimulates a dialogue between a creation, and an observing individual which elicits a response in the individual that stimulates the individual's spirit, including perhaps the emotions or intellect, usually at a deep level and in a manner that changes their perception of the world in some way. It shows that individual, an aspect ( either internal to them or external of them) of how they experience the world which was previously hidden from them. In this way, most objects which are nice to look at are crafts though some also fulfil the criteria I've mentioned to make them art.
This ignores the artist's motivation, ideas and insight, which are important but no longer relevant after the creation takes on a life of its own after it is completed.
What I do disagree with 100% is that there is some one meaning to an artwork and understanding it is dependent on one's knowledge, intellect or education. That is a complete misunderstanding of art in any form, and is a function of a fragile ego. The intention of the artist is irrelevant.
When we look at a piece of art, be it painting, music or a photograph we can't help being so conditioned by our own experience, knowledge and emotional development, and therefore we are experiencing it at such a personal and totally subjective level that we are only experiencing ourselves ( ie our own response) in a way we have not realised before. When we see some personal truth in a piece of art and claim that that is the "true meaning" of it, it's just our inflated opinion of our own importance and nothing else. It is everything to do with ego and nothing to do with understanding either art, or the world, and especially spirituality and humanity.
All alleged ”meaning” is totally subjective. but this doesn't diminish it's validity, nor it's importance to the individual who experiences it.
Does this mean all attempts at art are equal? Is “The Wasteland” no better than “ The Good Ship Venus”? Of course this isn’t the case.
Not all artistic efforts are susceptible to evoking a complex or original thought or level of response. Some will be at a banal level of making us laugh or, as is the case with a lot of popular music evoking the desire to tap a foot or dance and then going nowhere else: more serious artworks will take you on a journey. The Rolling Stones cannot to be seen as the equals of Mozart. Similarly, the latest blockbuster might make you gasp but it won’t make you consider humanity’s struggle for meaning or whether we should pursue goodness or happiness! Try elsewhere for that.
Also, if the above criteria are already met, we can admire the objective use of "craft" in the creation and execution of the art-piece. Technique and skill are inessential but interesting factors in judging eh value of some artworks.
Well that is a well thought out, well presented and informed reply.
I don't necessarily agree on all of it, although you have made some very valid points. Replying on a tablet and can't edit text enough to highlight the salient points.
As a couple of posts suggested Google as a way to find and learn more about other photographers, I just thought I'd Google the definition of Art,
Here is the definition of Art according to the dictionary
art1
ɑːt/
noun
1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms:fine art, artwork, creative activity
"he studied art"
2.
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts"
Now to me although that is a pretty narrow view, it does hit on a salient point, creative skill, imagination, beauty or emotional power, now for me, my light art images qualify on everything bar the emotional side of that definition. Again, for me they do, maybe not everyone, but then, it doesn't need to be a consensus.
Keep in mind my previous post, as I have said, I generally just take photos, nothing more than a record type of shot, as my flickr stream will show if anyone feels like wading through the mundane shots in there.
Because of this thread and the route it has gone down, when I was out today I saw something, and to me I thought I could see a meaning beyond what it was that I could see, visually.
Wow, deep for me
Anyway, there was a rectangular clay flower pot, that used to have a rather small but pretty flower in it, on the bench outside the local pub, the snow and frost killed it earlier in the year. Now the pot is empty of flower and soil, having been re- purposed as an ashtray.
There was however 2 little signs of life within this clay cauldron of death, (trying to paint a picture here
) it was this juxtaposition that made me stop and take some shots.
The shots I took are not visually beautiful, I get no real enjoyment from having taken it, other than as an experiment on art,
( my tag line on the pentax forum is "I know what I like, if not always why" ) this has been there since I realised years ago that I don't always understand or get art.
Anyway here is the image I took today, I shot this, I don't really like it, but I'm willing to post it to try and understand, to learn, it's not even a technically good shot, but then maybe that adds something to it, or maybe it's just crap
Any opinions either way ?
Out of the Ashes
why3sm by
dr.shutter, on Flickr