On Arts and Crafts and Pleasure

I've spent some time thinking about the difference(s) between arts and crafts in the last year or so. A lot of it was sparked by a comment made by a Russian friend. He, being something of a music freak (and a semi-professional one, at that), said, that music doesn't have to please the listener. I replied then, that food doesn't have to please the eater. I have changed my mind since. He is correct. And my comment was false.

The difference between the two is, in most cases, that while music is a form of art, cooking is a craft (I'm aware that both of these claims can be reversed under certain conditions. There is nothing preventing one from using cooking as a form of art, or thinking about music as a craft. It's just commonly like that.) A product of a craftsman should please people using it, while artist has no such obligations.

This brings us to the question of meanings, mainly, what is the purpose of art (purpose of crafts will be taken as self-evident)? From one point of view, art should affect its audience, bring about new thoughts or feelings. Art should make people see the world in a new way, and unpleasantness, distate and even pain can be used in the process. Compared to this, craftmans work seeks to bring pleasure to its user, or to be useful. A poet can cause distress with his words, while a cook should seek to please. (From this naturally rises the viewpoint that sees arts only as crafts, seeing their purpose only in being pleasant.)

But is it really so simple? Can a craftsman cause no unpleasant feelings without it being considered a failure? I think he can. If the purpose of fine wine (I would consider wine-making a craft rather than a form of art) is to please, bitterness early on can bring out other, more pleasant flavors in the aftertaste. Or a strong, sour taste in food can heighten other flavors in the dish, making it more pleasant to the eater. So, a craftsman can use unpleasant sensations to heighten the whole experience, making it better.

But is this not what an artist does? If you consider the focus of a craftsman to be his work, could the focus of an artist be life? If unpleasant artistic experiences open new points of view to you, make you appreciate life in a different manner, only to heighten your whole experience in life, to make it better? Can we just say, that artists are craftsmen focusing on life?

Maybe. I don't know. It doesn't feel like the whole picture. But a point of view, certainly. I have intentionally avoided defining art while writing this. It's not a task I feel capable of undertaking, even though I have attempted it occasionally (to say one thing, it certainly needs a subject).

One more point to make.

Tools. Artist can hate his tools. I don't think it's possible for a craftsman. Difficult to imagine, at least. The relationship of artist to his tools and materials in far more complex than craftsmans pragmatic love (now I'm being idealistic). And artist struggles to create, while craftsman delights in it (or he should not be a craftsman). An artist can love his work, his tools, his creations. But a good craftsman has to.