Where Does Technique End and Art Begin?

This was a suggestion by the Organizer, which is not too surprising as he dabbles in photography, an area where both art and technique weigh heavily.  The question seems to be, at what point does production stop being a simple matter of work or just doing your job and become something to be admired by others?  "Technique" is generally understood to be the way we do things, the best way, the most efficient way, the way that requires skill.  "Art" is...well, what is art anyway?

In contrasting the two concepts, we agreed for the most part that art has an emotional component that technique does not.  A technical achievement can be emotionally neutral, while an artistic one must provoke an emotional response, especially with strong emotions like joy, rage, or disgust.  Art is provocative, whether awful or pleasing.  The Professional Artist said that art also has no practical utility.  Although many of us would argue that there is such a thing as functional art, his point is that the beauty of the object is not necessary for it to do its job, so the art itself has no function beyond being pleasing to the eye.

The Writer modified the topic title slightly in his essay, which the Artist believed was a better expression of the question, but the Writer himself said that it is not certain that art will develop from any technical activity.  The two concepts are linked in that technique is necessary for the proper expression of art, but technique can exist as an expression of activity or production by itself.  I mentioned that there are some exceptions, where untrained but highly talented or inspired individuals create art without training or conscious technique, but they are exceptions.  Even the same person cannot hope to always produce the effect without knowing how he or she did so in the first place.  I pointed out the Star Wars series as an example: the first movies had "heart" for many viewers, often using very simple effects like a flying shoe; the second trilogy disappointed many because of the distractions of the effects, not to mention the modified versions of the originals frustrating the experiences of fans.  The technique of using technology to create backgrounds and characters can turn out beautifully, but when done apparently without that "heart", but only as cold calculation, it can turn the audience off.  The Artist insisted that art is decided individually, even if there is an overwhelming group opinion, so that everything can be considered art by anyone.  Art cannot truly be defined, only felt.

The Organizer then explained himself, saying his question was not really about technique or art at all, but evoking feeling.  He described himself as influenced by the Impressionists.  Master painters know how many brush strokes to use and how to frame and present their works; some works need to be seen in a certain light for their intended effect to be felt, blending the creation with its environment.  He also pointed out the human desire for patterns, how we are "programmed" to seek them out and find them even in natural phenomena.  Art rides the line of following the patterns we are comfortable with, but with something different that forces us to pay attention to it.  The trick is to avoid being too different, since that can cause anxiety and repulsion, although some artists do try to invoke those reactions as the aim of their work.  Regarding the question of cultures that do not have the same concept of art that we do, he implied that their art in incorporated into their technique, and something inseparable from the production of their functional objects.  Also, what we consider art today was sometimes more functional in the past: paintings of battles and leaders are a sort of forerunner of today's photojournalism; self-portraits are the selfies done before there were cameras.

The Artist noted that impressions of a piece of art are not universal, but can still cut across different cultures.  People all over the world can appreciate a Ming vase or feel a tremor of anxiety in front of a Black Painting.  He also commented that nobody likes Picasso even though we recognize his innovation of expression, which provoked a whine from some who are not able to process language that has levels of meaning and nuance.  "It's not true!  Some people like it!" was the squawking response.  It was the same complaint about Coke the week before when another participant stated that nobody liked it in the beginning and only drank it because it was in the (American) movies - basically, taking generalization as a personal offense.  The Artist continued, saying people are intimidated by the mind, and to know a person is to know his/her artistic capacity.  That is to say, impossible.  He concluded with the statement that the mystery of life is that we will never solve it.  As an artist of word and image himself, he tends to find the most provocative ways of closing.