About art

When art turns utilitarian, does that turn into a 'craft', endowed with a halo albeit significantly diminished of its glow? Broadly speaking, yes. For example, an art-quilt implies one that is utterly useless in wrapping around to warm you in winters, but somehow elevated in its importance, owing to this aspect.

Here's where it gets blurry: if you've watched staging shows on HGTV, you'll see paintings and sculptures serve a utilitarian role - fill a space, make it look larger/smaller, create a mood, create cohesion and so on. Regardless, those are called 'art' pieces, rather than something that' d suggest craft: 'paint-feature/dimensional-feature'.

So then a piece of what's traditionally identified as art could be reduced to 'pragmatic art' depending on application, but never a piece of what's traditionally identified as craft be elevated to.

What purpose does art (as it is defined) serve? The word 'sensory' comes to my mind. It makes a statement: the owner of the piece is affluent enough to not have the piece do any work. Looking pretty is all that is expected of it.

With this high-brow art-ism plaguing populations, it makes me wonder, should the 'crafts' demand equal rights?

When I knit, I sculpt and color and texture the product all at once, one stitch at a time. Rather than dress a wall or side-table when finished, it dresses me. That makes it art, doesn't it? What am I missing?