Screenwriting : Art vs Craft by Terri Viani

It's been discussed before. Half think it's art. half think it's craft.

When we think about an artist, in the true sense of the word, we tend to think of a solitary genius toiling away, inspired by his muse. There's something very lofty about that, and there's some truth to it. A writer must be an artist. But serious artists also know that they have to talk to their audience, and make money. Shakespeare responded to his audience, and was certainly concerned with the success of his company. Bach was constrained in terms of what kind of music he could make in Protestant Germany - if he'd been born in Italy, we can be sure he would have written operas. He was also a very tough negotiator when it came to making money. These people knew that if they wanted their art to have an impact, they had to treat it as a craft.

Sounds a little woolly in the definitions department. It's a craft when the ultimate goal it to get paid, and paid well, for one's work— doubly so when creating on commission. Art it may be (opinions will vary) , but with the very specific goal of getting a story sold and told. Having an artist in the family, one soon comes to realize that fine art is all very well, but it's craft that pays the bills.

Ah, well, if definitions be meaningless, then there's no difference between cupcake and asshole. I'm so relieved to have cleared that up...

A person can raise any craft to the level of art, thereby becoming an artist. Screenwriting is more "constructing" whereas novel writing is more organic, therefore it is more difficult to be "artistic" with screenplays - but certainly not impossible. In the end, we are using words to describe words about the act of shaping words. It's an art, it's a craft, it's a discipline, it's a passion, it's a desert, an alarm clock AND a floor wax... I realize I have not been constructive in this comment at all... Or have I? .................... No.

six of one, half a dozen of another. It depends on the individual. Some photographers believe they are artists. Some poets believe their craft is art.

Well, there is a distinct difference and it's simple. Craft refers to a manual skill; Art refers to an aesthetic criteria; creative principles; expression, or an idea. Terri, perhaps take a look at this: https://www.stage32.com/lounge/screenwriting/The-Artists-Vision. Being an artist is seeing what others cannot. :)

Okay, here's a way to consider the difference in the realm of screenwriting. The writer's tools and devises you use with practiced skill is your craft. The unique way in which you use those skills to express your vision, your story is your art -- often called your "voice." Art gives meaning to craft -- a soul; expression. Art often is this elusive concept to understand and yet we know it when we see it. We feel it. And not all writers are artists. In the art world, an artist is often talked about in several ways; her technical skill, her style and her unique vision or expression. The painter Bob Ross with his "happy trees" teaches technique only. How to use a brush and paint to create trees -- all the same. It's flat, soulless, meaningless. Now, compare that to Picasso who was a highly trained master of technical painting, but he was more so an incredible visionary. He used color as an expressive element. He invented new styles of painting. Picasso was a skilled craftsman but he embodied the concept of "artist," perhaps transcended the term.

You can have a set of skills that are involved with writing. Writing the perfect sentence is one example. Excellent grammar and punctuation would be skills. But, the creative part of writing is an art in my opinion.

Even Picasso studied and (arguably) mastered classical forms before finding his own "voice" in art. So should the screenwriter have mastered grammar and screenwriting forms (technique & vocabulary) before "flavoring" a screenplay with his/her own style.

Well, this isn't about "flavoring." Either you have artistic aesthetics/vision/abilities, or you don't. Artistic vision often is expressed through style, or recognized as such. Sure, one could argue, and many do, that you need to learn technique and craft before expounding upon your own expression. Artistic abilities can be taught; fostered. Seems very logical, a good approach, certainly for most. I know Picasso is often used to make that point. But, he's actually not the best example because he was a child prodigy. He understood classic art as it came to him naturally. His father was a naturalistic painter and believed in traditional technique -- he was a professor at a school of fine arts. He taught young Pablo what he could, but his son surpassed him easily by the age of 13. When Picasso was sent off to Madrid to the country's foremost art school, he didn't care for the formal training and skipped classes. If anything, I think of his early "training" as a time of rebellion. Picasso was revolutionary. He's one of the greatest and most influential artists of the 20th century. He did not study craft and then just happen to "find his voice" -- rather he already had it. :) I love the line from the film Ratatouille in regards to cooking: "Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere." :)

Art is creative, stories are creative. The ability to use correct grammar, spelling are simple skills anyone can learn. There for writing stories is art.

I have to agree with Beth. But I would like to add, that some find more ability to express when they study classic or traditional forms. I visit a prison ever Wednesday and an artist there is incredible while having only one high school class in art. So I have sent her books on the techniques of the masters and she has exploded artistically. She was already good, and already naturally had a vision and ability, but these techniques save her time and allow her to reach her vision more efficiently.