I read your article in the programme to The Silver Rose. I didn’t realise it had been posted on Behind Ballet so long ago. I’m clearly behind the times!

Any way, I found it interesting, especially what you said about the definition of art. I occasionally wonder: what is art? I think it’s helpful to distinguish between art, entertainment and craft.

I entirely agree with you that art is the expression of the human psyche. True art taps into some inherent element of human existence and renders it in the world of visible or audible phenomena. For this reason, witnessing true art is engrossing and moving. True art is open to interpretation as we read it through the prism of our own experiences. As it appeals to something intrinsic, which we may not fully understand ourselves, we can feel moved without really understanding why. How often have you heard someone say about an abstract piece of art: “It just has some effect on me. I’m not sure why”?

Entertainment is different to art. “Mere entertainment” is something which is simply amusing or humorous. Entertainment doesn’t move us. It certainly can make us laugh but humour is not an inherent part of the human psyche. It’s something we “learn”. All humour is dependent on our “learnt” knowledge of manners and etiquette. That’s why some things are funny in one culture but not another and why it’s possible to not “get” a joke. If humour appealed to something universal, everyone would “get” the joke. But it doesn’t do this and that’s because it is not true art.

I think craft is the skill required to create art, entertainment or anything else. Not all craft creates true art. It may, however, create decorative art such as the things you find at a craft market. These are definitely the product of craft but I wouldn’t call a woven basket a piece of art (as pretty as it might be)! I think decorative art just aims to produce beauty. For that reason, the dictionary definition of art which you found – “the production, by aesthetic principles, of that which is beautiful” – sounds more like a definition of decorative art to me.

Moving on to Concord, I think it really showed the difference between art, entertainment and craft. (To digress for a moment, I totally loved Concord from start to finish, so much so, I saw it three times. Each of the three items on the programme was great for a different reason. Of the things I saw at the Australian Ballet in 2009, it was my favourite!) Clearly, immense amounts of craft were necessary to create Concord (craft of the dancers, the choreographers, the musicians, craft, craft, craft!). However, not all craft creates art. I would say that Por Vos Mueros and Dyad 1929 were definitely art. Both were really engrossing and moving. Although I’ve come up with some reasons for why I found them this way, I’m not entirely certain and probably never will be. The School of Ballet, however, was an entertainment. It created humour by playing on our learnt expectations of a stage mum, a lawyer and ballet. By saying School of Ballet was an entertainment, I don’t mean to belittle it. It was definitely as commendable as the other two productions and I certainly loved it, but it was clearly different.

Anyway, I think I’ve laboured on about semantics enough. Thanks again for your article. As the last few hundred words show, it was thought provoking. And keep up all that brilliant dancing!!

Peter