Shouldn't it be, "art and literature," not "art and writing"? Or perhaps "making art and literature." But that sounds too egotistical, as if by the mere act of "writing," one were making "literature." In the visual arts we have eliminated the separation between "fine art" and "crafts," haven't we?
Maybe not. I knew exactly when I crossed that line in the 1970s when I started a leather-craft business making belts and handbags for sale at craft shows, and then automated a little bit and hired employees in order to sell through retail stores. I knew I was no longer making fine art.
Is the difference in the artist's intention, or in the unique quality of items made? If each creation is one-of-a-kind, then we are more likely to call it fine art. Yet, that doesn't really resolve the issue.
When I was going to college and art school in the early 1960s, these questions were important. An artist was a priest of sorts, who could help us transcend this mundane life. Or an interpreter of culture, who could help us understand our position in it. Anyone who was simply making pretty pictures was an "amateur" or "Sunday painter."
The act of writing seems less fraught with this tension. One writes in private for months or years, and it is only upon publication that the question of literature comes up. And today there are many outlets for publication (internet journals and magazines, blogs, print-on-demand publishing, etc.) besides traditional publishing houses. Having an audience who reads what we write is often gratifying enough without an official critic's blessing.
