Therefore there becomes a distinction between the artist-craftsman and the ordinary craftsman, thus there is a co-existence between the art "segment", utilitarian craft "segment", and artist craftsmen "segment". .
This may be true in some respects but perhaps it could also be an individuals personal distinction between the fields. Whether they identify themselves more closely with traditional craftsmen or with the artist, or perhaps somewhere positioned in the void of ambiguity between the two segments. As with the many traditions that have become localised under the more modern label "artist-craftsmen"; however the individuals views differ there is a common thread of internal conflict, between the groups of arts and crafts, about the meaning of what they do. These differences of opinion may, at the base of the problem, be a sociological distinction rather than an aesthetic or technical one. A point that Becker perhaps overlooks too easily.
Becker's idea of skill is one that, while not wrong, is perhaps not truly reflective of the people he is discussing. He believes it to be a mastering of ability, in both the physical and mental disciplines; which allows extra ordinary control over the craft materials and techniques. The general consensus from individuals involved in these areas seems to be somewhat contradictory of Becker's stance. The makers with the most direct line to the arts and crafts movement tend to think of craft skills as challenge, both social and aesthetic, to automated industry. In each area there are different values placed on aspects of an individual's work and therefore there are different attitudes and ideas in respect to the definition of skill. Underlying this, most believe that the essential element is in the mind of the worker, rather than simply the manual skill involved. And equally important a strong sense of ability to exercise control over every aspect of work they do.
