Re: [microsound] Chuck

[David Powers <cyborgk@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ah the old "what is art" question. My friend and I came upon a working
definition of art last night, while we were painting the floor of his
loft space/gallery: Art is something you get grant money for, that
makes people feel sophisticated while they stand around sipping wine
and BSing at the show opening... ;-)

Seriously though, perhaps the whole confusion arises from the fact
that every discipline has its own problems. It can be misleading to
talk about Art sometimes, when there are significant differences
between different art forms.

For instance, In architecture, function will be much more important
than in painting. Dance music has to function, in a way that music for
a seated concert audience does not. We can't decide in advance,
whether something is able to be art or not based on its function.

I think there are pieces of dance music and architecture that rise to
the level of art. However, I think we can all agree that the condos
outside where I work are really ugly, and not art at all (not to
mention the function they play in gentrifying the community).

As far as jet engines, if someone says that the jet engine they built
is a work of art more than a functional engine, I'd rather not fly in
that plane...

On the other hand, it just struck me that there is often a strange
beauty to functional objects. Perhaps it stems from the fact that the
engine must harness the forces of nature, and thus in some sense is a
part of nature. Can a jet engine be beautiful, in the way a tree is
beautiful?

~David

On 9/27/06, aleks vasic <bvasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes i agree with you, but it also raises some sticky debate.  Such as,
> what is Art.  A motorcycle engine, or Jet engine is designed primarily
> for function/performance.  Its a tool.  But there is an aesthetic in
> the end result that is appreciated by many, rightfully so i guess.
> Many people would consider the entire process art, just as much as the
> end result... Something similiar would be architecture.  It is art.  It
> is judged on its aesthetic, but first and foremost is its
> functionality.  Does it do what it is supposed to do and does it do it
> well?
>
>
> aLEKs
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2006, at 2:07 PM, David Powers wrote:
> >
> > It's funny because last week I was just defending the importance of
> > process, as opposed to only viewing "the finished product".
> >
> > But, at the same time I don't believe in fetishizing the process, as
> > being more important than what results from a process. A process, in
> > my view, needs to be evaluated pragmatically: does it work? is it a
> > useful process? and yes, does it lead to "good results", including
> > artworks that are aesthetically interesting.
> >
> > ~David
>
> > On 9/27/06, aleks vasic <bvasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Depends on who is experiencing said work.  Many people value the
> >> process as much as the end result, if not more.
> >>
> >> What do different individuals see when they look at a Harley
> >> Motorcycle?  The Ramjet engine of of a vintage fighter plane?
> >>
> >> Also, sometimes art is the process, the study of Chaos theory has some
> >> great examples of this.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org