My mother (who is an artist) and i kicked around the definition of 'art' in several conversations over the years and came up with ,at least as part of the definition, that it is the creation of something that has not been seen of , or conceived of before.
Perhaps, but only a small portion of the definition. Every moment is "something not seen before", yet every moment is certainly not art. A portrait is an established art form, yet save for the transient subject, it is something that has been seen many times. I don't particularly care what "Mona Lisa" was thinking, yet that seems to be the enigma that makes this a work of "art". My point is evidenced particularly well with figure photography. The particular subject tends to be the art, and the "artist" merely the reporter of it. (Oh and that's a rather sweeping statement that provokes lengthy discussion! It would be best fielded in a photography class. One can imagine the looks one might receive).
You forgot to mention... or more likely intentionally omitted 'insightful and spot on'.
True, but I knew you'd see my omission and correct it. If I were indeed intent on malice, I would have said,, "as I mentioned earlier, art stumbles when excessively acted upon by the egos of its creators"!
However, it is both with fondness and regret I feel obligated to tell you, that your prosaic dabbling has longer literary legs than the old saw, "if a tree falls in the forest". (Yes, pun intended).
Huh...That was a rather nasty shot. It was not meant to be a mellifluous vent, but rather an application of my years of experience of creating 'curb appeal' for various structures sprinkled throughout the Minneapolis skyline.
I think you're having a bit of a pout on this point. You might reconsider my quote as a whole. The intent was to obviate the fact that there were a plethora of points in your post that might lead to extended forensic discussion, as in the existentialist analog I cited . This, (IMO), made curtailing the length of the reply a bit difficult.
Besides, I meant, "prosaic rambling".
As to architecture as art, I find it to be one of the highest forms. To me,at least, its inherent dependency on science elevates it as an art, rather than detracts from it
Perhaps this will revive the thread.
At least until these posts get pulled down for being off topic.
Julio did open to door to the discussion of art, however I doubt if that meant when it was divorced from the topic of the case.
As to the "artistic" value of computer cases in general, and Lian Li in particular, I've said many times, they should be marketed as industrial fixtures, avoiding any reference to appearance whatsoever.
The song title, "Pomp and Circumstance" goes a long way toward explaining human behavior. If one guy builds a palace, then the next guy has to build "Versailles". And so it is thusly applied to marketing. We decide when elegance becomes pretense, and how much is too much. IMHO, the "Thermaltake Level 10 GT" hits "too much" squarely on the head. I do like military aesthetic emulation however, and illustrate that with my "Cooler Master Storm Scout". It sits exactly on my personal border between just enough, and "too much". As is always true in theses types of dialogs, comes the disclaimer, "your sensibilities may vary".
(FF is arguing with me about the adverbial form of "thus". I say you can use it as an adverb, FF says no, underscoring its objection in red).
.
