Art vs. Technac (and other "non-art" forms")

Cold glass+cold kahlua+cold milk+lots of ice+82% humidity+bathroom break == lots of condensation on outside of glass == glass slips and falls and shatters and a bloody nice kahlua and milk all over the kitchen floor. And its all wet!!!

So what do I do? I take a shower. Kahlua under the effect of gravity has little sense of direction. Or maybe a lot of it: It was directed at my crotch :(. So a shower happened, and clothes in the washing machine happened, and a whole lot of mopping up sticky Kahlua off the floor happened. Now I'm at peace (no pun intended).

So back to today's blog entry: Art and its artifacts. I'm going to talk about this from the bits and pieces I've gathered from my talks with Tum on the subject, and my own understanding of the topic.

What is Art? Now that isn't a question that I'm going to attempt to tackle. I'd rather take up some consequences that are pointed at by the question of what doesn't comprise Art.

I was for example, shocked at the opinion that since Art has to be unique, it should be non-reproducible. So that beautiful Ferrari Enzo that was featured in Overdrive recently doesn't comprise art. It's not art because it is precise, and therefore exactly reproducible by another person with enough competence. So that piece of shit with both eyes on the same side of the head is art, but the Enzo or the Honda Goldwing is not? Seriously the definition is too restrictive. I mean could anyone else have ever thought of putting those pieces of metal together that way? Could anyone else other than the designer have thought of all the curves... exactly the same curves as the original one thought of? But that's where it breaks down right. In the end its engineering. And there are limits to what one can do. For example, no one would design a sportscar that looks like a PMT bus, would they? I mean, even if it had the best engine and the best detailwork, and the snazziest paintjob, it'd still look like a PMT bus. So maybe this definition of art does have something in it. Maybe vehicle design doesn't come into the realm of art, but of some other word... "technac" (it's just a word I'm coining).

So how can technac be made as restrictive as art is? Yes, it needs to be done atleast for the reason that this'll prevent entries in both criteria. So:
1. it has to have engineering (not science) behind it.
2. it has to be exactly reproducible (so things that involve probability (infinite improbability drive?) don't qualify, or maybe that does :) ).
3. it has to serve a function (of at least teaching something, like those action-reaction balls on a string).

There's another aspect of art that defies reason. It should be appreciated/disliked for what it is, not for the emotions that invokes. Because, for me, this'll put a lot of music that I like into the realm of "not art". Ok, not really... but it does mean that when comparing that shrieky opera singer and "Fuel - Metallica" I shouldn't really count the fact that the latter makes me trip about really dangerous speeds. This one is completely bogus. A painting of a horse that makes you feel like flying is not art? Aaarrgghhh!

So, there it is. The debate is still undecided. But if any of you feel like discussing this one with me ( it has a lot of booze potential ), post a comment.

O&O.