Can a car be art?
-
The definition of art is:
@unknownuser said:
art[ahrt]–noun:
- the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
That is the definition, and in that definition it says "or of more than ordinary significance" which means a car can be art.
Unless someone objects this. -
Then my penis is a masterpiece.
-
@solo said:
Then my penis is a masterpiece.
Man you gotta get off those [censored] websites man!
Even though it is true, but only the females might find that appealing to the eye... unless you count the homosexuals... -
The human foot is a masterpiece of engineering and a work of art. — Leonardo da Vinci
@ Pete
Who's gonna argue with what Da Vinci says is art?
Also if your penis is art, is it on display in some gallery? And have you replaced it with a PR render?
-
Also, is it signed?
Anyone else find it odd we're discussing the artistic merits of Pete's nether regions?
-
I don't know if it art. . .But I Like it!
-
Thants the whole point, it is not on display therefore it aint art.
My wife may think it's art, but it cannot be as it has a function (two functions actually
) therefore no matter what a masterfull peice of wonder it be, it's not art.Signed? does lipstick count?
-
Boy . . .I think my last post came in at the wrong time.
-
ew!!
Jack just happened to be wearing lipstick...
-
yeah. . . let's get Our minds right here. . .back to the Jag. now That's art!
-
Is it art or just a beautiful car?
We going around in circles, so lets agree that it is art if you believe it's art, regardless if the designer was intending it to be art. Lets also agree that regardless of the fact that it's driving on the M5 and not parked in a showroom/gallery it's still art.
-
Agreed.
(but you got a nasty thought burned into my head solo
) -
Yes! now no more of this existentialist type shite please - my heads about to explode!
-
I think art is in the eye of the beholder. So some people might argue a car could not be art. And they would be right. And some might argue that a car absoultely is art. And they would be right.
-
Art is functionless, sensual value added, no matter what the canvas. The more people that value it, the longer they value it, the greater the work of art is.
-
All is art. None is. It depends entirely on perception, and that is arbitrary and shifts without notice. I've see things in museums that I thought were worthless pieces of garbage, and considering their longevity in installation and the public eye, I was probably right; and there are some things that have stood the test of time that I feel are perfectly mundane. Other things are stunning to me, pretty much anything living (designed or not is a matter of opinion), aircraft, architecture...on and on.
To me, older cars are art. They were very different and stood apart from each other, they had style and design. Nowadays, unless you look at the high end cars or the odd standout (i.e. the return of the Mustang and Charger), cars all look pretty much the same. They've stopped being art and become functional, restricted by economical construction, engineering and fuel efficiency.
-
Art is also about Process. The mindset of the creator, the work method, and the intended use. I think people universally look at a shaker chair or something like that as a work of art. It probably didn't start out that way by the Shakers, but the process and mindset --trhe attention to detail. . .were so clear and so wonderfully executed, that it transcended function to become a work of true beauty. The Barcelona chair by contrast was created with the mindset of the "artist" -- Mies doing Capital "D" Design. not very comfortable as a chair, but still you gotta love how beautiful it is. The B chair really was intended to be sculpture. As far as cars go. . .Raymond Leowy. .. .Great designer -- great Artist. So . . . it's fairly obvious . . .. there is no solution to this question.
Advertisement