Me? Heh.....why, the only "art" I'll acknowledge are sexualized drawings of Brutes from Halo...

I think I have a pretty conventional, if broad, definition of art.

That said, I don't consider cars art at all.

that's interesting...is it because they're mass produced?

I'd say that's part of it, but it's also because there's very limited creative potential for mass-produced vehicles. A functional brand name car MUST be designed a certain way in order to meet certain clearance standards, because trying to get creative not only costs more money, it could also be hazardous to whoever drives in or around it.

If something has to be designed a very meticulously specific way in order to function without any safety or efficiency hazards, then it can't be art in my opinion, because you've restricted creative potential to things like "color," and that to me is not what art is about—it's about personal expression, and Ford doesn't care about personal expression.

That's not to say they can't be art—an individual, not a major manufacturer, could design their own vehicle and add their own creative flourishes to it, and that would certainly be artistic. If you want the car to work and be safe, then your options are still limited, but you have more freedom in terms of design than those who are legally obligated to manufacture safe, undangerous, and uncreative products.

So, I guess a more accurate/honest thing for me to say would be that I consider the "art value" of cars to be very close to zero, similar to a video game where it's just a baseball simulator or something.

I'm normally not one to make such hard-and-fast statements about what is or isn't art, but I think mass-produced cars are ubiquitous enough for me to generalize a bit.

I think I have a pretty conventional, if broad, definition of art.

That said, I don't consider cars art at all.

Quote from: i am karjala takaisin on August 12, 2017, 02:45:56 PM

that's interesting...is it because they're mass produced?

I'd say that's part of it, but it's also because there's very limited creative potential for mass-produced vehicles. A functional brand name car MUST be designed a certain way in order to meet certain clearance standards, because trying to get creative not only costs more money, it could also be hazardous to whoever drives in or around it.

If something has to be designed a very meticulously specific way in order to function without any safety or efficiency hazards, then it can't be art in my opinion, because you've restricted creative potential to things like "color," and that to me is not what art is about—it's about personal expression, and Ford doesn't care about personal expression.

That's not to say they can't be art—an individual, not a major manufacturer, could design their own vehicle and add their own creative flourishes to it, and that would certainly be artistic. If you want the car to work and be safe, then your options are still limited, but you have more freedom in terms of design than those who are legally obligated to manufacture safe, undangerous, and uncreative products.

So, I guess a more accurate/honest thing for me to say would be that I consider the "art value" of cars to be very close to zero, similar to a video game where it's just a baseball simulator or something.

I'm normally not one to make such hard-and-fast statements about what is or isn't art, but I think mass-produced cars are ubiquitous enough for me to generalize a bit.

They may have to meet certain standard and based on what their industry standards are. I do think car manufactures try to make each one of their vehicle different. At the end of the day it boils down to someone creative vision of a vehicle for X job.  He draws pictures makes molding of it based on regulation.  If automotive designers didn't think of their creation as art we would be all driving around in the exact same car shapes. Cars are art not in the conventional meaning but in the un-conventional  just like parent hang their children pictures on the fridge.

That disgusting Ford and Honda aren't art

Quote from: Jono on August 12, 2017, 04:26:04 PM

That disgusting Ford and Honda aren't art

  The F150 is the rated 2nd for the best selling truck in the world.  The Civic is number 5.

Not art

All cars are just motorized boxes with wheels.

Something that sells a lot is not art.
Something that looks nice is not art.
Something that requires creativity is not art.

I'm a gear-head too but cars aren't art.

nice poem, faggot. Gonna hang it up in an art museum?

Something that looks nice is not art.
Something that requires creativity is not art.

TF you on about?  Is the Pietà not art? The Ghent Altarpiece?  The One-Way Color Tunnel?  Those aren't art?

Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 05:22:40 PM

Something that looks nice is not art.
Something that requires creativity is not art.

TF you on about?  Is the Pietà not art? The Ghent Altarpiece?  The One-Way Color Tunnel?  Those aren't art?

i think what he meant was that you don't NEED those things for something to be art

Quote from: Casper on August 12, 2017, 09:59:08 PM

Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 05:22:40 PM

Something that looks nice is not art.
Something that requires creativity is not art.

TF you on about?  Is the Pietà not art? The Ghent Altarpiece?  The One-Way Color Tunnel?  Those aren't art?

i think what he meant was that you don't NEED those things for something to be art

Not trying to sound snarky or anything, because I'm genuinely curious.  but how can someone create art without being creative?  I'll admit the not looking nice part is a bias of mine, but I don't think that's really worth going into.  Sorry, my thoughts are all over when it comes to this topic

Quote from: Casper on August 12, 2017, 10:07:29 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 12, 2017, 10:03:57 PM

Quote from: Casper on August 12, 2017, 09:59:08 PM

Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 05:22:40 PM

Something that looks nice is not art.
Something that requires creativity is not art.

TF you on about?  Is the Pietà not art? The Ghent Altarpiece?  The One-Way Color Tunnel?  Those aren't art?

i think what he meant was that you don't NEED those things for something to be art

Not trying to sound snarky or anything, because I'm genuinely curious.  but how can someone create art without being creative?  I'll admit the not looking nice part is a bias of mine, but I don't think that's really worth going into.  Sorry, my thoughts are all over when it comes to this topic

You need creativity to create art, but just because you use creativity does not make what you're creating art. That's my position.

So it's more than creativity alone, as in the case with cars.  It needs to be creative in conjunction with meaning, if I'm understanding correctly.

Just throwing this out there so I don't come off as a snob or something, I really enjoy this discussion.  I don't get to have many of these at school because of how female dominated and shallow discussions are, or I suppose because my opinions are unpopular and generally ganged up on because I prefer old standards of art pre-Duchamp and Pollock

Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 10:16:58 PM

Quote from: Casper on August 12, 2017, 10:16:16 PM

Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 10:12:42 PM

Quote from: Casper on August 12, 2017, 10:07:29 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 12, 2017, 10:03:57 PM

Quote from: Casper on August 12, 2017, 09:59:08 PM

Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 05:22:40 PM

Something that looks nice is not art.
Something that requires creativity is not art.

TF you on about?  Is the Pietà not art? The Ghent Altarpiece?  The One-Way Color Tunnel?  Those aren't art?

i think what he meant was that you don't NEED those things for something to be art

Not trying to sound snarky or anything, because I'm genuinely curious.  but how can someone create art without being creative?  I'll admit the not looking nice part is a bias of mine, but I don't think that's really worth going into.  Sorry, my thoughts are all over when it comes to this topic

You need creativity to create art, but just because you use creativity does not make what you're creating art. That's my position.

So it's more than creativity alone, as in the case with cars.  It needs to be creative in conjunction with meaning, if I'm understanding correctly.

You could say that, yes. Meaning and intention. Intention is integral to my definition of art.

Ah, I put creativity and ability... technical skills before meaning, mostly because I've seen too much bullshit where people use conceptual art as a crutch for their blatant lack of any artistic skill or simply as a gimmick.  Like the "this is not a pipe but a drawing of a pipe."  Like no shit, the audience isn't that dumb that they think your 2D render is the actual 3D object.

I think of art in a much broader sense than that. Basically if someone has artistic intentions, I'd consider it art. Making a statement with your clothing, for example.

Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 10:35:13 PM

I think of art in a much broader sense than that. Basically if someone has artistic intentions, I'd consider it art. Making a statement with your clothing, for example.

What about aesthetic forms in nature? Fractal geometry for instance, something that can absolutely instill some emotion or idea in someone, is essentially nothing more than looped mathematical functions.

I wouldn't consider that art. Art necessitates artistic intention.