MF what's art ; what's technology ?

From: s9905162 (
Date: Tue Jan 11 2000 - 10:54:13 GMT

Best wishes to all,

I've bin offline a few weeks so I have to catch up with about three or four
dozen mailings.

Reading this months posts about art and technology I was wondering. Your
talking about the relation between art and technology but what are art and
technology ? Certainly an abstract word like "art" is practically undefinable.
Ofcourse you can say: it's undefinable so it is DQ; but that would be to easy
I think.

When you do not want to talk about definitions of art and technology there is
a way around: do not compare abstract things like a and t but try to compare
pieces of art with pieces of technology. Both for instance are produced by a
human and thus are the result of a thinking proces (this is true even for
"modern"-art); you could say both pieces carry an idea, but for some pieces of
art you can also say it carries an emotion or a feeling. And both pieces are
partly the result of some creative thing: DQ. ( Like I said in November,
everything is the result of both DQ and SQ. )

Here at the Tecnical University I attended colleges about systimaticly
designing but even there you need creativity to make things work.)

I think the difference between pieces of art and machines is the kind of idea
they carry and the SQ they come forth from. Looking at history you can talk
about the way these statical patterns, these traditions, have grown apart.
Mostly technology comes from logical (obvious fourth level) thinking; art
(being romantic) more comes from feelings and emotions which could be
classified second or thirdth level. Staying with the ideas, in general pieces
of art are ment to carry a sense of beauty or an other emotion (ofcourse there
is far more but I have to simplify) ,at the other hand a machine is mostly
build for an certain purpose, often to change something (this purpose can very
well be changing something more beatifull) and often this purpose is thought
to bring a better (read higher quality) situation. But why do we like a piece
of art carrying a beauty? Well, aparently it makes us feel better. When you
feel better that's a high(er) quality situation.

For short, both pieces carry ideas. This ideas comes at least from different
traditions and maybe from different levels (especially art is hard to
generalyse). All ideas are ment to make things better (at least they should
be) some like technology by changing your enviroment supplying warm housing
,good foods etc. (biological); others by giving the idea of belonging to a
group like (most) religious art (social); or by passing on knowledge of what
is good, what is beautiful etc. (social/intellectual); and some by giving you
a glimpse of DQ...

Well, I have to think some longer on this subject. I agree that the divorce
between a and t is unnatural for the growing apart of traditions probably was
caused by SOM and in the end they serve the same goal: high quality.



PS. The author Mulisch I refer to in my bio (by the way where has that gone?)
has made a filosofy about the different kinds of machines and also comes up
with a four level system very similar to the moq concept but far more
abstract. I hope to write an essay on this filosofy when I have the time. -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST