Bob Hovey wrote, in part:
Well said. I've spent quite a few hours discussing the definition of art,
>
> both as an art student and later as a teacher... simplisic distinctions betw
> een
> art and craft as "decorative" and "functional" respectively
are seldom
> satisfying and frankly I don't recall the matter ever being settled in a
> satisfactory manner in any of our discussions. Most can agree however, wit
> h your
> statement above... that art is somehow transcendant and is much more in the
> eye of
> the beholder than those who created it (many objects now considered art were
>
> produced by people who had no purpose other than to get to the end of day wi
> th
> enough saleable goods to feed their families).
********
for those who may doubt that pure function can also function as art, I draw your attention to the following:
for some, me included, this is among the most beautiful functional objects ever made. Designed and built by Nat Herreshoff 100 years ago, this vessel had one purpose: to go fast. Capt. Nat wasn't big on art, even if he was an artist himself. Sound engineering, going fast, winning races, that was his thing.
Classic content: much the same could be said about Ernesto Colnago, who has produced more than a few beautiful bikes in his time. That also happen to go fast. They'll never be in the same league as a New York 30...but, then, Ernesto is still in business. The same cannot be said of the Herreshoffs, who went out of business because they couldn't compete with the future. At least Ernesto keeps a wary eye on the here-and-now while he makes his occasional art.
Charles Andrews SoCal
One could probably say the same about