http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallization
Is nature capable of producing art? 2011/2/14 Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> > [Mary] > But you could also take the question in another direction and ask, "can a > computer produce art?" > > [Arlo] > This question, and my reply, have been eating at me a bit today, so I > thought I'd put some more thoughts out there. > > I think what's bothering me is the use of the "art" as an object, an > "artifact" or activity rather than as an adverb to describe the activity > itself. What we call "art" is better seen as the end-product of artful > activity. In the case of this question, these two seem wrongly divorced. > Couldn't the question be rephrased, "can a computer engage in artful > activity", or can it do things "artfully", in short "can a computer behave > artfully?" > > Engaging artfully could be described as making moment-to-moment responses > to Dynamic Quality, such as in the "artful assembly" of a rotisserie, or in > the "artful maintenance" of a motorcycle. > > And on this note, isn't this *really* an adaption of the question, "does a > computer have a buddha nature?" > > So this is how I think the question is most likely answered from a > MOQ-perspective, as "mu". > > That said, we do use the word "art" to refer to certain specific cultural > objects, and if we are using the word in this modern sense then I here is an > extension of one thing I had said in my response. > > I remember a similar question from a class I had years ago, rephrased for > similarity, "can a monkey produce art?" > > My answer in class was that if *I* give a monkey a canvas and a paintbrush, > and *I* examine the results of his activity and *I* produce a determination > about whether or not a given canvas is "art", then really the monkey is a > tool that *I* am using to produce art. This would be akin to dipping a top > into paint, spinning it, and placing it on a canvas, then asking "did the > top produce art?" This wrongly disassociates the top from the deliberate > context into which *I* placed it. > > In asking "can a computer produce art", one has to back up and ask "can a > computer differentiate between art and not-art?" In the case of the monkey, > for a monkey to truly produce art, it (the monkey) would have to be the one > determining whether the object it created was art or not. The only entity > capable of answering "can a monkey produce art" is a monkey. If a monkey is > incapable of differentiating between art and non-art, how could it produce > it? (Outside the context of the monkey being a tool in *my* production or > art) > > This gets back to the "mu". Because, really, "can a monkey differentiate > between art and non-art?" is really again another way of asking "does a > monkey have a buddha nature?" > > Because, in the end, "art" (even as a cultural artifact) is a culturally > negotiated description. No culture can define for another culture what "art" > is to that culture. Moreso, no person can define for another person what > "art" is to that person, despite the "art industry" that seeks to define > "art" for all peoples and all times. > > Anyways, a few more thoughts... interesting topic. > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > -- parser Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
