I agree that it is great work and the individual(s) who made it were master craftsmen and fabricators. I can definitely appreciate the beauty of it when thinking about the dedication and skill that went into it, I just don't see the artistic design part of the whole thing. Yes, I would want to have one on my desk because it is cool, technical and an excellent demonstration of fabrication technologies and engine technology and quality. I just don't see it as art. There is also a lot of "Art" that I do not view as art. Then again, my dad was an artist, and worked in may areas of non-art and art (from advertising to fine arts to professor of art at a local university so I admittedly look at things a bit differently. Just my opinion and you don't have to agree. I completely understand that everyone has a different definition of what they view as art.

I think I get what you're saying... that there's a difference between an artist and an artisan... and both have their merits

 

I work on my car, a 1974 alfa romeo spyder, twin cam 2 liter. I rebuilt the engine from the crank up a couple of years ago, replaced all bearings, seals, gaskets and such. it is a bit of relazation from my normal job in electronics. it runs fine, dosnt leak oil, and didnt cost as much as several years ago on my first alfs in the shop. volkswagen has built a w32 engine, but I dont think it willl ever go into mass production.

 

I completely understand that everyone has a different definition of what they view as art.

In many discussions as in this thread, the reason above (actually, its equivalent) will be always valid.

Say that, finally, everything goes through the eyes of the mytic beholder. That makes, thanks God, for different guys preferring different girls.

 

In many discussions as in this thread, the reason above (actually, its equivalent) will be always valid.

Say that, finally, everything goes through the eyes of the mytic beholder. That makes, thanks God, for different guys preferring different girls.

Then we're all good... as long as no one else prefers my girl...

 

It's cool and I like it, but I'm not sure why. Maybe because it is so over-the-top crazy. It's a monument to human madness, in a way, to spend so many hours building something so utterly useless but fascinating to look at. A sculpture.

It reminds me a lot of the guys that build their own computers from chips and wire. When I see such things, I can't help but think of what they might have achieved if they put their efforts toward something new instead of reinventing the wheel. I have a lot of inventions in my head, but not enough hands and hours to build them all. You won't find me building watches.

 

Thanks for sharing, and sorry for tking so long to reply.

I see a work of world class craftsmanship. I envy the skill, and I would be extremely proud to have made one, if I could and did. But on technicality I also cannot really call it "art" if it is in fact an exact replica scale model of something that someone else designed. The keyword there is "exact replica" (detail-for-detail), because I acknowledge that there is a grey area, and I don't know where to draw the line, except at "exact replica."

If he were to have made the engine blue, then would it be "art"?
If he were to have decreased the # of cylinders by 4, then would it be "art"?
If he were to have rotated the cylinders each 10 degrees around the crank and cut out 4 cylinders, then would it be "art"?
If he were to have made the engine an exact replica the original (or as close to exact as he could), from mental remembrances in his head having seen it as a child, without looking at the prints for original design, then would it be "art"?
If he were to have made the engine up from his own design and only loosely based on the original, then would it be "art"?

I don't have answers to these questions. At some point it can just get silly; someone could (even with some grain of merit) claim that there only ever existed one portrait painting in the history of the world that was truly a "work of 'ART'", because all portrait paintings that came after it were spawned in the idea of the first one, and were just loose copies with a few details changed (subject, colors, century, etc.)

 

Many pieces of art - paintings and sculpture - were made in the "factory" of the master and under his supervision, but by the hands of employees/students. Are they not art? Like Strantor, I don't have the answer either.

But if it can grab our attention and have no other practical purpose, it must be art.

 

Many pieces of art - paintings and sculpture - were made in the "factory" of the master and under his supervision, but by the hands of employees/students. Are they not art? Like Strantor, I don't have the answer either.

But if it can grab our attention and have no other practical purpose, it must be art.

From www.merriam-webster.com :

art: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings

 

But if it can grab our attention and have no other practical purpose, it must be art.

I think that's probably a better definition of "art" than judging on originality. But then designer of the Lamborghini would probably have something to say about "art" and whether or not "art" can serve a practical purpose.

If it can make a group of nerds who try to quantify everything, run around in circles trying to classify it and resort to consulting a dictionary, then it must be art.

EDIT: oh, I see we literally did consult a dictionary while I was typing that. It's official. ART IT IS.

 

This is a fascinating thread because I am so illiterate about art.
Thanks to all of you.

 

I think that's probably a better definition of "art" than judging on originality. But then designer of the Lamborghini would probably have something to say about "art" and whether or not "art" can serve a practical purpose.

If it can make a group of nerds who try to quantify everything, run around in circles trying to classify it and resort to consulting a dictionary, then it must be art.

EDIT: oh, I see we literally did consult a dictionary while I was typing that. It's official. ART IT IS.

This miniature engine project has:

• skill -> check
• beauty -> check
• imagination -> up for debate

Personally, I think it does require a certain degree of imagination to conceive a mechanism like this one and then have it displayed with such elegance and grace... to me, at least, it does qualify as art....

 

Even the artist community cannot decide what is art. I vividly remember my dad and his friends discussing that Norman Rockwell was an illustrator/artisan and not an artist. I just Googled it and it appears the same discussion continues about Rockwell with recent articles and criticisms of a museum exhibit. Not that I want to join that particular argument, but it appears that more and more people are coming around and giving Rockwell credit as an artist: illustration + time = art. It has been true for the Neanderthals as well. Any preserved attempt at graphical communication has ended up in a museum and called "Cave Art".

 

Even the artist community cannot decide what is art. I vividly remember my dad and his friends discussing that Norman Rockwell was an illustrator/artisan and not an artist. I just Googled it and it appears the same discussion continues about Rockwell with recent articles and criticisms of a museum exhibit. Not that I want to join that particular argument, but it appears that more and more people are coming around and giving Rockwell credit as an artist: illustration + time = art. It has been true for the Neanderthals as well. Any preserved attempt at graphical communication has ended up in a museum and called "Cave Art".

Probably the same people are arguing if porn is art too... BTW, I have the greatest respect for Mr Rockwell and I think he was a full-blown artist... even if his art was of the conventional-commertial type

 

The last frames of the W32 video in the first post kind of bother me and impress me at the same time. The fact he/she spend more than 2000 hours means that they spend more than 1 man-year on it (250 working days per year x 8 hours)
2520 hours is listed in the video

 

This miniature engine project has:

• skill -> check
• beauty -> check
• imagination -> up for debate

Personally, I think it does require a certain degree of imagination to conceive a mechanism like this one and then have it displayed with such elegance and grace... to me, at least, it does qualify as art....

The imagination comes in from figuring out how to make things small. Many things like this are so much harder to make and make them work at a small scale. And machine work to this degree is more an art than a science. Believe me, I've been there.

 

From www.merriam-webster.com :

art: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings

If only our lawmakers would read that definition when they decide what we, the taxpayers, are required to purchase as part of the "Art in Public Places" law in Colorado that mandates that a certain fraction of any money spent on capital improvements (such as a new campus building or a renovation of an existing one -- or even a new parking lot) MUST be spent on artwork to be displayed permanently as part of the project. Personally, from the "art" that is typically purchased, what I have concluded is that it is nothing but a boondoggle meant to ensure that crappy "artists" that can't make anything that anyone would willingly pay for can force the taxpayers to pay exorbitant prices for something that a gradeschooler could easily have come up with (or in some cases have even made). The "sculpture" out in front of the engineering building here is a prime example. Sixteen rectangular steel pipes (six or eight inches on a side) with strips of retroreflective tape wrapped around them at intervals near the top (all of them at the same position on each pipe) and then these are stuck in concrete standing vertically in a 4x4 matrix with about two to three feet between centers. That's it. Yet it cost the taxpayers over $50k.

 

At least you're not stuck with these two crappy pieces of junk:

 

From www.merriam-webster.com :

art: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings

That's actually a much higher bar than applied by some. I've seen "art" that perhaps took a little imagination but certainly no skill, was not beautiful, and expressed only a stupid idea or feeling. This barely scratches the surface. This one got some attention recently. NSFW!

 

That's actually a much higher bar than applied by some. I've seen "art" that perhaps took a little imagination but certainly no skill, was not beautiful, and expressed only a stupid idea or feeling. This barely scratches the surface. This one got some attention recently. NSFW!

That last one is just disgusting...

 

Oh no! My Home Depot needs more guards! There are probably a thousand of these paintings in the paint department!