The Great Hippo wrote:By finding an example of technology that isn't art, and an example of art that isn't technology.TrlstanC wrote:Let's assume for a moment that I can't tell the difference between technology and art, I know they're on different continuums, but I'm not sure what the difference is. How could I prove to myself that they are on different continuums?
I don't want to prove to myself that technology isn't art, I want to prove that they're not on the same continuum. I can pick an example of one shade of blue, and pick another example of a shade of red. The shade of red won't be blue, and the shade of blue won't be red, but they'll be on the same continuum.
For example, lets say that I thought about using a definition of art something like the ratio (using some arbitrary scale and units):
- Code: Select all
[How interesting is this because of the way this piece was created) / (How useful is this piece)
Where higher ratios, presumably above some arbitrary level, would be called art. And we could consider things on the opposite end of the scale i.e., high inverse ratios, would be things that are considered "technology." I'm not sure that this would work in all cases, but it seems like an interesting direction to explore, and importantly an example like this doesn't seem to run in to any obvious logical difficulties even though it considers art and technology on the same continuum.