Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by partisan | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

partisan·

Where did you draw that line?

View on HN

Where the security system has a practical use outside of existing.

That's not where artists themselves draw the line, despite the fact that it describes a large percentage of artwork.

The linked video appears to be a purely artistic expression, the comparison it to a home security system is not applicable.

Why not? If the security system includes artistic elements, I don't see why you couldn't compare those elements to something else that's purely artistic expression.

At the very least, it's valid to compare them on the level of work that goes into each, compared to the benefit that each provides (in one case, a functional security system, and in the other, a piece of entertainment).

If the primary purpose is utilitarian then it's not art, it's decoration. Art is its own justification. adding a little flair doesn't make you an artist.

I'd say that the motives of the creator have more to do with it than any real or potential use the item in question has. If I pay a bunch of time and money to create a crappy security system, am I doing it to have a security system? Or to have created something for the joy of it? Probably a little of both, but if objects of higher utility are available for cheaper (both time and money), then how are you going to argue that utility is the primary purpose?

Architects (as an example) combine art and utility. One doesn't exclude the other.

Indeed they do not exclude each other but they are also not the same thing.

The notion that the only expression which can be artistic are those which are without value or purpose is bullshit.

Plenty of art is educational, and therefore has a practical purpose. In fact, I'd argue a lot of art is functional.

Your line is wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com