<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On the definition of art</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lunaradventures.net/2006/04/20/on-the-definition-of-art/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lunaradventures.net/2006/04/20/on-the-definition-of-art/</link>
	<description>exploring a little bit of everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:10:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.lunaradventures.net/2006/04/20/on-the-definition-of-art/comment-page-1/#comment-1173</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2006 19:14:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lunaradventures.net/2006/04/20/on-the-definition-of-art/#comment-1173</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;But, I was also a Computer Science major!  And we computer science majors realize the import and beauty of recursion.  We don’t have circular arguments, we have recursion.  Work with me here.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Er, no, CS people recognize that while recursion is a simple and elegant solution to some problems, there&#039;s no recursive solution to a problem that doesn&#039;t have a matching iterative, procedural solution, and that the latter is generally preferable to the former for understandability and the like.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That said, Mike&#039;s right above that sunsets, mountains, etc. themselves would qualify as art under your definition. I&#039;d suggest you switch to Scott McCloud&#039;s definition of art from &lt;i&gt;Understanding Comics&lt;/i&gt; - that art is anything that humans do not immediately related to survival.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, my own personal preference is the definition which states all art is communication, but not all communication is art.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>But, I was also a Computer Science major!  And we computer science majors realize the import and beauty of recursion.  We don’t have circular arguments, we have recursion.  Work with me here.</i></p>

<p>Er, no, CS people recognize that while recursion is a simple and elegant solution to some problems, there&#8217;s no recursive solution to a problem that doesn&#8217;t have a matching iterative, procedural solution, and that the latter is generally preferable to the former for understandability and the like.</p>

<p>That said, Mike&#8217;s right above that sunsets, mountains, etc. themselves would qualify as art under your definition. I&#8217;d suggest you switch to Scott McCloud&#8217;s definition of art from <i>Understanding Comics</i> &#8211; that art is anything that humans do not immediately related to survival.</p>

<p>Alternatively, my own personal preference is the definition which states all art is communication, but not all communication is art.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zach</title>
		<link>http://www.lunaradventures.net/2006/04/20/on-the-definition-of-art/comment-page-1/#comment-1097</link>
		<dc:creator>Zach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:07:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lunaradventures.net/2006/04/20/on-the-definition-of-art/#comment-1097</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I think your definition works. Art DOES inspire art.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think your definition works. Art DOES inspire art.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mike</title>
		<link>http://www.lunaradventures.net/2006/04/20/on-the-definition-of-art/comment-page-1/#comment-1089</link>
		<dc:creator>mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lunaradventures.net/2006/04/20/on-the-definition-of-art/#comment-1089</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;It seems that nature itself qualifies as art under your definition. Sunsets, mountains - these are all &quot;inanimate&quot; and have inspired art.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But before we even discuss that, I see a bigger problem. You defined a noun with a verb - &quot;Art is the creation...&quot; So once you&#039;re done creating, is it no longer art? Or do you mean &quot;Art is A creation...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems that nature itself qualifies as art under your definition. Sunsets, mountains &#8211; these are all &#8220;inanimate&#8221; and have inspired art.</p>

<p>But before we even discuss that, I see a bigger problem. You defined a noun with a verb &#8211; &#8220;Art is the creation&#8230;&#8221; So once you&#8217;re done creating, is it no longer art? Or do you mean &#8220;Art is A creation&#8230;&#8221;</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
