Be Excellent To Each Other

Pah, I'm not an artist in the slightest, but I know the function of colours, shapes, lines, contrast etc. to balance them into something that guides the eyes to the important bits. That's all psychology and function riding on the back of form; making things look pretty doesn't factor into my work at all, but the end product is often beautiful.

Give me a blank canvas without a specific problem to solve and I'm fucked. That's not art.

Ha - so the basics of what a fiduciary duty is are excluded from being enforced as a fiduciary duty. Genius.

Which is the wishy washy one, about taking the environment and baby seals into account?

Very true - you can design stuff that works but that's pug ugly and has no aesthetic value at all. A good designer, on the other hand...


On my aero eng course the aerodynamics lecturer told us that if you design something that looks right (which with planes includes the aesthetics, as streamlined shapes are aesthetically pleasing), then it tends to work.

Interetsing. Would it have been enforceable by third parties but for the insovlency, though? I really need to refresh my memory on this stuff.

The "problem to solve" aspect is the important bit. I'd say artists and designers work with the same tools (a sense of aesthetic, really), but to different ends, and with different mindsets.

I hearby dub this thread "The Quick And The Unable To Post".

Have to say, I don't agree with that either.
I'm an engineer. I also like to think I have an eye for design.

I particularly like the architecture of Alvar Aalto, of Finland.

But I'm not an artist and haven't learned anything about art beyond basic classes in school (which I didn't do well in, and were mutually exclusive with the techy classes I wanted to take anyway).

We should all compare our ends. Open-mindedly.

Don't sell yourself short. People with no creative flair look upon any creative type and see art. Whether that's in an oil painting, sculpture, electrical diagram, OS map or coffee mug. If you make a living from creative practice, you're a lucky guy.

*looks at pathetic doodles on diary*

*cries*

Creditors can force administration outside of insolvency, so the company could have assets but just not be paying its bills due to cashflow, so say a big fucking loan to the director. But yes, in reality there needs to be a 'problem' for action. Saying that though, the number of times people put in winding up petitions just to be cunts rather than solve a problem is phenomenal, and the hassle factor of that is huge.

Ah ha - it's because the liquidator steps into the shoes of the shareholders, or something, and is enforcing the company's rights under 174 against the director.

That suggests that a computer could be an artist.

Indeed, but the directors' duties under the CA are (if I've just read something on PLC correctly) only enforceable by or on behalf of the company against the director. So it's part and parcel of the risks attendant on going insolvent, which include the "knowingly trading whilst insolvent" one.


Yeah, we did that all the time when I was a litigation trainee. Stat dec and then winding up petition as part of a litigation strategy.

There was something on Today a few months back about a computer that is composing music...

Heh.

I can see beauty, but that doesn't make me an artist. It's the process I'm trying to get at here, not the result.

Yeah, that's it, as ApplePie said. Saved me getting the books out of the loft.

I was talking to someone who said that as long as he ran the pub through his limited company, the brewery couldn't chase him for the cost of the beer he didn't buy from them, as he'd just declare the company bankrupt. I thought under s174 they could, as he wan't doing things in accordance with the lease, so not running the company diligently, and they could recover personally.

You're not wrong. Which is why I continued the conversation - there is no way I would encourage your window cleaner to incorporate without proper, ongoing advice, and suddenly the £3k tax saving doesn't look so pretty.

I suggest that some computer generated art is beautiful. Art can come from fractals after all and that's just maths

Sig!


Well, maybe. But you'd have those same risks on insolvency severalfold if you were trading in your own name - the creditors are much more able to come after your house if you're a sole trader than a liquidator or administrator bringing a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

Didn't someone once say that maths is the purest form of art?

This isn't a new thing - I remember seeing something about it on Tomorrow's World. If a human ear hears a particular set of chords for a certain amount of time, science can figure out what it would like to hear next.

Here's some - have a listen: http://blog.miller-mccune.com.s72010.gr ... Track2.mp3

[edit]I like this one more: http://blog.miller-mccune.com.s72010.gr ... well_1.mp3

I dunno, look at Gimp. Built by code monkeys & presumably designed by them as well. It sure as hell wasn't designed by an artist

Now your're getting it. Art is everywhere!

*watches video of plastic bag blowing in the wind*

*masturbates*

See, I disagree with that entirely. You can get maths wrong, but you can't get a painting wrong. It can be bad, but not wrong.

Painting by numbers must be the bestest ever, then.

That's what I said: viewtopic.php?p=483913#p483913

I respectfully disagree. A painting of Craster bumming his mum in a badger costume would be wrong, for instance.

If maths and art are separate disciplines, I'd invite you to explain which one M C Escher was.

A polymath.

Ah, yes. Sorry, thread rolled on pretty quickly there.

I take your point about skill. That's essentially what I've been saying. You don't necessarily have to sit down and think 'Right! Let's make something beautiful!'. Look at the waste paper bins in any artist's studio and see how that works. Sometimes art just appears. Like my comment about the leaves in B&B this morning.

Damn, I'm a friggin hippy today. *strokes beard*

Isn't art just getting people to believe bullshit about something shit?

Okay, I take it back Cavey - Nickachu's the definition of philistine.

Welcome to Dadaism.

It's anti-art. Sadly, a lot of modern artists didn't get it and just copied the theme, but not the idea. That's why most modern art is utter shit.

O tempora, o mores.

I think that, at the point of creation, no art is good, but, over time, it becomes great, as the stuff that is shit fades away from the consciousness.

Someone who did a bit of both?

Wrong perspective. The argument is along these lines: if art is the communication of complex concepts via abstractions that only work because of the links between the abstractions and the concepts that exist in people's minds, then the equation of gravitation is itself art.

Dust.

Wind.

Dude.

Another real life example

Guy was a builder. Bloke down the pub told him that incorporating would save him shit loads in tax and he didn't really need an advisor because its easy. Builder enquires what 'Limited Liability' is and is told by his mate that if things go tits up, he only loses the company.

Builder duly incorporates himself, remembering the limited liability part. So at this point, he decides that the company doesn't need public liability insurance and as he is working for the company, he is protected too, so he cancels the policy that he held in his own name. Scaffold falls down...

1 mistake and it's a mistake.
2 and you're a bad musician.
3 it's jazz.

But the equation would still be correct, whether we wanted it to be or not.

4 PROFIT!

Bach invented Jazz.

We don't know whether maths is discovered or invented. Once you get beyond trivial stuff like Pythagoras and pi, it's a matter of perspective whether calculus, say, is an artefact of the universe or an artefact of how we look at the universe. And now we're in Plato's Cave super-metaphor world.

It's rude to stare!

Fucking. Moron.

Dear christ.

Alice in Wonderland is actually about the new mathematics that was coming into play at the time.

I'm pretty sure that we aren't going to define what art is and is not here in this thread given that such a thing has long defied people far cleverer than any of us plebs on here. So my own definition of art is unsatisfactory and always subject to change but it's never going to include maths, or engineering, or fractals even if some other person's might. I still view them all as creative endeavours but not as art, no way.

Really?

Aesthetically pleasing does not necessarily equal art.

Otherwise the Lake District is art.

I consider the polymerase chain reaction to be art.

http://blog.miller-mccune.com.s72010.gr ... well_1.mp3
Really?