Hi Paul
No.. I didn't watch the video. My intention was to retire gracefully into obscurity and ignorance
To be honest, I can't see the distinction. Obviously, the 2 subjects chosen could be considered to have much more fluid lines and are more pleasing to the eye but.. some blokes marry fat birds and others don't. Does that make the fat bird any less pretty/desirable/functional than a thin bird?? Certainly not to the bloke who's married herLess likely to be said,
if instead she'd used an A10 Warthog, or a SkyVan.
In an engineering sense, all 4 aircraft do (or did) what they do within the parameters of their remit. They look the way they look because of what they do and what they're expected to do. Had she used an A10 and a Skyvan.. I'd have seen an A10 and a Skyvan and neither would have been more or less pieces of 'art'.I guess, at the end of the day.. my conception (or preconception) of art can be considered 'traditional'. While I see things that I could use (or misuse) the term 'a work of art', most if not all of these are pretty, call them gorgeous, aesthetically pleasing in some way or other but what they're not are works of art in the traditional sense.. whatever that is. I often stand and look at DeltaGolf and wonder at her subtle curves. No one who's not seen a Concorde at close quarters can fully appreciate just what a beautiful, wonderful piece of engineering excellence it is. Is it beautiful.. yes, certainly. Is it a prime example, one of the finest examples of engineering excellence either born out of operational necessity or otherwise.. yes, most certainly. Is it a work of art...?? Well, it is/was never a piece of art but, given the common use of the term 'a work of art'.. the end result would suggest it was but.. is it any more a 'work of art' than the aforementioned A10 or Skyvan?? It's certainly prettier as far as I'm concerned but then again, I don't go for fat, ugly birds
ATB
DaveB
