[Copernicus]

I dont disagree that some things can have an intrinsic beauty that will reveal itself only to someone educated in the area, but i dont think that makes it art.

eg at some point I read an algorithm for ranking and comparing poker hands...I forget the details but essentially it created a bit string from the cards and the strings were directly comparable to each other..the higher valued bit string is the winning hand, without the usual "does card 1 = card 2, yes its a pair, check for trips" and so on. I thought it was an elegant solution to the problem, with a certain beauty to it, but I wouldnt call it art.

I also think there is a fine line between technical reproduction and art (in this case music). Someone might have incredible technique and be able to accurately play a piece from the written music, but it may be so devoid of the nuances of feeling that the composer intended that it doesnt become an artful performance.

I happened to disagree with a friends opinion that Keith Emerson was not an "Artist" (musician). Despite his prodgious technical ability, my friend didnt hear any "music" in what he played, he just heard notes strung together in the order and timing that the composer intended. While I disagreed with him, I understand his point and why for him it didnt reach the standard of art.