I stand corrected.
At first, car manufacturers were relying on local dealers to reach consumers, as 100 years ago, there were not much alternatives.
100 years ago wasn't the alternative a horse?
Not to say the horse wasn't an alternative (it still is, really), but the modern automobile dates from ca 1886. Mass production started as early as 1902. The first truly affordable model (Ford Model T) didn't come out until 1927, but since we're talking about Teslas, we're not really comparing to "affordable" cars. Yeah, I know, the economics behind an electric vehicle are a bit different, but it's still a fairly huge expenditure.
Thus to answer your question: Yes, 100 years back sounds about right.
"The problem, Koster says, is that the Science Café venue was not the right format for a complicated and controversial topic, because events are only an hour long and the Café only has small screens."
And yet, later in the article:
"The Science Café has addressed climate change in its Café programs as well. “This is by no means a new issue,” Koster says."
So, which is it?
Yes, I too have RTFA, and I know they explain things in there.
The problem is that it's the headlines that get republished and read everywhere, thus reiterating the fallacy that Interpol makes arrests.
Except, of course, the headline states: "Interpol Arrests 25 Suspected Anonymous Hackers"
I know that headlines need to be short, to the point etc, but they could have rephrased it with "Interpol has 25 Suspected Anonymous Hackers Arrested", and it would be accurate.
You want a car analogy? Here, Samknows and mlab have already made one for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnIVMfBP4So
Samknows is one of the partners in this project.
Alternative attack vector: In a constituency wherein a majority statistically favors your opposition, just use a pen or whatever, to damage the "void if broken" seals. Presto; you've now cast doubt on the integrity of the votes in that ballot.
Well, sure, if you want. I don't really see any problem with you calling those examples art, but then you have to be prepared to have their artistic value judged as such. There are many ways to judge artistic value, and I'm sure I'm not qualified to give any sort of universal view, but here's my take on it:
Originality counts for quite a lot, and your first two examples, which I guess we could call performance art and/or shock art, pretty clearly fall through here. The installation "lab mice on roof" (or whatever title you want to use) on the other hand, is something a bit more special.
Secondly, most art starts with an artist wanting to communicate something; that which we would call the artists message and intent. Your first two examples carry the incredibly unoriginal message "fuck you" or "I'm a rebel", which isn't really anything new or interesting. But again, there's "lab mice on roof", which certainly has more impact, although it's hard to judge what the actual message you were trying to convey there was. Especially without seeing the installation itself. It's always interesting (but not always necessary) to hear the artists own reflections on message and intent, so please chime in.
The drawback is that people tend to assign value to art, relative to what the artist has been known to produce earlier, which means that your rooftop installation would be judged with that in mind, and probably not come out with a lot of praise.
TL;DR: Yeah, you could call yourself an artist, but your art examples are mostly crap.
Wikipedia got it wrong: art should stimulate (and not even necessarily positively) the senses and thereby (hopefully) evoke an emotional or intellectual response.
But that's just it. You are discussing it here, does that not prove that it has evoked an intellectual response from you?
I know the definition I quoted is incredibly wide; it's basically a catch-all, but it's the best definition I've found for a concept as vague as art.
I agree with that, but coming up with a definition of art which fulfills both criteria, has proven to be beyond difficult. Especially considering that art is also about breaking the rules.
When you study art, you learn what the rules to making art are. You then learn about how and when to break these rules and expectations, in order to effect different responses. The truly great artists of our history have been pioneers in both expression and symbolism.
A definition that is narrow enough to only cover what we today call art, will not be wide enough to cover the truly creative products of tomorrow.
In a word, yes. It can certainly be viewed and interpreted as art.
As can almost anything, which makes the whole definition of art incredibly difficult
In case this wasn't what you were alluding to, here's Artist's shit.
So something can be entirely subjective, and at the same time hold some universal truth? That's quite impressive.
But as for your main point, here's the definition of the concept of art, as quoted from Wikipedia:
"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."
I'd say; a coherent political statement that says something by means of symbolism, can easily be viewed as art.
The fact that people are getting quite heated in a discussion about this, I think lends credit to that viewpoint.
It's been 15 years, and still most people (including most Christians) have not picked up on the fact that the Catholic church concluded this long ago.
In a papal statement on the subject of evolution, dated Oct. 22nd 1996, pope John Paul II stated that "truth cannot contradict truth", and therefore the Genesis story of the Bible needed to be interpreted metaphorically, not literally.
For those who are interested, the message is available here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm
How is it that Christian people (Catholics in particular; the pope is supposed to be your earthly representative for God) just seem to "forget" this ever happened?