Do you consider war as an art form?

Sun Tzu might agree with you. I don't think he considered war itself as art, but the way it was executed could be artistically done.

I might consider it a craft, but "art" is far deeper and broader than is "war".

If one is inclined to that kind of imaginative flights of poesy, virtually anything created by humans can be considered an art form. If war, then why not creative genocide? Going to the bathroom in an unusual and creative manner could be considered an art form. Isn't sexual intercourse an art form? It can be, I think.

Point is, after a while the word "art" loses all useful meaning.

I think the "art" of war is similar to the "art" of raising crops or the "art" of paving a road. In these contexts the word "art" doesn't mean that something artistic is produced. It merely means that the tasks of the work are carried out to perfection.

If you are forced to go to war in the first place, mastering the "art of war" can save the lives of your men and limit the casualties on both sides. A general who has ingenuity, boldness and creativity that none of his opponents can match or overcome may be considered a master in the art of war, but he could hardly be called an artist.

If Art is beauty and beauty is perfection, then Art simply means that things are extraordinarily well done, whatever they are...any other pseudo definition for me is decoration over the essential...Art is just Equilibrium !

...you're so wrong...it doesn't need to be "creative" it just needs to be perfectly efficient...unless of course by creative one goes exactly in that direction (also efficient doesn't equate to linear nor Spartan)...that's French talk...I really hope to keep my art working well while sitting on the toilet for the next 40 years...

If it weren't creative, I would have to consider it more craft than art. Bricks are pretty much laid as they were centuries ago. Some are better at it than others, but that only qualifies them as good craftsmen.

You see...bricks are bricks but is whatever you do with them that matters...and it better have a purpose...tired of that "Frenchy" existential talk of Art without a purpose...purpose is beauty !
...the thing about being creative is that it is to vague, it can have 2 directions, either to build, or to destroy...Destruction can be beautiful indeed but only if it has a purpose, although I rather leave that in the hands of Nature and not in the hands of man...we better stick with simpler Art...

Had a long, detailed post which i lost when one of my games crashed. Some of it is saved in a notepad file. Like Ah-nold, "Ah'll be bahck."

Art seems to become more ambiguous in the sense then, yet it is so hard to limit the concept.

But I've always wondered, in paintings, and movies, war is depicted as art, but taken directly in its own medium, it is not.

I suppose it is due to its sinister nature, since the infantry men has to endure the result, whether a comfortable person sitting in the comforts of his country, like me, thinks it is aesthetic or not.
My ambiguous "criteria" for war was an expression that engages the observer, and draws them in, and I thought I understood war as a face of humanity, the primal monster within humanity being expressed.
I saw it as a way for future civilization to look back and see the effects and the emotions that partook with the carnage, and possibly learn.

I imagine that is why the average interviewee can not consider war as art, in its direct format of death, blood shed, and the epitaph of frailty that is part of being human.

"Epitaph of frailty?" Is this paragraph supposed to mean something? Who are the "interviewees?"

Yes, nature always beat man at creative destruction, that is synonymous with the cycle of life and death.

Our destruction it seems will get into a cycle of death and death, with our current military technology and inventions, such as the nuke.

By "interviewees" I meant just people in the forum answering the question. Sorry for the confusion.
"Is this paragraph -sentence-(sic) supposed to mean something? "
Well, I meant epitaph in the sense of the ongoing history of human beings. War is one, disease is another.

Well you're a snotty son of a bitch.



It was a separate paragraph, which was your formattting choice. I had intended to make a detailed response to this tripe, but i don't think you're worth that much effort. Leaving aside your delusions of linguistic competence, i don't care for your ******* attitude.

Oh maybe it was a paragraph, sorry, I don't consider myself in no way linguistically competent or professional. I'm no English major. By mistake I thought that the only criteria for paragraphs was that it had to be at least three sentences.

What I meant was "I don't consider myself in no way" a competent judge of competence in English.
I'll be mature and admit, it was ignorance in my part.

But Setanta, what did you originally plan to say regarding the topic?

You mean: "I don't consider myself in ANY way" [to be] a c ompetent..."

If you must rub it in, yes, I guess.