Wouldn't go as far to call it a modern wonder. Guess it's artistic, and I like the idea a lot better than some other types of art.

"Why would anyone build a Clock inside a mountain with the hope that it will ring for 10,000 years? Part of the answer: just so people will ask this question"

Hehe, seems like that's a standard answer when it comes to some art projects. Same statement was given a while back to justify paying over 100k for a 'peanut butter floor'
http://www.cloggiecentral.com/2011/03/art-or-not-peanut-butter-floor/

I'm with RB. I think it's pretty freaking awesome, but more in an art way than a modern wonder way (though it is superb design).

When you say "just art" it makes me wonder if you understand the enormous amount of engineering required to build this. If well maintained, a pocket watch will last a couple hundred years. That's orders of magnitude shorter than this proposal. Also, the way they're planning on powering and syncing the clock is amazing.

Abge, nobody said "just art." Those words are yours.
I do agree the engineering is _superb_. As good as most that you will see. However, I think the engineering is more superb in many things that we think of less. Lasers, microchips, cars, airplanes. Engineers in our times are dang good at what they do. This is a marvel no doubt, and hence, by definition, yes, a modern marvel, but it is the artistic aspect that sets this apart as incredible imho.

I like that stair cutting tool, Gotta make one of those for my basement :D

I don't know, its a pretty frickin unique thing to be just art. I think you guys are mistaking functionality and size with art. Some aspects - sapphire copula - are artistic, but most are not. I mean, the amount of engineering to go into the musical melodies it creates? Insanity. How do you even make something that comes up with its own tunes, and never repeats them, without the use of electricity.

On top of it all is the longevity of it. Everything is built so it will never rust, so it will last if humans never disturb it. Hell, there could be a nuclear apocalypse and so long as the sun still shines and there isn't structural damage this thing will keep going. Absolutely amazing. By bets are that it would last more than 10,000 years. The gears are made of stone and ceramics, and everything ancient that has been made of stone seems to be doing just fine now (again, so long as humans don't fuck with it)

Something isn't art if it's unique, goldfinger? What the heck? That's just what makes it art. And I'm not referring to the design, I'm referring to the whole idea. A clock, ticking off by itself in a mountain, where people have to go, interact with it, and then contemplate the passing of time, the human race, and permanence.

How artistic can you get?

"to be JUST art."

Fair, PE, but read the next sentence.

And "most [aspects] are not [artistic]."

Yes, semck, I didn't mean to say it wasn't art, but the purpose of this isn't to be artistic. It is to create a huge monument to stand the breadth of time and leave people in awe. The pyramids are artistic, but their much of what people perceive to be art was more functional than artistic. Such is with the clock

I just don't agree, goldfinger. You say

"It is to create a huge monument to stand the breadth of time and leave people in awe."

That's exactly why it IS art. What do you think art is?

Most of them are not artistic. The titanium pendulum, the shaft for light, the quartz enclosure, giant gears, giant face, etc. Much of this is meant to humble people, similar to a pilgrimage. The scale makes it a monument, the materials give it longevity, and the arrangement of it all is functional. People did not go on pilgrimages for art

They are doing it, in short, mostly to communicate an idea and create an experience, not to create something functional that will tell time so we can know what time it is.

Goldfinger, I think that is a horribly deficient view of art. Something is not artistic because it is crafted to be aesthetically pleasing instead of functional. Yes, the components are engineered using physics, not just with aesthetics in mind.
But the WHOLE IDEA is art. You even say it's a monument. A monument IS ART.

Art is self expression, a message sent through another medium or a representation of nature through the artist's perception.

This is meant to be a monument to withstand the tests of time, something people will be reverent to and stand in awe of their ancestors.

Yes. So it's sending a message of awe through the medium of a clock.

So, like all monuments, it is art.

A monument can be artistic, and often uses artistic means....but most are not meant to be viewed as artistic. I again point to the pyramids Egypt, or even stonehenge. Monuments such as these are functional and that is their primary purpose.

I'm not saying that there isn't an artistic element to the clock, just that it's primary function is not to be a piece of art

That first line was supposed to read "a message of self expression sent through another medium or a representation of nature through the artist's perception"

Again, functional things can be art. Wallpaper, for example, was a popular form of art in the 19th century. However, its purpose came first. It was meant to cover a wall.

Well, I don't think we're going to agree. As I said, I think you have a seriously and sadly deficient view of art, but I am not going to change your mind.
Specifically, it is incredibly sad that you think there is a gulf between function and art so that something functional is therefore not art.
Moreover, as I pointed out, function is NOT the main point. We have much better ways of keeping time. They are creating something functional precisely as a work of art.
Anyway, though. Interesting discussion. Feel free to respond -- I'm not trying to grab the last word when I say we're not going to agree.

I think I might not have clearly expressed myself. Just because something is functional doesn't mean its not artistic, but I'm saying functionality has the primary purpose in it all. So what we're really arguing over is what is the main point of the clock, or in particular, is a monument primarily functional or primarily art

OK...
Well, I will agree that _each piece_, as you point out, is primarily functional. But I disagree with your approach of breaking it into pieces (the shaft, the enclosure, etc., etc.) They are ultimately all a whole, a clock in a mountain that will last for 10,000 years (and, note, play music -- MUCH of the design is devoted to the music, which is an undeniably aesthetic experience).
The point is, the WHOLE THING is set up for an aesthetic experience and to encourage certain ideas. To see that it's not designed mainly to be "functional" as a clock, just imagine how absurd that conversation would be.
"Hey, we need a better timepiece. Atomic clocks are great, and so are watches, but they keep wearing out. Let's build a big clock in a mountain in Texas so we'll never have to buy another clock again!"
No. It's NOT being designed because we want something to keep time. It's being designed to keep time so that it will communicate ideas and create an aesthetic experience -- intimately tied, yes, to time, just like some of Dali's paintings of clocks (which were not functional at all, of course).
And that is just what art is. How you can say this clock is primarily designed to be functional, I just don't see. It's no more true than saying the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is mainly there to keep out the rain.

Right, the Sistine Chapel is a piece of art. It depicts a historical - or thought to be - event. I'm forgetting the 5 classifications of art, but I think its portraiture, historical, landscape, still life, and something else....or at least just for painting (need to remember that for my art history final).

But I wouldn't define functionality in this case as being a clock. I would view this object's function much as I would view the Oracle at Delphi's function, or Stonehenge's function. Its a spiritual place and a place for reflection and reverence, in my opinion.

But I agree the music is almost purely aesthetic

But the Sistine Chapel had exactly the same purpose, GF. Even the depiction you refer to (of a historical event) was to create an overall sense of religious awe toward God. So how is that different from the Pyramids? I continue to say you're using an incredibly narrow definition of art. You can't just write down types of art, and if something isn't one of them, that's not art. Heck, by your list, literature and music wouldn't be art, nor would anything by Salvador Dali.

@semck

I wasn't intentionally misquoting anyone, but I was thrown off by this being compared to painting a floor with peanutbutter. I suppose that could be considered "art", but I think this is something more.

I'm not sure it's worth arguing about the definition of art, that entire line of argument seems bound to fail; however I would like to ask your stance on the modern Wonder:

This clock is huge, will (read: should) stand the test of time, is being made as a symbol for something greater than humanity, and is an engineering feat. How is that any different from the Pyramid at Giza?

I agree that engineers produce amazing things on a daily basis, but those things are all purely functional. This is an engineering tour-de-force, but also a symbol (I guess you could say a mixture of engineering and art), which is why I think it's different.

Abge, Well, I guess I'll agree that it's an engineering marvel. But you ask how it's different from the pyramid at Giza. That pyramid was comletely out of line with what they should have been able to do back then, or even what we could do now. It is truly unbelievable that it exists.
This clock, while staggeringly impressive, is utilizing well-understood physics, math, and technology. That people have actually designed and are doing it is incredible, but if you gave the design constraints to the senior engineering class at MIT in any year, any one of them could doubtless pull it off without a hitch.
In that sense it seems less of a marvel to me. But perhaps I misunderstood the original question, and "Modern marvel" didn't carry the purely technological implications that I read into it. In that case, of course, I agree. You point out, after all, that it is the fact that this is a symbol that sets it apart. I think that that might just be different language for what I've been saying, so perhaps only our definitions (art, marvel) differ.
One final word on peanut butter -- I agree that some art is truly absurd. Implicit in all my arguments was the suggestion that this was _excellent_ art.

Some of the sites we consider monumental today were not particularly exceptional when they were created, but have taken on greater significance simply because they're really old and this impresses us.

So if the Long Now Clock isn't a wonder now, give it a few years and no one will dispute that it is.

its the art of waisting time and money
no body needs it
but its an interesting idea