You have to be an artist to be a designer. I trained in design, but have no artistic flair so I ultimately failed. Look are Zardoz! He's an artist! Admittedly I haven't seen any of your work, but I doubt it's just black text on white backgrounds.

s174 is due care, skill and dillgence.

I really can't remember, to be honest. I've a feeling I should know, though.

Rubbish. Rubbish rubbish rubbish.

I've seen it done before.
Company was running out of cash - director/shareholder kept taking dividends out. When the company went bust, creditors went after him personally under s174 (or 85 equivalent) and he lost his house. Liquidators can look back at actions over a two year period prior to insolvency iirc.

Pah, I'm not an artist in the slightest, but I know the function of colours, shapes, lines, contrast etc. to balance them into something that guides the eyes to the important bits. That's all psychology and function riding on the back of form; making things look pretty doesn't factor into my work at all, but the end product is often beautiful.

Give me a blank canvas without a specific problem to solve and I'm fucked. That's not art.

Rubbish. Rubbish rubbish rubbish.

I'd say artists and designers work with the same tools (a sense of aesthetic, really), but to different ends, and with different mindsets.

Give me a blank canvas without a specific problem to solve and I'm fucked. That's not art.

Interetsing. Would it have been enforceable by third parties but for the insovlency, though? I really need to refresh my memory on this stuff.

Interetsing. Would it have been enforceable by third parties but for the insovlency, though? I really need to refresh my memory on this stuff.

Don't sell yourself short. People with no creative flair look upon any creative type and see art. Whether that's in an oil painting, sculpture, electrical diagram, OS map or coffee mug.

Creditors can force administration outside of insolvency, so the company could have assets but just not be paying its bills due to cashflow, so say a big fucking loan to the director. But yes, in reality there needs to be a 'problem' for action.

Saying that though, the number of times people put in winding up petitions just to be cunts rather than solve a problem is phenomenal, and the hassle factor of that is huge.

That suggests that a computer could be an artist.

Don't sell yourself short. People with no creative flair look upon any creative type and see art. Whether that's in an oil painting, sculpture, electrical diagram, OS map or coffee mug. If you make a living from creative practice, you're a lucky guy.

*looks at pathetic doodles on diary*

*cries*

Ah ha - it's because the liquidator steps into the shoes of the shareholders, or something, and is enforcing the company's rights under 174 against the director.

Indeed, but the directors' duties under the CA are (if I've just read something on PLC correctly) only enforceable by or on behalf of the company against the director. So it's part and parcel of the risks attendant on going insovlent, which include the "knowingly trading whilst insovlent" one.

That suggests that a computer could be an artist.

You're not wrong.

Which is why I continued the conversation - there is no way I would encourage your window cleaner to incorporate without proper, ongoing advice, and suddenly the £3k tax saving doesn't look so pretty.

I suggest that some computer generated art is beautiful. Art can come from fractals after all and that's just maths

There was something on Today a few months back about a computer that is composing music...

That's tricky to define - isn't anyone with any skill an artist?

Didn't someone once say that maths is the purest form of art?

Didn't someone once say that maths is the purest form of art?

Didn't someone once say that maths is the purest form of art?

Now your're getting it. Art is everywhere!

See, I disagree with that entirely. You can get maths wrong, but you can't get a painting wrong. It can be bad, but not wrong.

If maths and art are separate disciplines, I'd invite you to explain which one M C Escher was.

That's what I said: viewtopic.php?p=483913#p483913

Isn't art just getting people to believe bullshit about something shit?

Isn't art just getting people to believe bullshit about something shit?

. That's why most modern art is utter shit.

If maths and art are separate disciplines, I'd invite you to explain which one M C Escher was.

See, I disagree with that entirely. You can get maths wrong, but you can't get a painting wrong. It can be bad, but not wrong.

Well, maybe. But you'd have those same risks on insolvency severalfold if you were trading in your own name - the creditors are much more able to come after your house if you're a sole trader than a liquidator or administrator bringing a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

Wrong perspective. The argument is along these lines: if art is the communication of complex concepts via abstractions that only work because of the links between the abstractions and the concepts that exist in people's minds, then the equation of gravitation is itself art.

1 mistake and it's a mistake.
2 and you're a bad musician.
3 it's jazz.

1 mistake and it's a mistake.
2 and you're a bad musician.
3 it's jazz.

But the equation would still be correct, whether we wanted it to be or not.

I dunno, look at Gimp.

Another real life example

Guy was a builder. Bloke down the pub told him that incorporating would save him shit loads in tax and he didn't really need an advisor because its easy. Builder enquires what 'Limited Liability' is and is told by his mate that if things go tits up, he only loses the company.

Builder duly incorporates himself, remembering the limited liability part. So at this point, he decides that the company doesn't need public liability insurance and as he is working for the company, he is protected too, so he cancels the policy that he held in his own name. Scaffold falls down...

We don't know whether maths is discovered or invented. Once you get beyond trivial stuff like Pythagoras and pi, it's a matter of perspective whether calculus, say, is an artefact of the universe or an artefact of how we look at the universe. And now we're in Plato's Cave super-metaphor world.

We don't know whether maths is discovered or invented. Once you get beyond trivial stuff like Pythagoras and pi, it's a matter of perspective whether calculus, say, is an artefact of the universe or an artefact of how we look at the universe. And now we're in Plato's Cave super-metaphor world.

Really?

I'm pretty sure that we aren't going to define what art is and is not here in this thread given that such a thing has long defied people far cleverer than any of us plebs on here. So my own definition of art is unsatisfactory and always subject to change but it's never going to include maths, or engineering, or fractals even if some other person's might. I still view them all as creative endeavours but not as art, no way.

So my own definition of art is unsatisfactory and always subject to change but it's never going to include maths, or engineering, or fractals even if some other person's might. I still view them all as creative endeavours but not as art, no way.