Ever since the death of Steve Jobs, I see more and more articles on how he changed the world, what a great artist he was, and lately I've read this RIDICULOUS comparison between Jobs and Da Vinci claiming that Jobs is "the modern Da Vinci"...

Is that so?

I don't mind the Jobs festival really. The iPhone generation is free to admire and praise the guy all day long. Build as many statues as you like. But at least know that art isn't measured through functions and aesthetics alone, but mostly through ideas.

Of course, there's artistic vision through all his creations. The "clean simplicity" of Apple, the friendly-looking devices. Jobs was more of a fashion designer than an artist or inventor. He was a brilliant businessman who knew how to approach the buyers -- be it by classy Apple commercials or the simple jeans he used to wear.

With minimalism as governing rule, with iTunes as sole option, closed-circle computers, and overall secrecy...creativity is but an illusion.

But toys will be toys, and iPhone is one hell of a toy. A toy for all ages. Is it also a phone? who cares? is it a piece of art? no, it's a collection of functions packed in fine-lookin box. It does not provoke thoughts, ideas, emotions, like some of Da Vinci's paintings. Perhaps some of the apps could be considered as pieces of art, but the medium, the iPhone itself, is irrelevant in that context.

Years from now, the iPhone will be obsolete. You will put it next to the old B&W TV you still have in the old garage. It cannot be considered an art if it isn't ageless, and we all know it's only a matter of time before all of these super cool products will be replaced.

But you can't replace the Mona Lisa, can't you?

So who are the artists of our generation? Jobs? Zuckerberg?

Tell me it's not a matter of time until I read a new article comparing Zuckerberg to Michelangelo.

When Jobs first passed away, I heard him referred to the Thomas Edison of our time. I thought that kind of fit. His work/inventions did open the door/contribute to an evolving technology.



TIS

Funnily enough I read an article today on brand advertising (http://www.businesszone.co.uk/topic/mark.../38943?ref=ukbf - for anyone who's interested) which infers Steve Jobs's expertise to be in the marketing function.

Simply put, he didn't invent new products, just improved on existing ideas to suit customer need then invested heavily in marketing to make his products premium products, thus increasing the premium on the prices.

To be honest I think the above downplays his input into revolutionising how we use phones, listen to music, surf the net etc. but it's true that it's the marketing that has created Job's legacy. The Apple brand has such a great image and is recognisable anywhere. There are some products that really rival the iPhone but the majority of people will want to own the iPhone because of that strong brand identity.

Getting back to Artists of our Generation, I don't think I could consider Jobs as an artist considering the above. He was a business man, but a bloody good one to be fair. And to be compared to Da Vinci as an artist - no chance. Their similarities are in invention (although how involved Jobs was in inventing I'm unsure). Da Vinci's known as an artist and an inventor (amongst other things) and I consider the two to be quite seperate. Jobs can only ever be classed as the latter.

I'll have to come back to who could be considered as artists of our generation, though music is a good starting point.

Yes indeed, Turi. Let me add an anecdote:

I worked at Bell Laboratories for many years. The early Eighties were the years of "Japan Inc." I asked some of our executives if they thought Japan had outpaced the US in science and technology. Some said that the game was over, and that they were way ahead. Others said Japan simply copied and stole, rather than do real science.

The most thoughtful answer was from our executive VP. He said that Japan had not (to that date) created anything as basic and fundamental to technical advancement as the transistor or laser (both of which were invented at Bell Labs). But, he added, they excelled at bringing state-of-the-art devices and products to market, quickly, with outstanding quality and reasonable cost. "I count that as innovation," he said.

That's how I view Steve Jobs: he was not a fundamental scientist, but he had amazing vision, an innate sense of the marketplace, and enough technical smarts to make it happen.

Vision is really important to innovation and creativity. My favorite examples:

--Henry Ford envisioned the automobile as Everyman's conveyance, not just one-offs for rich people. He pioneered the assembly line, built America's largest factory, fed it from his own iron mines, paid his workers more than others (so they could afford his cars), and put America on wheels.

--David Sarnoff: He envisioned the airwaves as something more than a medium for carrying Morse code. He loved classical music and wanted every American to be able to hear great symphonies and opera even if they couldn't afford then-expensive phonographs and records. Result: RCA Corp., with its own R&D, manufacturing, radio and TV stations, recording studios and labels, artists and repertory--and the NBC Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Arturo Toscanini.

--Walt Disney: He envisioned an entertainment empire out of a cartoon mouse. In the process, he invented techniques that made cartoons into full-length, artistically brilliant movies; and built two completely unprecedented theme parks, with Disney World a showcase for leading edge urban infrastructure.

--Berry Gordy Jr.: He envisioned "Music of Young America" that broke R&R out of its rigid white/black mold into a universally appealing sound rooted in R&B but appealing to all. He arranged traveling cavalcades as showcases for his acts, hired dancing, singing and poise coaches, then created his own movie company.