[amelius]

I mean, if you put a Mac or MacOS in a museum next to Picasso, that would make many people cry.

When people think of a Mac as "art", we call that an occupational hazard.

So if you call a Mac art, you might as well call any computer art.

[WillAdams]

I can remember the 16-page _Newsweek_ ad quite vividly --- the Mac was something special, and even its spiritual successor, the NeXT Cube did not reach the level of artistic flair which the Mac hit as a quick perusal of:

https://www.folklore.org

would argue.

Moreover, it made the cut at at least one museum:

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/3742?artist_id=10295

(and there are 24 other items by Apple in that collection)

and yes, they have a Picasso as well:

https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/5530

[bigyabai]

Anything can make the cut at MOMA. The gigantic disaster of OLPC is enshrined as "art" there too: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/155757

[razorbeamz]

If you think that a Mac or an OLPC is not art, you have a very narrow definition of art.

[amelius]

Then the Franklin machine is also art.

[razorbeamz]

It is.

[WillAdams]

It was an interesting design, well-suited to the target audience and presents quite well in person (a co-worker bought two, one donated, the other for his personal use when hiking).

[bigyabai]

By those qualifications we could very well nominate a Franklin machine for exhibit.

[WillAdams]

The OLPC had innovative features developed by the designers --- what innovative features which were not copied did the Franklin have?

To turn things back to where we started, can you find one article which criticizes MOMA for including an Apple Macintosh along with its Picasso?

[bigyabai]

For what it's worth, I consider none of the aforementioned three devices to contain any artistic value whatsoever. The Apple II is an excellent computer, but entirely unjustifiable as an art exhibit.

I stand by my original statement that anything can make it's way into MOMA regardless of whether or not it's art.