headers
Andrey Fedorov | 1 May 2010 04:35
Picon
Gravatar

Systems and artifacts

I've noticed the word "artifact" used in a similar sense as "system", with no overly obvious distinction [1]. One that comes to mind is an "artifact" being something we're considering in relation to its human origins, and "system" being something we are considering in terms of finding an optimal representation. For example, we could consider TCP/IP an artifact if we're talking about its design, or a system if we're talking about studying its inherent properties [2].


Or is this off?

Cheers,
Andrey

1. The former, mostly in Brooks' "The Design of Design". The latter, mostly in writings relating to VPRI's work.
2. Kay makes a similar distinction between "invention/engineering" and "research/science" here: http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318 
<div>
<p>I've noticed the word "artifact" used in a similar sense as "system", with no overly obvious distinction [1]. One that comes to mind is an "artifact" being something we're considering in relation to its human origins, and "system" being something we are considering in terms of finding an optimal representation. For example, we could consider TCP/IP an artifact if we're talking about its design, or a system if we're talking about studying its inherent properties [2].</p>
<div>

<br>
</div>
<div>Or is this off?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Andrey<br><div><br></div>
<div>1. The former, mostly in Brooks' "The Design of Design". The latter, mostly in writings relating to VPRI's work.</div>

<div>2. Kay makes a similar distinction between "invention/engineering" and "research/science" here:&nbsp;<a href="http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318">http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318</a>
</div>

</div>
</div>
Permalink | Reply | 15 comments |
headers
Alan Kay | 1 May 2010 05:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: Systems and artifacts

It used to be more clear. The main meaning of "artifact" is still "something made by a human being" (I think it originated in Anthropology), but other meanings have crept in as the word has become more of a metaphor.

I'm using the term with its original intent. So "system" would be a much larger word, dealing with ways of viewing all phenomena.

I've used "artifact" a lot to point out (as Herb Simon did before me) that one way of thinking about science is: as trying to understand phenomena by making models that give rise to similar phenomena, regardless of whether the phenomena is produced by nature or human artif acts (man made objects).

Cheers,

Alan

From: Andrey Fedorov <anfedorov-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Fri, April 30, 2010 7:35:14 PM
Subject: [fonc] Systems and artifacts

I've noticed the word "artifact" used in a similar sense as "system", with no overly obvious distinction [1]. One that comes to mind is an "artifact" being something we're considering in relation to its human origins, and "system" being something we are considering in terms of finding an optimal representation. For example, we could consider TCP/IP an artifact if we're talking about its design, or a system if we're talking about studying its inherent properties [2].

Or is this off?

Cheers,
Andrey

1. The former, mostly in Brooks' "The Design of Design". The latter, mostly in writings relating to VPRI's work.
2. Kay makes a similar distinction between "invention/engineering" and "research/science" here: http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318

<div>
<div>
<div>It used to be more clear. The main meaning of "artifact" is still "something made by a human being" (I think it originated in Anthropology), but other meanings have crept in as the word has become more of a metaphor. <br><br>I'm using the term with its original intent. So "system" would be a much larger word, dealing with ways of viewing all phenomena. <br><br>I've used "artifact" a lot to point out (as Herb Simon did before me) that one way of thinking about science is: as trying to understand phenomena by making models that give rise to similar phenomena, regardless of whether the phenomena is produced by nature or human artif
 acts (man made objects).<br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Alan<br>
</div>
<div>
<br><div>
<span>From:</span> Andrey Fedorov &lt;anfedorov@...&gt;<br><span>To:</span> Fundamentals of New Computing &lt;fonc@...&gt;<br><span>Sent:</span> Fri, April 30, 2010 7:35:14 PM<br><span>Subject:</span> [fonc] Systems and artifacts<br><br>
I've noticed the word "artifact" used in a similar sense as "system", with no overly obvious distinction [1]. One that comes to mind is an "artifact" being something we're considering in relation to its human origins, and "system" being something we are considering in terms of finding an optimal representation. For example, we could consider TCP/IP an artifact if we're talking about its design, or a system if we're talking about studying its inherent properties [2].<div>

<br>
</div>
<div>Or is this off?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Andrey<br><div><br></div>
<div>1. The former, mostly in Brooks' "The Design of Design". The latter, mostly in writings relating to VPRI's work.</div>

<div><span>2. Kay makes a similar distinction between "invention/engineering" and "research/science" here:&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318">http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318</a></span></div>

</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
frank | 1 May 2010 10:49
Favicon

Re: Systems and artifacts


> It used to be more clear. The main meaning of "artifact" is still
> "something made by a human being" (I think it originated in Anthropology),
> [...]
> the phenomena is produced by nature or human artifacts (man made objects).

Um. As we're talking foreign words already, may I point out that "phenomena"
is the _plural_ form of the word "phenomenon"?

Humbly, Frank
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Alan Kay | 1 May 2010 14:05
Picon
Favicon

Re: Systems and artifacts

Hi Frank,

This is iffy in American English usage (similarly as with "the data is ...." or "the data are ...."). In the UK (or ancient Rome) you would be quite correct. But the US has both treatments of Latin plurals. (I'll admit to leaning towards your choice most of the time ...)

Cheers,

Alan

From: frank <frank-bSCg49nysXFo/h5kIIvEwA@public.gmane.org>
To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 1:49:22 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Systems and artifacts


> It used to be more clear. The main meaning of "artifact" is still
> "something made by a human being" (I think it originated in Anthropology),
> [...]
> the phenomena is produced by nature or human artifacts (man made objects).

Um. As we're talking foreign words already, may I point out that "phenomena"
is the _plural_ form of the word "phenomenon"?

Humbly, Frank

_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

<div>
<div>
<div>Hi Frank,<br><br>This is iffy in American English usage (similarly as with "the data is ...." or "the data are ...."). In the UK (or ancient Rome) you would be quite correct. But the US has both treatments of Latin plurals. (I'll admit to leaning towards your choice most of the time ...)<br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Alan<br>
</div>
<div>
<br><div>
<span>From:</span> frank &lt;frank@...&gt;<br><span>To:</span> Fundamentals of New Computing &lt;fonc@...&gt;<br><span>Sent:</span> Sat, May 1, 2010 1:49:22
 AM<br><span>Subject:</span> Re: [fonc] Systems and artifacts<br><br><br>&gt; It used to be more clear. The main meaning of "artifact" is still<br>&gt; "something made by a human being" (I think it originated in Anthropology),<br>&gt; [...]<br>&gt; the phenomena is produced by nature or human artifacts (man made objects).<br><br>Um. As we're talking foreign words already, may I point out that "phenomena"<br>is the _plural_ form of the word "phenomenon"?<br><br>Humbly, Frank<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>fonc mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:fonc@..." href="mailto:fonc@...">fonc@...</a><br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a></span><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alejandro F. Reimondo | 1 May 2010 15:44

Re: Systems and artifacts

Artifact reveal the intention of the creator, it is something
 "designed" to modify the world.
System is the result of sensing the world, it is the result of an
 information process (a model).
imo the main diff here is intention/declaration vs. sensing;
 both important roles of the virtuous experience cycle.
Artifacts are constrained by the point of view (state) of the
 creator/designer; while systems are open in the sense that
 can vary contents preserving identity through time.
cheers,
Ale.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:35 PM
Subject: [fonc] Systems and artifacts

I've noticed the word "artifact" used in a similar sense as "system", with no overly obvious distinction [1]. One that comes to mind is an "artifact" being something we're considering in relation to its human origins, and "system" being something we are considering in terms of finding an optimal representation. For example, we could consider TCP/IP an artifact if we're talking about its design, or a system if we're talking about studying its inherent properties [2].

Or is this off?

Cheers,
Andrey

1. The former, mostly in Brooks' "The Design of Design". The latter, mostly in writings relating to VPRI's work.
2. Kay makes a similar distinction between "invention/engineering" and "research/science" here: http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318

_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
<div>
<div>Artifact reveal the intention of the creator, it is 
something</div>
<div>&nbsp;"designed"&nbsp;to modify the world.</div>
<div>System is the result of sensing the world, it is 
the result of an</div>
<div>&nbsp;information&nbsp;process (a model).</div>
<div>imo the main diff here is intention/declaration vs. 
sensing;</div>
<div>&nbsp;both important roles of the 
virtuous&nbsp;experience cycle.</div>
<div>Artifacts are constrained&nbsp;by the point of view 
(state) of the</div>
<div>&nbsp;creator/designer;&nbsp;while systems are open in the sense that</div>
<div>&nbsp;can vary contents preserving&nbsp;identity through time.</div>
<div>cheers,</div>
<div>Ale.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<blockquote>
  <div>----- Original Message ----- </div>
  <div>From: 
  <a title="anfedorov@..." href="mailto:anfedorov@...">Andrey 
  Fedorov</a> </div>
  <div>To: <a title="fonc@..." href="mailto:fonc@...">Fundamentals of New Computing</a> </div>
  <div>Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:35 
  PM</div>
  <div>Subject: [fonc] Systems and 
  artifacts</div>
  <div><br></div>I've noticed the word "artifact" used in a similar sense as 
  "system", with no overly obvious distinction [1]. One that comes to mind is an 
  "artifact" being something we're considering in relation to its human origins, 
  and "system" being something we are considering in terms of finding an optimal 
  representation. For example, we could consider TCP/IP an artifact if we're 
  talking about its design, or a system if we're talking about studying its 
  inherent properties [2].
  <div><br></div>
  <div>Or is this off?</div>
  <div><br></div>
  <div>Cheers,</div>
  <div>Andrey<br><div><br></div>
  <div>1. The former, mostly in Brooks' "The Design of Design". The latter, 
  mostly in writings relating to VPRI's work.</div>
  <div>2. Kay makes a similar distinction between "invention/engineering" and 
  "research/science" here:&nbsp;<a href="http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318">http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318</a>
</div>
</div>
  <p>
  </p>
<p></p>_______________________________________________<br>fonc mailing 
  list<br>fonc@...<br>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Casey Ransberger | 1 May 2010 21:34
Picon

Re: Systems and artifacts

Interesting. I think of a system as something that's alive, whereas an artifact sounds like something one digs up from the dirt, which was left behind by some system, like a piece of pottery, or (in the context of computing) a Smalltalk image file.


Am I far off?

--
Casey Ransberger
<div>
<p>Interesting. I think of a system as something that's alive, whereas an artifact sounds like something one digs up from the dirt, which was left behind by some system, like a piece of pottery, or (in the context of computing) a Smalltalk image file.</p>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>Am I far off?<br><br>-- <br>Casey Ransberger<br>
</div>
</div>
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Reinhard F. Handl | 1 May 2010 21:59

Re: Systems and artifacts

that's (ancient) greek to me.
cheers ;-)


Alan Kay schrieb:
Hi Frank,

This is iffy in American English usage (similarly as with "the data is ...." or "the data are ...."). In the UK (or ancient Rome) you would be quite correct. But the US has both treatments of Latin plurals. (I'll admit to leaning towards your choice most of the time ...)

Cheers,

Alan

From: frank <frank-bSCg49nysXFo/h5kIIvEwA@public.gmane.org>
To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 1:49:22 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Systems and artifacts


> It used to be more clear. The main meaning of "artifact" is still
> "something made by a human being" (I think it originated in Anthropology),
> [...]
> the phenomena is produced by nature or human artifacts (man made objects).

Um. As we're talking foreign words already, may I point out that "phenomena"
is the _plural_ form of the word "phenomenon"?

Humbly, Frank

_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc


-- Reinhard F. Handl http://reinhardhandl.wordpress.com/ 
<div>
that's (ancient) greek to me.<br>
cheers ;-)<br><br><br>
Alan Kay schrieb:
<blockquote cite="mid:366689.62247.qm@..." type="cite">
  <div>
  <div>Hi Frank,<br><br>
This is iffy in American English usage (similarly as with "the data is
...." or "the data are ...."). In the UK (or ancient Rome) you would be
quite correct. But the US has both treatments of Latin plurals. (I'll
admit to leaning towards your choice most of the time ...)<br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
Alan<br>
</div>
  <div>
<br><div>
  <span>From:</span>
frank <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:frank@...">&lt;frank@...&gt;</a><br><span>To:</span> Fundamentals of
New Computing <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:fonc@...">&lt;fonc@...&gt;</a><br><span>Sent:</span> Sat, May 1, 2010
1:49:22 AM<br><span>Subject:</span> Re: [fonc]
Systems and artifacts<br><br><br>
&gt; It used to be more clear. The main meaning of "artifact" is still<br>
&gt; "something made by a human being" (I think it originated in
Anthropology),<br>
&gt; [...]<br>
&gt; the phenomena is produced by nature or human artifacts (man made
objects).<br><br>
Um. As we're talking foreign words already, may I point out that
"phenomena"<br>
is the _plural_ form of the word "phenomenon"?<br><br>
Humbly, Frank<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
fonc mailing list<br><a moz-do-not-send="true" ymailto="mailto:fonc@..." href="mailto:fonc@...">fonc@...</a><br><span><a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank" href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a></span><br>
</div>
  </div>
  </div>
  <br>

_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:fonc@...">fonc@...</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a>

</blockquote>
<br><br>-- 
Reinhard F. Handl

<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://reinhardhandl.wordpress.com/">http://reinhardhandl.wordpress.com/</a>
</div>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gerry J | 2 May 2010 02:51
Picon
Favicon

Re: Systems and artifacts

At Andrey's reference (2),there was an example that TCP/IP could be modelled in less than a hundred LOC, whereas a C code version might be more than an order of magnitude larger.
Is that model available?

Regards, Gerry Jensen 02 9713 6004

Alan Kay wrote:
It used to be more clear. The main meaning of "artifact" is still "something made by a human being" (I think it originated in Anthropology), but other meanings have crept in as the word has become more of a metaphor.

I'm using the term with its original intent. So "system" would be a much larger word, dealing with ways of viewing all phenomena.

I've used "artifact" a lot to point out (as Herb Simon did before me) that one way of thinking about science is: as trying to understand phenomena by making models that give rise to similar phenomena, regardless of whether the phenomena is produced by nature or human artifacts (man made objects).

Cheers,

Alan

From: Andrey Fedorov <anfedorov-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Fri, April 30, 2010 7:35:14 PM
Subject: [fonc] Systems and artifacts

I've noticed the word "artifact" used in a similar sense as "system", with no overly obvious distinction [1]. One that comes to mind is an "artifact" being something we're considering in relation to its human origins, and "system" being something we are considering in terms of finding an optimal representation. For example, we could consider TCP/IP an artifact if we're talking about its design, or a system if we're talking about studying its inherent properties [2].

Or is this off?

Cheers,
Andrey

1. The former, mostly in Brooks' "The Design of Design". The latter, mostly in writings relating to VPRI's work.
2. Kay makes a similar distinction between "invention/engineering" and "research/science" here: http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318

_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc 
<div>
At Andrey's reference (2),there was an example that TCP/IP could be
modelled in less than a hundred LOC, whereas a C code version might be
more than an order of magnitude larger.<br>
Is that model available?<br><br>Regards,
Gerry Jensen
02 9713 6004

<br><br>
Alan Kay wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:158512.15656.qm@..." type="cite">
  <div>
  <div>It used to be more clear. The main meaning of "artifact" is
still "something made by a human being" (I think it originated in
Anthropology), but other meanings have crept in as the word has become
more of a metaphor. <br><br>
I'm using the term with its original intent. So "system" would be a
much larger word, dealing with ways of viewing all phenomena. <br><br>
I've used "artifact" a lot to point out (as Herb Simon did before me)
that one way of thinking about science is: as trying to understand
phenomena by making models that give rise to similar phenomena,
regardless of whether the phenomena is produced by nature or human
artifacts (man made objects).<br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
Alan<br>
</div>
  <div>
<br><div>
  <span>From:</span>
Andrey Fedorov <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anfedorov@...">&lt;anfedorov@...&gt;</a><br><span>To:</span> Fundamentals of
New Computing <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:fonc@...">&lt;fonc@...&gt;</a><br><span>Sent:</span> Fri, April 30,
2010 7:35:14 PM<br><span>Subject:</span> [fonc]
Systems and artifacts<br><br>
I've noticed the word "artifact" used in a similar sense as "system",
with no overly obvious distinction [1]. One that comes to mind is an
"artifact" being something we're considering in relation to its human
origins, and "system" being something we are considering in terms of
finding an optimal representation. For example, we could consider
TCP/IP an artifact if we're talking about its design, or a system if
we're talking about studying its inherent properties [2].
  <div><br></div>
  <div>Or is this off?</div>
  <div><br></div>
  <div>Cheers,</div>
  <div>Andrey<br><div><br></div>
  <div>1. The former, mostly in Brooks' "The Design of Design". The
latter, mostly in writings relating to VPRI's work.</div>
  <div><span>2. Kay makes a similar distinction between
"invention/engineering" and "research/science" here:&nbsp;<a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank" href="http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318">http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/alan-kay-on-hoping-that-simple-is-not-too-simple/#comment-2318</a></span></div>
  </div>
  </div>
  </div>
  </div>
  <br>

_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:fonc@...">fonc@...</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a>

</blockquote>
</div>
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Andrey Fedorov | 2 May 2010 05:25
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Systems and artifacts

On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Gerry J <gerald_j-m/5qDMzAQIgQrrorzV6ljw@public.gmane.org> wrote:

At Andrey's reference (2),there was an example that TCP/IP could be modelled in less than a hundred LOC, whereas a C code version might be more than an order of magnitude larger. Is that model available?

Jeff Moser did a good write-up of the project Alan is referring to here:


But keep in mind that this might be slightly outdated.

Cheers,
Andrey
<div>
<p>On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Gerry J&nbsp;<span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:gerald_j@..." target="_blank">gerald_j@...</a>&gt;</span>&nbsp;wrote:<br></p>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">

<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">At Andrey's reference (2),there was an example that TCP/IP could be modelled in less than a hundred LOC, whereas a C code version might be more than an order of magnitude larger.&nbsp;Is that model available?</div>

</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Jeff Moser did a good write-up of the project Alan is referring to here:<div><br></div>
<blockquote>
<div><a href="http://www.moserware.com/2008/04/towards-moores-law-software-part-3-of-3.html" target="_blank">http://www.moserware.com/2008/04/towards-moores-law-software-part-3-of-3.html</a></div>

</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>But keep in mind that this might be slightly outdated.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Andrey</div>
</div>
</div>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Leo Richard Comerford | 2 May 2010 21:03
Picon

Re: Systems and artifacts

At the first mention of a bikeshed the quibbler rises from the long grass.

The 1933 Supplement of OED1 has the following:

> *Artefac.* = next.
1906 CHAMBERLIN & SALISBURY /Geol./ III. 502 Following European
precedents, the earlier students classed the rougher artefacs as
paleolithic... The better-fashioned artefacs were classed as neolithic
1911 Encycl. Brit. XXI. 836/1 The difficulty of employing /artefacs/
of stone as chronological indicators.

*Artefact* (ā·ɹt/ĭ/fækt), sb. and a. Also *arti-* [f. L. /arte/, abl.
of /ars/ art + /factum/, neut. pa. ppl. of /facere/ to make. (Cf. Sp.,
Pg. /artefacto/, It. /artefatto/, adj. and sb. )] *A.* sb. Anything
made by human art and workmanship ; an artificial product. In
/Archaeol./ applied to the rude products of aboriginal art as
distinguished from natural remains.
1821 COLERIDGE in /Blackw. Mag./ X 256 The conception of all these, as
realised in one and the same artéfact, may be fairly entitled, the
Ideal of an Ink-stand. /a/ 1834 - Lit. Rem. (1838) III. 347 A lump of
sugar of lead lies among other artefacts on the shelf of a collector.
1890 D. G. BRINTON /Races & Peoples/ ii. 75 /note/, This is shown ..
by the presence of artefacts and shells from the Pacific in old graves
on the Atlantic coast. 1922 /Class. Quarterly/ XVI. 24 The shadows
appear to be real till their originals are exposed as the paltry
artefacts they are. 1925 /Times Lit. Suppl/ 13 Aug. 529/1 The
distribution of artifacts. 1927 G. MURRAY /Class. Tradition/ 243
Poetry..is an 'artifact'.—I mean, it is a thing made.
 *B* /adj./ Made by human art and workmanship. /rare/.
1909 J. A. STEWART /Plato's Doctr. Ideas/ The rêverie-image of an
object natural or artifact.

[...]

> *Artifact* : see * ARTEFACT.

while the original OED1 entry is:

> *Artifact* (ā·ɹtifækt). /rare/. Also *arte-* [f. L. /arti-/ art + /factus/, pa. pple. of /facĕre/
to make.] A thing made by art, an artificial product.
/a/ 1834 COLERIDGE /Lit. Rem./ III. 347. A lump of sugar of lead lies
among other artefacts on the shelf of a collector. 1884 G. S. HALL
/Diestemey's Teaching Hist./ 8 School artifacts, mistaken for
perplexities inherent in the subject itself.

'Art', 'artifice', 'artificer', and 'artificial' all have much earlier
first examples, and none are marked as rare in the original listing.
Probably archaeology was responsible for making 'artifact' common in
English. However the Hall example seems to show that the more
metaphorical (and derogatory) use of the word in, for example,
'compression artifacts' has precedents going back to 1884.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane