On New Year's Day, a poster asked How, when and where did the phrase 'state of the art' originate? Unfortunately, those words were the entirety of both the question header and the question body—and the question was (not inappropriately) closed for lack of research effort. As far as I can tell, the poster never supplied any evidence of additional research into the question.

Before it was closed, the question drew two useful answers suggesting fairly late first-occurrence dates for "state of the art" as a phrase equivalent to "status of the art" (late 19th century), "state of the art" as a phrase equivalent to "stage of development of a practical or technological subject," and "state-of-the-art" as an adjective phrase (1955). All of these datings are attributed to OED.

A quick Google Books check, however, turned up an instance of "state of the art" in the sense of "status of the art" from 1776—a century before the reported OED suggestion of late 19th century. I have altered the OP's question to note that occurrence, and I think it would be interesting to see what other early occurrences for each sense of the phrase may be findable. But first the question needs to be reopened. It's a classic case of a potentially interesting question disabled by the poster's lack of effort. Please consider reopening this question.

  • 2
    Thanks to everyone who revisited the question and considered reopening it. (It's now open again.) – Sven Yargs Jun 27 '15 at 22:37
  • Closed again!!! Close mania hits again!!! – user66974 Jun 28 '15 at 15:58
  • 4
    @Josh61: The question that this one is said to be a duplicate of asks "My question is, are they ['state of the art' and 'technology'] equal in meaning? Can we use them interchangeably? Is 'state-of-the-art' a literal translation of 'technology'?" rather than " How, when and where did the phrase 'state of the art' originate?" So that question asks about the equivalence (or not) in meaning and usage between 'state of the art' and 'technology' whereas this one asks about the historical emergence of 'state of the art' in its various senses. There really isn't much overlap at all. ... – Sven Yargs Jun 28 '15 at 16:45
  • ...Still, during the brief time that this question was reopened, I had a chance to research the question and add a long answer to it, so I'm still glad it was reopened. I also added a redirect comment to the question that this one supposedly duplicates, so perhaps this question (and answers) won't be completely ignored in future. In any case, life goes on. – Sven Yargs Jun 28 '15 at 16:53
  • @Josh61 the OP himself confirmed and closed the question as a duplicate. – Mari-Lou A Jun 29 '15 at 16:10
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA - I agree with Sven regarding the "possibile duplicate" issue. As for OP,...what could a new user say after having seen their own question closed twice? – user66974 Jun 29 '15 at 16:19
  • @Josh61 He closed it himself the second time, he even thanked me for the link. Evidently, he found the answers on that question helpful.Moreover, there is nothing to stop either of you from adding a more complete answer in that post. – Mari-Lou A Jun 29 '15 at 18:34
  • 4
    It seems to me that the simplest and fairest way to judge whether a question is a duplicate of another question, when the later question has drawn answers of its own, is to examine whether those answers (assuming that they legitimately address the later question) would constitute acceptable answers to the earlier one. I feel very strongly that my answer to the now-closed question is entirely on point as an answer to that question, but that it scarcely addresses the focus of the earlier question at all. Hence my conclusion that there is little overlap between the two questions. – Sven Yargs Jun 29 '15 at 21:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .