Yup. That is the notion. But it's based on a dichotomy:
Art ("over here")------------------Technology Engineering Science("over
there")
^
<societal fulcrum>
...when another way to look at it is:
Art Technology Engineering History Science
--------------------------------- --------------------
What we can effect change through What we already know
(or think we can) (or think we do)
All of this is value-based All of this is value-free
(or should be) (or is said to be)
(with a dotted line connecting Engineering, Science *and* Art.)
Now, if art is just for entertainment (some crap on a wall with a frame
around it), it's hard to appreciate the second model. If one gets handed a
lot of crap by poseurs who only pretend to understand AND lie to one
another about art, it's little wonder that the dichotomy that puts
technology opposite art occurs: technology *works*.
But technology is ART that works. :) Science isn't art, it's just what's so.
The act of _doing_ science may be creative, but the dry facts distilled are
not.
( IMHO :) )
MMB
"The highest love [is] uniquely human,
the product of compassion and liberty;
not one at the expense of the other."
-- L. A. Chu and M. M. Butler
(RU a bot? If not, be advised *s are flagged as 'net address ERRORS;
MY address is thus munged. Kindly hyphenate. "Go team, beat SP*M.")