> > For the engineer, the aesthetic of fulfilling those certain functions is
> > very secondary to the fulfillment of the functions themselves, so much so
> > that the aesthetic is often totally submerged.
>
> IAN: That is a logical distinction. We can say that the esthetic pleasure
> and the utility of given activities may be distributed across a fuzzy scale:
>
> U A/E E
> 100-0 50/50 0-100
> |-----------------|-----------------|
> Utility Esthetic pleasure
> ...
Yes indeed, it's all a matter of degree. The aesthetic is practically
never discarded completely, after all. Even in those few situations
where the aesthetic finds no place in the physical end-product of
engineering, the engineer can still take pleasure from the aesthetic
of work well done.
There is a continuum, as Ian indicates. However, it's incorrect to
make utility and aesthetic pleasure the endpoints of the scale,
because it is completely normal for aesthetic pleasure and utility to
increase together rather than one increase while the other decreases.
These two figures of merit are functionally connected only in the state
space of the products that the engineer creates, and do not belong on
the same dimension, so they should appear on different axes.
Rich.
-- ########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available # galacta # Email : rich@galacta.demon.co.uk 158.152.156.137 # ->demon # Web : http://www.galacta.demon.co.uk 194.222.245.150 # ->ampr # AMPR : rich@g7exm[.uk].ampr.org 44.131.164.1 BBS:GB7MSW # ->NTS # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, kernel, O-O, C++, SoftEng, Nano ########### More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London