Re: Artists and Engineers

Natasha V. More (
Sun, 27 Oct 1996 11:37:44 -0700 (MST)

At 02:52 AM 10/27/96 GMT, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:

>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.

This can be true, but I wouldn't say it is the reason why an engineer would
be an artist if only for aesthetic sake. We were referring to utilizing the
ability to think and imagine.

> Yes, we often search for
>(say) an "elegant" solution, but to a large extent this is just a heuristic
>that we use because seeking elegance has yielded well-performing products
>in the past.

Again, "elegant" is a dressing, but not the thought behind a construction of
idea or product.

>To call engineering "art" just results in confusion; it's
>much more accurate to step back from unifying all of existence under "art"
>and instead merely observe that engineers do employ quite a few techniques
>that are not within the scope of the scientific method,

Only if your intent is to separate art from engineering. I doubt that
artists who produce their work throught their engineering capabilities would
find this separation accurate.

Natasha Vita More
Transhumanist Art Web site
* * * * * * * * * *