Re: Engineering / Arts

Elton N. Kaufmann - Cycloid Fathom Group (cycloid@cycloid-fathom.com)
Sat, 08 Nov 1997 11:43:02 -0600

I have been in science and R&D for the better part of 35 years. These
kinds of discussions are always interesting, but I have yet to see one
converge to a "real" consensus on a "truth." After you strip away the
semantics, you're still left with two "spectral" dimensions. In one
direction it stretches from the basic scientific research end (hard stuff
like physics and squishy stuff like biology, but not pseudo-stuff like
astrology and creationism which I put on a different plane) to the very
applied engineering design and implementation end. In the other dimension,
there is a broad spectrum of style that at one end is highly creative in
thinking of solutions and doing designs and at the other end is pure grunt
implementation of the "steam tables," my favorite example of working by
rote. I've seen creative engineering and I've seen grunt physics.
In my experience, friends, colleagues and coworkers (some of whom are also
into the arts in one way or another) are all over this 2D map, and any one
person may find his/her greatest rewards at different coordinates at
different times of there lives and in different pursuits. They all resist
being pigeon-holed.
I don't know where to draw the line between artistic creativity and
creativity in general. Who can tell me if the recent proof of Fermat's
theorem, which was highly creative, was beautiful in an artistic sense or
just beautiful period?
Enough personal philosophy; back to the darkroom.
EltonK


At 11:39 AM 11/8/97 -0500, Peter Eddy wrote:
>I don't think it's the practice of a particular discipline that makes
>you an artist, it's how you practice that discipline. Anyone can paint,
>photograph, even do simple engineering tasks but only the artist creates
>art. Additionally, mastering technical competence in a given area does
>not automatically qualify one as an artist.
>
>>At 09:23 AM 11/8/97 -0700, Richard Sullivan wrote:
>A number of years ago, Daniel Florman (Floreman?) wrote a very influential
>book called "The Existential Pleasures of Engineering." Probably in the
>late 70's, but it is still in print, and is a classic in the field. One of
>his main arguments is that engineering is a highly creative field to work
>in and is much less confining to the creative psyche than the hard
>sciences. Ok, one can argue this point, but the point is that his side is
>rarely heard.

>
>FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> << The flip side is that engineering is art. Any engineers disagree?
>>
>> I completely agree. When I worked as a software engineer, I look at my
>> software design as a piece of beautiful artwork. When I worked as
electrical
>> engineer, I did my design (and at times also PCB layout) as works of
art. It
>> is a joy to have a combination of art and engineering.
>>
>
>
Exhibiting fine-art and editorial photography
Cycloid Fathom Gallery
Elton N. Kaufmann, Chairman
P. O. Box 8129
Downers Grove, Illinois 60517-8129
USA
cycloid@cycloid-fathom.com
http://www.cycloid-fathom.com/gallery/
ftp.cycloid-fathom.com/group/uploads/
Submission information autoresponder: gallery2@answerme.com