Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!latcs1!jane
From: jane@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Jane Philcox)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Art vs. Engineering
Message-ID: <1991May15.072522.12219@latcs2.lat.oz.au>
Date: 15 May 91 07:25:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: latcs2.1991May15.072522.12219
References: <1991May6.165902.2116@ssd.kodak.com> <36650010@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Lines: 51

In article <36650010@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> daves@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Dave Straker) writes:
>> The thing that originally attracted my attention is the title of this
>> thread:  Art vs. Engineering.  It is, simply, wrong.  Engineering IS
>> art.  Good engineering is good art and bad engineering is bad art.
>> There is, and can be, no versus to the relationship between art and
>> engineering.
>> 
>> Chris Prael
>
>This is probably a matter of interpretation. I would define Art as
>being based in 'feelings' and Science as been based in 'rules'.
>If there is a key word I would use for Engineering, it would be
>'pragmatic'. Do what works. This would tend to push it towards
>the Science end of the spectrum, although there are still elements
>where 'feeling' is appropriate - such as in the design of a user interface.

What you're talking about, Dave, is the feelings of the person who is doing
the engineering.  IMHO, the feelings of the observers are more important in
distinguishing what is art.  I think that both artists and engineers feel
similarly when they are practising their respective crafts. In art, too,  there 
are techniques, some of which work and some of which don't (Try thinning oil 
paint with water!  Or writing a sonnet with 17 lines.  The results may be 
interesting, but far from what you intended.), some of which can be taught to 
anyone, and some of which definitely can't.  There are also known techniques, 
which can usually be taught, for the design of art objects.  So, if you can 
talk about software design as "engineering", then in that sense art is 
engineering.  But the result generally depends on a combination of talent _and_ 
technique, and when both are of a high order, the feeling induced in the 
observer is "This is beautiful."  But a fine car, a bridge, an aeroplane, and
other products of engineering, can all be beautiful too.  So in that sense 
engineering is art.  And not all engineers can produce equally beautiful 
results.  The results also depend on talent.

>Perhaps where confusion is caused is when feelings are based in
>rules, for example where an engineer does what 'feels right', and
>is right - it feels right because he has internalised the rules to
>the point where he does not or even cannot describe them.

Artists do this too, both in design and execution of their work.  In fact,
many people don't realize that for almost any art form there are techniques
(rules, if you like) that have to be learned, and that the "self-taught" or
"natural" artist has usually spent a number of years acquiring these techniques
on a cut-and-try basis.  So that when s/he does what "feels right", s/he has
a solid background of technique (the rules are internalised) to base the 
work on.

Regards, Jane.
-- 
      --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Six lawyers up to their necks in sand is defined as not enough sand.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------