Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!emory!gatech!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!kambic
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (George X. Kambic, Allen-Bradley Inc.)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Art vs. Engineering
Message-ID: <4599.283169c4@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 15 May 91 22:03:00 GMT
References: <25170@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> <1312@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>
Distribution: usa
Lines: 17

In article <1312@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>, chrisp@regenmeister.EBay.Sun.COM (Chris Prael) writes:
> From article <25170@as0c.sei.cmu.edu>, by rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito):
> 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.
?  Equivalencing engineering to art does not work except from the point of view
of manipulating the local environment.  Is it a consequence of good engineering
practices that the result generally looks pleasing to the eye?  Or does an item
with good engineering become pleasing to the eye and mind after understanding
how well it satisfies form, fit, and function.  Is an F-4 good art?  Don't
think many people would classify it that way, but is it good engineering?
Do believe so, and once you begin to appreciate that fact, it becomes mentally
and visually pleasing.

GXKambic
standard disclaimers