From: Natasha V. More(f/k/a/Nancie Clark) (flexeon@primenet.com)
Date: Sun Oct 27 1996 - 11:37:44 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
http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon
Transhumanist Art Web site
* * * * * * * * * *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:48 MST