Wandering Hermit@wanderinghermit@mindly.social
@sodiboo@gaysex.cloud
I think that each project exists somewhere along a spectrum of art to purely utilitarian. The example I think of is designing and building a bridge. I've seen bridges that are so beautiful that I stop and stare. That bridge could also have been an ugly featureless slab of concrete. The difference is in the engineer's skills, inclination, budget, and client appreciation.
I don't think it is a meaningful question to ask if engineering is or isn't art. Like drawing or painting implements, the sculptors chisel, and many other such tools, engineering is a set of tools one can use to create art. Or not.
sodiboo :pride_heart:@sodiboo@gaysex.cloud
@wanderinghermit@mindly.social
a spectrum of art to purely utilitarianI would like to correct this terminology as a spectrum of "purely expressive" to "purely utilitarian". this feels perhaps unfair, because I will soon proceed to criticize the terminology that you didn't use.
I really like this spectrum, and it is a nice way to think about creation. but in the classification of "engineering" and "art", I think having one end of the spectrum being "expressive" has a clear problem, because engineering can be very expressive indeed. but art is also clearly expressive; that's like, the whole point, and that's why you even labeled this end of the spectrum as "art".
still, it's clear that engineering tends more utilitarian than most art. so engineering is clearly not at the expressive extreme, but the expressive extreme is surely art.
but something like "a concrete slab to cross a gap" is also hardly engineering. like, I guess it is? in the same way drawing a stickman is art. but it's not really what comes to mind.
I think it becomes quite intuitive that engineering should be everything that tends to the utilitarian side of creation, and art is everything that tends to the expressive side of creation.
but if "engineering" and "art" are the opposite sides of that spectrum, then it feels like they are opposites. that's not quite right, though, because engineering is inherently expressive, as kira explains well. it also seems clear to me by now (after reading some other replies) that there's a lot of overlap between engineering and art. not just in the skillsets as I described above, but in individual applications of those skills. if they're opposites, that sounds like it implies no overlap.
I think it feels more correct, therefore, to say that engineering is more like the middle of this spectrum. because, usually, when we think of "engineering projects", they are utilitarian at their core: there's a purpose. to build a house, for instance. but there's still a lot of expressive parts that go into that. even in just the architecture. it's also clearly art, though that's not necessarily the main "point" of the work.
so I think it seems more correct that art tends to be more expressive, and engineering tends to be expressive and utilitarian. engineering is the center of the spectrum, not an extreme.
what's purely utilitarian, then? i guess these are just Tasks. chores, even. if I'm assembling IKEA furniture, I just need a working table, I'm not creating art. I'm also not an engineer. I'm still "creating" a table, but it's in the most utilitarian consumerist way, it's a means to an end. it's a chore to build this table. it's a chore to screw in the legs.
