4 ms·
It is interesting and important that we refer to these masks as "artwork." Many of these older designs also have "signatures" etched into the silicon. I claim
by etep 11y ago
It is interesting and important that we refer to these masks as "artwork." Many of these older designs also have "signatures" etched into the silicon.
I claim that this notion extends to code, as well, and rightly into many other engineering and scientific projects (I suspect the pure math community might agree, i.e. by my reading of how they view their own discipline).
As an informal definition of art, I offer creativity within some bounds, i.e. the rules of the medium. Often, the tighter the bounds, the higher we elevate the end result (e.g. the most praised sonnet, or work of classical music). Here the bounds are pretty constrained: bug free, implements the ISA, manufacturable, and competitive and profitable.
As with many here, I am frustrated with my work when it is reduced to "turning the crank," but I suspect many writers (e.g. your Reuter's journalist) feel the same; and of course, we could introduce other examples from other disciplines. If working on a ground breaking project, then I can focus on that and derive some satisfaction from my contribution to that end.
Finally, my point: I submit these masks as evidence of the artificial dichotomy between the liberal arts and engineering disciplines. There should be more acknowledgement of the art produced on both sides of this divide, and more crossing the aisle (so-to-speak) from the thought leaders in this debate. Of course we need to train our next generation to work with these machines, and of course we should not kick the traditional liberal arts out of the curriculum. Sheesh. But I really would like some push back that claims our ground, i.e. technical achievement of this kind as art.
- bcohen5055 11y agoI've always disagreed with the statement that elegant engineering is art. The purpose of art is to convey a statement or emotion while engineering is to deliver the best possible solution within a pile of constraints. Scientific and engineering findings should not be seen as anything more than the outcomes of a puzzle. Although 2 engineers may arrive at slightly different results it is easy to score them and select the correct path. In art this is not possible as both artists are conveying their message, not presenting a solution.
- etep 11y agoYou are focusing on the emotive aspect of traditional art and I am focusing on the creative aspect of what is traditionally considered merely technical. I am pushing back on the merely, but I doubt you'll agree in the end. If I had to guess, you don't like the Poignant Guide to Ruby: http://poignant.guide http://poignant.guide Why is there such enthusiasm for this? If it were only about solving puzzles with clinical detachment, I doubt the guide would have gained its following. Perhaps this book is a work of art meant to convey a fascination with a purely technical subject -- but why is this so successful, when the traditional routes toward the same, namely a degree in CS taught by like minded faculty, fail in some scenarios. In my view, the reductive stance that there is no art in these disciplines, is holding us back (i.e. diminishing our culture, and hindering recruitment). Your point about purpose is well taken, and I get that. I disagree about how easy it is to score the results, and there is some inherent inconsistency when you can simultaneously refer to elegant engineering and objectively measurable best possible solution, i.e. in the latter, elegance is not a criteria, i.e. unless you make it one, it which case the contradiction is self evident. But again, this isn't going to persuade you, however, if you want to refine your position, perhaps you omit the reference to elegance :) Thank you, btw, for your comment.
- lostInTheWoods3 11y ago"The purpose of art is to ...." Um, no, Art can have any purpose its creator bestows, including none at all.