On the largely computer professional forum that is the Internet, I have encounted many anti-artistic attitudes. As someone who's been both a computer professional and an artist, I know for a fact that one does not need to have an anti-artistic attitude in order to be an adequate engineer. In 1920s, technology and art coexisted side by side. There were Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and Nikolai Tesla; there were also Louis Armstrong, Scott Fitzgerald and Edna St. Vincent-Millay. In 1920s America became the undisputed leader of the world. It did so by tapping into genius both artistic and engineering. In recent times the attitudes were less favorable. In 1960s there was respect for the arts, but also lots of anti-capitalist agitation. In 1980s and 1990s there was a technological boom but no value for the arts. Both were half-right. It is right to affirm both arts and technology and wrong to attack either. So I seek to bring back the attitudes of 1920s on this matter. Once again, there is value for both arts and technology. Not only do both constitute a contribution to the civilization, but they can also work together. 1920s produced beautiful architecture such as the Chrysler Building and magnificent machinery such as the Packard. In both cases there was art and engineering involved. Can artists and engineers get along? If they can co-exist in the same pursuit, then there is no reason why they would not be able to work with one another. The problem is the belief held by many in engineering that art is impractical, even narcissistic. In fact there is nothing at all impractical about the arts. Arts find practical implications in many things, such as once again architecture and machinery as well as interior decoration. As for narcissism, that is ridiculous. The artists that I have known were more, not less, compassionate than the average person, and I've also seen in them much greater humility that we see in people who think that only their pursuit – engineering – matters and that everyone else is a fool, a lunatic or a bum. So I advocate better relations between artists and engineers. Both contribute, and in the best cases both contribute together. Let artists and engineers work together to produce beautiful architecture and machinery. And save some time for poetry, good music and classical painting at that.
I think it should be remembered that there were some artists which were great engineer, two of the most well known engineer-artist could be Samuel Morse and Leonardo Da Vinci. It's maybe not true for nowodays art, but traditionnal art required great rigour, aswell engineering.
Engineering is planning ahead. Art is making it up as you go along. God is not an artist; He is an engineer.
Art is not necessarily making it up as you go along. It took Michelangelo a lot of planning to paint the Sistine Chapel.
First of all really good engineering is artistic and can be creative. Second since my first career was as a Chemical Engineer and my second was as an artist the answer to me,at least, is obvious. And I might add my art work required significant engineering in developing tools and techniques. Also I don't think that the disparagment of the arts by some in the engineering profession is in any way unique to the attitudes toward art and artists in parts of the less educated public.
To the extent that he planned it, he engineered it. Most of the most amazing man-made things are a combination of art and engineering.
