Well, I've spent most of my career as a research engineer at a national lab using engineering to do science, so maybe that's colored my thinking.
Here. Something I engineered (it's a test machine for a particular type of research).
May 3, 2023
251
-
-
The headlight would have been designed by a car stylist, not an engineer. Car stylists are trained in art schools.
-
Most of it is, just nothing to do with computers. Or maybe it's maths.
-
Excellent shot. Nice button pushing that I do as well 😉
Danny.
-
Depends on where you're looking at them from.
-
That's the best engineers. Engineering has, over time, evolved into a very conservative set of disciplines. You can see why - when you're designing things on which lives depend, innovation is not encouraged. So yes, most engineers work from the textbook and reconfiguring established solutions, because that is how they are trained.
-
But your argument applies just as much to painting. That was the point.
-
I am of the mindset that stylists create the perimeter shape of the headlight, the aesthetic portion of it, and engineers fill that hole with function. I don't see a stylist designing that lens.
-
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then art should be in the eye of the beholder .... IMHO.
Danny.
-
of course photography can be art . . . in the right hands.
-
I don't think defining something as art should be an aesthetic judgement. If it was, most art wouldn't be art.
-
Everyone sees and thinks differently. What one person sees as art, others will see as junk. It doesn't stop it from being art and it doesn't stop it being junk. It's just how I see it that counts personally with what art is to me.
Danny.
-
The lens structure was designed to throw the beams the engineers and product mangers (and lawyers) wanted, not to look pretty.
-
This is not a thread about what art is good art and what art is bad art.
-
What?
-
Captured a guy in mid air about to land in a puddle. What if he had captured that shot a little later, as the foot touched the puddle, as the splash began, or later? Then it's not art?
-
That describes a photographer using a camera to make an image on a glass plate, film or image file.
Music doesn't use technology? Musical instruments, microphones, amplifiers, recording devices, processing and editing apps aren't technology? You've heard of a WAV file, right?
Dance doesn't use technology? The instruments, amplification and sound systems used to create the soundtrack for the dance aren't technology? The lights used to illuminate the dance stage, the lighting grids, modifiers and dimmer boards used to design, focus and manipulate light during a dance performance aren't technology? The custom-designed and manufactured clothes, costumes, and footwear worn by dancers weren't made using technology?
The floors upon which dance is performed, the theatrical venues, the materials used during construction, the tools used in the design of these elements aren't technology?
Literature doesn't use technology? The Gutenberg printing press, manufactured paper, ink pens, typewriters, computers, and word processors aren't technology?
Presumably, you would have no problem with a DaVinci sketch passing your bizarre "technology" threshold. How about a digital stylus and drawing tablet?
In other words, you're the only human allowed to decide what is and isn't art. That's legitimately a God complex.
Yup, definitely a God complex. It's interesting to actually see one personified and active.
-
Interestingly urinals and toilets have been exhibited in museums as objects of found art in major shows.
