[goodlinks]

Art is about constraints. Engineering is about constraints. I am saddened somewhat but the seperation of art and science, it seems like a misunderstanding.

Being good at something is effectively being able to creatively deal with constraints and get good results. Trying to say science / engineering is different because the success function doesnt involve as much human opinion doesnt seem right.

[Hoasi]

> I am saddened somewhat but the separation of art and science, it seems like a misunderstanding.

I agree with this sentiment. Art and sciences used to be united. Both stem from the same place: the quest for answers and knowledge.

[killtimeatwork]

Everything that touches real world is about constrains - cooking, rising a child, paying off mortgage, doing a thousand pushups etc. So, the juxtaposition of art and engineering on this axis is not helpful.

The big distinction between art and engineering is that art is supposed to speak to us and move us in an subjective way, while engineering aims to create products which are objectively good solutions for a well-defined problems.

[goodlinks]

I suppose what i am getting at is two things:

Objectively good imho is as much a fallicy in the space of science and engineering as it is in art.

It takes the same artistic/creative skill to be a good engineer as it does an artist.

This is maybe a pedantic perspective, but i find it relevant.

Edit: objectively good for engineering is subjective expanation: you need requirements to define objectively good. I.e. sub optimal metrics to represent an entities value model. If you say hey, but engineers are structured/meticulous once they have the requirments.. i would say so are artists.