Solved by verified expert:I have HW to response to two students for what they write for the HW PART 1 ( as Student#1 ‘IR’, and Student#2 ‘IR’)Your responses should demonstrate that you have thought about the issues and have well-reasoned arguments backed up with evidence. For any materials that you quote directly make sure you use quotation marks and cite the source. Your PRs should engage your classmates in DEBATE (no personal attacks allowed!).I will give you two old examples to see how it work as”Examples old.docx”PLEASE NO COPY FROM WEB OR ANYONE. No Plagiarism
examples_old.docx
student_1__ir_.docx
student_2__ir_.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Student#1
I’ve always been interested in the question at hand, and it seems that you can even see these types of
discussions surfacing in current events, with the discussion of STEM vs STEAM. Ultimately, the opinion of
whether or not engineering and artistry are distinct skillsets depends on one’s personal definitions of the two
professions.
I personally view them as slightly distinct skillsets, however not mutually exclusive. I definitely recognize
there is a creative element to engineering, just like the arts, however I think that the method of acting out the
creativity is in such different realms, and requires such different skillsets that we should allow room for
distinction between them. The biggest skillset separating them being the application of math and science.
I don’t mean that to say that artists do not need to know math and science or as any indictment on artist’s
intellectual levels, it’s just that when they act out their creativity, it comes with a limited amount of science
and math applied. The main math involved (depending on the artist’s project of course) would be something
like geometry.
Now I don’t believe these are mutually exclusive skillsets. You can be a great artist and a great engineer, as we
saw in some of our Renaissance men (Brunelleschi, Da Vinci, etc). And I believe that is because they both fall
under the creative umbrella. If you are inherently creative, with the proper training in math and science, you
could be both a great artist and a great engineer.
An example of this is Filippo Brunelleschi. He has some historic achievements in art and engineering, they
have very distinct real world practicalities, yet they had the common theme of “A creative solution to the
problem”. While there wasn’t necessarily an immediate an apparent problem with the creation of perspective
drawing, it was an extremely creative way to draw, and really changed the fundamentals of art. And his
octagonal dome design of the Santa Maria del Fiore was a creative solution to the problem the state was
having, that the wood to construct a dome would’ve been too expensive.
Looking at the example of Brunelleschi, we can see the distinction between these two trades. One is a
practical application of math and science to construct a structure and the other is more of a theoretical
manipulation of geometry to design aesthetic drawings. And I believe that is the key distinction between
artists and engineering. Both of these are very creative trades and professions, however the way they use
their skillsets can be vastly different.
the responses:
Hello Michael,
Nice work basing your argument on definitions; that’s not something I see enough people do. However, you didn’t
explicitly provide the definitions you’re using. I would recommend doing so if you want to form a more cohesive point.
As is, the reader only knows that you’re using your personal definition, which you hint involves creativity. Semantic
precision is a big help in clarifying one’s position.
Otherwise, great work.
Student#2
During the Renaissance, the great engineers had to be great artists out of necessity. To be able to build and
learn and ponder, they needed to be able to effectively communicate their ideas. It would be nearly
impossible to construct one of the largest domes in the world without being able to draw your plans and
possibly build a model. It would be pointless to make huge discoveries about the human body and how it
works without drawing it for others to see without the need to dissect another body. The engineers wouldn’t
have been able to engineer without being able to be artists. Of course, they could communicate purely
through words, but the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words” is true in many cases, especially with
engineering. In addition to a picture or drawing simply being much more efficient, writing is an art form in
and of itself. Even if the Renaissance men weren’t artists in drawing and sculpture, they’d need to be artists in
writing. It wouldn’t be the same kind of art as a poem, but Leonardo’s sketches of the human body aren’t the
same kind of art as a painting, because they serve a different purpose.
In our current society, engineers don’t particularly need to use art to communicate. Instead of sketching
out an idea in a notebook that could be found by historians, architects usually use some kind of software to
lay everything out, the designs are highly technical, and most people will never need or want to see them. For
the most part, doctors aren’t finding new things about the body, and even if they are, they have x-rays and
other means of seeing what’s inside someone. Autopsies are still around, but that’s mostly for learning about
specific things, such as a police investigation, they’re not doing groundbreaking research by any means.
Electrical, mechanical, software engineers can all record their work digitally. Using art in engineering is best
when making new discoveries, but once it’s well known it’s no longer necessary. I would agree that most
engineering is art in its own way, but most of the world will never see it because it’s either proprietary
information, or they won’t understand it because it’s too technical, or they’ll simply find it boring. As a
software engineer, when I look at a really well written piece of code I can find beauty in its simplicity,
efficiency, or style. I’d imagine it’s the same for an electrical engineer who sees a very efficient wiring layout,
or an architect who finds great blueprints for a building, but everyone outside the field won’t be able to
appreciate it the same way one can appreciate the first mostly anatomically accurate drawing of a person.
While it was useful in the past to be an artist in the traditional sense of the word, today engineers are
mainly artists within their field. I wonder if in the future, historians will see some of our digital creations as
art and ponder it the same way we’re thinking about Leonardo and the other Renaissance men.
the responses:
Great write up! This is a great point. I think one of the keys to answering this question is how do you
define an “artist”? Like you said, “in the traditional sense”, without that qualifier artist becomes an
extremely vague term.
Your last sentence really intrigued me too. I’ve never thought about it from that perspective but I think
you may be onto something. Maybe they will look at us the same way we look back on the Renaissance.
or
You make an extremely valid point. Today we see their engineering feats as an art form. The dome was
beautiful and does evoke some kind of emotions when you see the size and scale of the thing. Perhaps
with all the digital innovations today, the society of the future is going to see our engineering feats as an
art form. I like the idea that engineers are artist in their fields. The one thing about art is that it is not
bound by reality or emotions, whereas I believe engineering is. Engineering typically does not evoke
emotion, but when it does, that is art.
Coming from an engineer’s standpoint, I wouldn’t say that the two skills are very distinct.
In fact, I think they either compliment each other or fall under the same creative
category. Although, yes, they are distinct in that artists work off intuition while engineers work
off cause-and-effect reasoning and data. I feel like we as engineers do see ourselves as artists and
embracing our intuitiveness does give us the potential to be better engineers. Engineers are
creators who use artistic imagination and mathematical creativity to come up with some
scientific output.
Jackson Pollock’s (early 1900s), for example, his paintings are chaotic but if he, like an
engineer, over-analyzed everything, from every paint drop, his paintings wouldn’t be the
imperfect masterpieces they are. Pollock probably wouldn’t have created his unique style of drip
painting if he applied science and math in his art. That doesn’t mean to be an artist, you can’t be
an engineer or to be an engineer, you can’t be an artist.
That’s where you have Leonardo da Vinci, a man who was keen in Renaissance
innovation, who used engineering in his artwork, combining math and science, to come up with
practical paintings and creations. You saw it in his human anatomy drawings, weapon and
machinery creations. Another artist-engineer example is Filippo Brunelleschi, the creator of the
dome of the Santa Maria del Fiore, who used perspective drawing for the dome’s design and
clock creations.
Then, in our time, you had Steve Jobs who, although engineering was important to him,
so was a good design. Therefore, he blended art with engineering to come up with an innovative
yet stylish solution, the iPod. All these men are artists, some more mathematically and
scientifically precise than others but still an artist. Like these artists, an engineer’s creativity
comes from experiences and instinct. You can see art and engineering being incorporated in
technology with graphical user interfaces, web pages and websites. There are front-end
developers who deal with the aesthetics, back-end developers who deal with the functionality,
and full stack developers who deal with both. Examples are also seen in a more physical aspect
with architectural and civil engineering. All creatively imagined yet precisely executed.
Now, there may be a lack of one in the other, like engineers aren’t as artistic in that they
think in terms more logical, but that still doesn’t mean you’re either one or the other. What forms
a distinction between the artist and the engineer is in their execution: The use of math and
science, the use of creative openness, or the combination of it all.
I am not positive on whether I disagree or agree with the notion that artists and
engineers are distinct professions. They were similar during the Renaissance because
they did not have the technology we have today. They had to think of ways to engineer
entities through creation and trial and error. Some of the main characteristics of the
artists/engineers during the Renaissance included visual brainstorming which allowed
Brunelleschi and Da Vinci to model their creations on printing press. There was so
many variables that they had to be able to draw their vision and construct it in a
meaningful and articulate manner. In a way I believe having artistic ability is paramount
to being an engineer because it is all about creation. The use of computer aided design
is being able to create or replicate engineering products that need to meet certain
specifications. To be involved using computer aided design, is having a artistic mind I
believe. During the Renaissance, they did not have this technology.
I find it very fascinating the way Da Vinci was able to dissect humans and capture his
findings in drawings. This may have been the turning point in the way we define health
and how our bodies work. Having his engineering skills and the creativity allowed him to
find the motivation on something worked, the human body. This is why I believe the
artist engineer is similar. Our technology is how we find out information today. We have
algorithms that can detect errors, machines that tell us when a bodily function is not
working properly. Having the creative mind and engineering ability allows us to be more
productive than the past.
Today our culture might define an artist that draws or paints all day and engineer that
builds and constructs. This may be true but having the artistic ability to create is the key
to success. Another difference is population and education. The population during the
Renaissance was not near what it is today. Being able to have more of a population
and more of an education helps with defining professions. We are able to classify
certain jobs to certain individuals without having to rely on one person doing several
different specific jobs.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
