I've often thought about engineers as artists whose medium happens to be directly and predictably profitable - and so are tamed by management, corporations and profit structures for the capture and the directing of their creative potential.
There are bountiful comparisons between professionals everywhere on the spectrum from the hardest of sciences through the pliable ones to artists and poets, so I'll spare myself from typing and you from reading a repeated effort.
Thinking of engineers this way has impacted the way that I discuss with other engineers about their ideas for projects and how to solve problems. Like a collaborative art piece, it isn't right to 'correct' other artists contributions because their work is more than just a contribution - it's an expression. When collaborating on a joint art project it's wholey important to share the same 'artistic vision'. I find working with other engineers both the most enjoyable and the most productive when a similar type of shared vision can be reached.
Finally (and this is whimsical) on more than one occasion in thinking of engineers sharing a spectrum with artists I have been led to both imagine a Sotheby's style auction clearinghouse for 'engineering art philanthropists' where pet projects are traded, sold and hung on walls and imaginary corporations that build giant finger paints but relegate each artist to their own cubicle, have middle management stack rank them, and tally updates on the painting progress during daily scrum.
"imagine a Sotheby's style auction clearinghouse for 'engineering art philanthropists' where pet projects are traded, sold and hung on walls"
This portion is basically the better parts of kickstarter. I've funded a movie about the 6502 microprocessor (kindly hurry up Jason Scott) and a CPM based single board computer and what boils down to a PDP-8 SBC and theres plenty of stuff I haven't funded in that category like software defined radio dev boards.
The latter, corporate dystopia part, doesn't sound very appealing to me.
"When collaborating on a joint art project"
Observationally, much like novels, plays, paintings, poems... the product of one excellent mind is invariably better than any team production, both in lit and engineering. Team always falls short of the individual. This is a profound thoughtcrime, hope I don't get in much trouble for it. As for the weasel words, not all projects are necessarily artistic, good enough is often good enough, etc.
In his latest book: The design of design. Brooks says The sale thing that in his experience great design comes from The indindividual por at most two designers.
I would love to be one of these "continuers", but I can't imagine ever being able to retire. I don't have a pension plan; I have a volatile savings fund tied intrinsically to the economy. I may or may not have social security, but $1000 a month is not much to live on in this day and age (it doesn't even cover a quarter of my grandmother's assisted care living costs). I am unlikely to ever be part of a multi-billion dollar buy out, and I don't have an inheritance waiting for me when my parents pass away.
And before the "Mr. Money Mustache" squad comes, no, I am not willing to defer living my life today just so I may be able to live it tomorrow.
I am, on the other hand, lucky to be skilled in a market in which I can continue to work in so long as I have my mental faculties. I guess I'll take that for what it's worth.
Saving 10% of your income is not really the same as "defer living my life". Its more like "stop drinking so many lattes". You can save for retirement without much pain. Just discipline.
> But a middle-class American family with two teachers making $60k each per year, who are currently saving zero and struggling to get by? THEY SHOULD BE SOCKING AWAY $5000 PER MONTH. Word.
I'm personally doing closer to 15% per paycheck, but the realist in me knows that will never be enough to retire on.
After watching the RO-BOW, I was thoroughly impressed by the inventor. But I also got two simultaneous feelings which I don't ever recall having when confronted by some technology:
1. I felt like I saw a glimpse of the future where a computer was built to express human emotion, and it was beautiful.
2. A sense of horror seeing the moving parts playing human written notes, making a mockery of the human experience.
I think it was the final tune, and the music that made the whole video so poignant. So in this sense, this machine is a piece of art.
Have a look at a book published in 1930 by the composer Henry Cowell New Musical Resources. He is imagining a future where composers can realise music directly without performers.
Conlon Nancarrow realised part of Cowell's program by writing piano music note by note with a player roll punch. He was pushing the medium and the resulting compositions are very hard if not impossible for a human pianist to play.
Daphne Oram used a more analogue system of photocells, blank cinema film and black ink to 'draw' music directly - her system specified the amplitude, frequency and harmonic complexity of sounds through time.
RO-BOW is an art work, but it strikes me as sort of like a deliberate use of black and white film in a pin hole camera by a photographer. Quaint, interesting, thought provoking, but quite retro when you can record images in full colour with enormous resolution. This paragraph isn't quite capturing what I'm trying to say so I'll have another think...
I agree, there's nothing 'innovative' with this ingenious machine. For all it's technology it's an anachronism. But what was so unique, for me, was it illustrated the most human of things (a playable violin) with almost a steam punk factory built around it. It would be an interesting piece in a movie :)
Hah, interesting thought. I think they're less disturbing because a player piano is just a piano with moving keys. The site of this violin machine is quite different: a pretty little violin encompassed my crude machine, almost digesting it.
"Nancy K. Schlossberg, 85, a retiree counselor and former University of Maryland psychologist, calls men and women who exploit the skills of their old jobs “continuers.” She calls those who take up something new “adventurers.” Continuers and adventurers make up the vigorous end of Dr. Schlossberg’s retirement spectrum, opposite those she calls “retreaters” who disengage from life and “spectators” who just watch."
I can see myself being a continuer but I have a strategy in place to force/cajole myself into adventuring. My mother was, alas, a retreater despite strenuous efforts from family members. Useful categories for thinking about all of this.
The article hints that people who don't watch TV do stuff, which is self evident. The interesting part about engineers who don't watch TV isn't that they do stuff, which is almost self evident, its that their stuff actually works.
My kids and I both play, its just that my play stuff actually works.
The French word Ingineur means one who is ingenious, whereas the English word engineer means one who works on engines. That tells you all you need to know.
There are bountiful comparisons between professionals everywhere on the spectrum from the hardest of sciences through the pliable ones to artists and poets, so I'll spare myself from typing and you from reading a repeated effort.
Thinking of engineers this way has impacted the way that I discuss with other engineers about their ideas for projects and how to solve problems. Like a collaborative art piece, it isn't right to 'correct' other artists contributions because their work is more than just a contribution - it's an expression. When collaborating on a joint art project it's wholey important to share the same 'artistic vision'. I find working with other engineers both the most enjoyable and the most productive when a similar type of shared vision can be reached.
Finally (and this is whimsical) on more than one occasion in thinking of engineers sharing a spectrum with artists I have been led to both imagine a Sotheby's style auction clearinghouse for 'engineering art philanthropists' where pet projects are traded, sold and hung on walls and imaginary corporations that build giant finger paints but relegate each artist to their own cubicle, have middle management stack rank them, and tally updates on the painting progress during daily scrum.