While these are relevant issues, I had something far more mundane in
mind, actions that do not touch philosophy, but do touch criminal law.
Programming machines is ultimately a mechanical process, like digging a
hole with a shovel. You can toss the dirt anywhere around, or into one
specific
> On 22-Feb-2018, at 9:04 PM, Brian Holmes wrote:
>
> My sense is that practices responsive to place, and the educational resources
> that come out of such practices, only stand a chance of being incorporated
> into the mainstream *after* the predictable
On 02/22/2018 02:06 AM, Prem Chandavarkar wrote:
I feel we need a redefinition of practice: one that transcends both creative
personality and business organisation, to explore the practice as a place.
This is a great short essay. Definitely many artists have taken the
place-based approach
> On 21-Feb-2018, at 11:26 PM, Morlock Elloi wrote:
>
>> Going back to the traditional architecture and structural engineering
>> business, there is no way that the building code could be successfully
>> enforced without licensing and prosecuting individual
>>
From the enumerated professions, those who affect society at large on
the long time scale - architects and educators - are actually licensed
by the state, and subject to license revocation (if, say, architect
includes abattoir in the apartment building entrance hall, etc.)
Structural
Interesting read.
I'm sympathetic to the driving narrative, and love to point fingers as
much as the next person, but doesn't this article generalize and
speculate way too much about a) what engineering is; which I would
counter-argue is a creative practice full of fuzzy thresholds, complex
Perhaps it's the extreme concentration of the industry that leaves most
people unexposed to, let's call them core engineers. While everyone is
aware of the tremendous impact of the technology, very few understand
who the people producing it are. When some technology comes along, it's
named