I believe that technical communication could be considered art. I also believe that it may not be considered art. No one really has an absolute definition for technical communication nor art. Depending on the definition, technical communication is most definitely art, while another definition would certainly prove it to not be art. Each article had a different definition of art, and I believe that they are each correct in their decision of whether technical communication could be considered art.
In the first article, “Technical Communication IS Art”, they defined art in two ways. First, they defined art as, “the communication of an idea or experience through one or more media”. The second way they defined art was, “The use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others”. In this definition, technical communication can be considered art as technical communication is all about taking information and creating something that can more easily share the idea. The media through which it is communicated can take the form can be a pamphlet, instruction manual, or even an image. There is skill in coming up with the words and images to be used in the document. There is creativity in picking a font and creating the layout. The whole goal is to create something that can share a message. For these reasons I would consider technical communication to be art by these definitions.
In the second article, “Technical Writing is Not Art”, they say that “The elements that make a discipline an art include individuality, freedom of expression, and intention” and that since technical writing doesn’t fully incorporate some of these, it cannot be considered art. The first thing they listed was individuality. By this, they mean to say that art is supposed to be unique and used as a means of self-expression. However, with technical writing, you are not trying to convey your own ideas or feelings, but rather conveying someone or something else’s. You also try to make everything as easy to access as possible, but that makes it end up looking like what others have done, therefore not being all that unique. The next thing that was talked about was freedom. By this they mean an artist should be able to create anything they want, whenever they want, and through any medium they want. With technical writing though, there is usually a constraint that doesn’t always give them these freedoms, as technical writers are often creating stuff for others in a way that the other wants it to be done. The intention of the creator was the third element they used to consider something art. An artist has the intention of making art. A technical writer will most likely not consider what they make as art, therefore the technical writer’s intention for their product was not for it to be art. Something else they said was that an artist can sign their name to their creations and get recognition for it. “Technical writers [technically] get to sign their name on the table of revisions, which is (usually) never released to the customer” therefore will not get the recognition for their work. By the definition they gave for art, technical writing would not be considered art because it does not fully incorporate every idea that makes something art.
For the reason that both articles used different definitions for art, I cannot say whether technical communication is art or not. Each article had sound reasoning for why it would or would not be considered art based on their definition and I don’t feel I can disagree with their outcome. As it stands, there is not a single answer for what the definition of art is and for that reason I don’t feel as if I can give a solid answer as to whether technical communication should or should not be considered art.
amazing site brought to you by Tanner Collins LLC Inc.