Engineering-Art –
Experiences of an “Innovative Learning Week” Activity
Martin Gillie, David Moore, Nathalie Caron, Tobias Mansfield-Williams
Abstract
Innovative Learning Week, an extra week added to the academic year at the University of
Edinburgh, allowed a novel activity that linked engineering students and arts students to take
place. Groups of engineers and artists were given the opportunity to produce a piece of
engineering-inspired art and to present it at an exhibition at the end of the week. Staff,
students and others found the chance to interact with those from another discipline welcome
and educational in a broad sense. The pedagogic, economic and societal benefits of such
activities are discussed. It is recommended that more interaction between engineering and
arts students would be welcome and beneficial to both groups.
Introduction
In academic year 2011/12 the University of Edinburgh introduced a new week to the
academic calendar known as Innovative Learning Week (ILW). In ILW no normal classes
are scheduled. Instead, staff and students are asked to conceive and undertake novel activities
that are educational in a broad sense but fall outside normal subject- and degree-based
curricula. Taking part in ILW activities is voluntary for students and activities should not be
formally assessed or graded. Although there is some encouragement to develop activities that
cut across traditional discipline boundaries, little further guidance is given on the type of
activities that should be developed. ILW has thus given staff and students time to experiment
with new ideas for learning and to undertake activities that do not fit easily in to a typically
prescriptive and heavily assessed degree programme, such as Engineering. A full discussion
of how ILW has been received within the Civil Engineering discipline at Edinburgh and all
the activities undertaken has been provided elsewhere (Furber et al, 2013); this paper focuses
on one activity that was undertaken in 2013 – Engineering-Art – and discusses the experience
of both students and staff in developing and undertaking it.
Engineering and Art - Separate Disciplines?
Engineering education at university level tends to treat the subject purely as applied science.
Much time is spent on theoretical and mathematical understanding of topics, and then
applying the understanding developed to practical problems. Very little consideration is
given to the aesthetics of what engineers create or how engineering infrastructure interacts
with society or the wider environment. Whilst some limited joint education of architects and
engineers does occur (e.g. Edinburgh, 2013), in the UK there is essentially no other formal
interaction between engineering education and arts education. Similarly, whilst art education
covers a range of advanced manufacturing techniques and deals with novel materials, this is
done largely without consideration of the underpinning science.
This situation is arguably unhealthy as in many cases engineering and artistic output that is
recognised as truly excellent relies on input from both disciplines. Examples include:

many computer products where appealing designs and effective interfaces are needed
in addition to functional electronics;


sculptures such as The Angel of the North which are so large that structural and
material engineering input is required to ensure safety and longevity;
the design many modern consumer electronic products where the look and feel are at
least as important as the technical functions.
Conversely, there are examples where a lack of understanding of a discipline has led to
severe problems. For example, the original design for the roof of Sydney Opera House was
architecturally prize-winning but structurally unbuildable (Jones, 2006).If, as these examples
suggest, successful design benefits from both the technical and the artistic, it makes sense for
engineers and artists to be educated in a way that allows for interaction.
The above examples also suggest economic reasons for encouraging more interaction
between engineers and artists. Currently the UK has a positive trade-balance in many service
industries such as consulting engineering, architecture and computer gaming where the
technical and artistic interact (UK Trade, 2013). To maintain this position graduates from
engineering and arts subjects with some appreciation and understanding of the “other” field
will be valuable for future development of successful designs. It is noteworthy that while arts
and engineering education remain larger separate in the UK, many higher education
institutions in competitor economies are increasingly allowing for such interaction.
With this background in mind, the authors set out to create an activity in ILW 2013 that
encouraged and facilitated interested students at the University of Edinburgh’s School of
Engineering and Edinburgh College of Art, to interact and learn about each other’s
disciplines and ways of thinking.
Context and Planning
The University of Edinburgh is divided in to three Colleges – Humanities and Social Sciences,
Science and Engineering, and Medicine and Veterinary Medicine. This structure is broadly
carried through to its campus locations, with most of Humanities and Social Sciences being
based in a central city centre campus, whilst Science and Engineering subjects are primarily
based on the King’s Buildings Campus, approximately two miles away.
As a result, although arts and engineering students may come in to contact through use of
shared facilities, it can be more challenging for meaningful academic collaborations to take
place, due to a lack of proximity and differing practices and structures. ILW gives an
opportunity to break down this barrier and provides a fast-track to forming new collaborative
relationships. Opportunities for meaningful partnerships between the arts and engineering
were further enhanced, prior to the first ILW in 2012, by the merger of the University of
Edinburgh with Edinburgh College of Art, from August 2011. Two of the stated objectives at
the time of this merger were to create new cross-disciplinary relationships, and to improve
the “flexibility and breadth in undergraduate programmes” (Edinburgh/ECA 2013), and both
of these objectives were realised through this Engineering-Art project.
To take advantage of these opportunities, the initial development of an Engineering-Art
activity was instigated by three of the authors (two from engineering, one from art) meeting
to discuss facilities and possibilities. This meeting was itself educational; it was immediately
apparent that the nature of education in engineering and art is so radically different that some
time would need to be spent establishing what was in principle possible. A key difference
was clear between the relatively un-prescriptive teaching typical in art, with an emphasis on
studio work leading to a portfolio or body of work, and the preponderance of traditional
lecture-based and controlled laboratory work common in engineering.
With this in mind it was decided that the ILW activity should include both introductions to
the two disciplines from academics as well as an opportunity for students to work with each
other. .It was also decided that the activity was best kept fairly small with about ten arts
students and ten engineering students taking part. This would ensure that there would not be
undue pressure on resources and that those who took part had a genuine strong interest in the
activity (there was concern that the activity might attract “tourists”, who would be
superficially interested but not be willing to engage for a full week).An outline timetable was
produced as in Table 1.
Time
Monday morning
Monday afternoon
Tuesday to Thursday
Activity
Introduction to engineering
Introduction to art
Production of a piece of engineeringinspired art
Friday
Exhibition
Table 1: Timetable for ILW Engineering-Art activity.
The introductions to art and engineering held on the Monday of ILW were planned as brief
overviews of what the subjects consist of, what is important and the key approaches to
education. They were scheduled in the relevant Schools to allow students to visit parts of the
University they would likely be unfamiliar with. This approach had previously been adopted
by the authors in their meetings where the activity’s initial concept had been discussed and
planned out, and had proved itself to be particularly fruitful. As each subject area has a
practical element in common, in terms of its studio practice and its laboratory-based work,
the opportunity to investigate these facilities helped the authors to identify areas of difference
and commonality.
The central part of the week was to allow students to produce a piece of engineering-inspired
art. Since there was less pressure on space in Edinburgh College of Art during ILW, it was
decided to locate the activity there. Partly due to this and partly by intention, this would
result in the outcomes of the week being art with engineering input rather than the other way
around. (Currently for ILW 2014, an activity is being planned with the reverse intention.)
Finally, on the Friday an exhibition was planned when the results of the week would be
displayed. This was to be open to anyone within or outside the University who might be
interested in attending.
As ILW activities are purely voluntary, with no real level of compulsion on students to take
part, careful thought has to be put in to the design of each activity, and in to how that activity
might be marketed to make it most appealing. Booking systems are also used for students to
sign-up. This allows organisers to gauge general levels of enthusiasm, to ensure the viability
of each project, and allows students to reserve a place on those activities which are most in
demand. In the School of Engineering, students interested in signing up for Engineering-Art
were advised that:
“you should be willing to challenge your ideas and the ways of working
which you use in your everyday studies. You should be open to new
ideas, to broadening your horizons and appreciating the skills and
experience each member of your team will bring to your project.” (ILW,
2013)
Outcomes
In total five pieces of engineering-art were produced. These were all very different and the
examples shown in Figures 1 to 3 indicate the range of engineering and artistic concepts that
were explored. Figure 1 shows an arch built from an incongruous collection of old but
working televisions showing films of engineering disasters. This was conceived in the same
spirit as the arch world-renowned Scottish artist Ian Hamilton Finlay built for his garden on
which are carved the words
“ARCH n. AN ARCHITECTURAL TERM
A MATERIAL CURVE SUSTAINED BY GRAVITY AS RAPTURE BY GRIEF”
Taking the idea of gravity as both the force that sustains but which could also destroy the
arch, the students made a play on this architectural concept and, like Finlay’s bridge, brought
into focus the close proximity of the apparent opposites of disaster and success. Keen to
communicate using a range of forms and objects, the students employed the keystone shapes
of old televisions (an outdated technology to them) and matched this to an engineering
innovation – the arch - from Roman times. This created a layer of visual playfulness but also
drew attention to the continuously evolving nature and relationship between design and
engineering. Whilst the approach of the engineers in early discussions seemed to rely heavily
on the mathematical surety of any proposal, which was at odds with the more ‘try it and see’
approach of the artists, the films of engineering disasters being screened both demonstrated
the pitfalls of not paying attention to detail but also that engineering history has its own
established record of trial and error.
The piece in Figure 2 plays with references to structures such as water towers; toying with the
problems associated with creating a top-heavy structure that can support a volume of liquid.
Drawing on the highly efficient structural form of a truss, students have played with scale in
their over-dramatized version of a coffee cup holder. The piece in Figure 3 subverted the
idea of deploying reinforcing techniques as a purely pragmatic solution to strengthening a
concrete structure and placed the normally hidden steel rods on the outside of a column
where they create a physical drawing of the overall structure within.
Experiences
Students
The experience of students who took part in the activity was uniformly positive (Figure 4).
Post-activity questionnaires highlighted the unusual nature of the activity; the experience of
understanding other disciplines’ ways of thinking; and understanding the motivations of
education in other disciplines as particular highlights.
The nature of the experience is perhaps best explained by the following contemporaneous
account by one of the authors (Mansfield-Williams), who took part as a student.
“I spent a week working in a team of three civil engineers and two
sculptors to develop a finished piece of artwork. The event, titled
'Engineering Art', was part of the University of Edinburgh's 'Innovative
Learning Week' and aimed to encourage interaction between
engineering and art students.
“Differences in thinking became apparent from the beginning of the
week. After some brief discussion about the ideas that each team
member was interested in, we vaguely came to the decision that we
would try to develop a form which appeared fragile but was structurally
sound. After the short chat the sculptors were enthusiastic about starting
to experiment straight away, and brushed off any concerns about what
we were trying to achieve. Having been immersed in an engineering
degree for the previous two and a half years, this seemed slightly
premature to me; we hadn't even sketched up some general concepts or
planned more than 20 minutes into the future. One sculptor was very
keen to use plaster in some way, the other had a variety of plans for
string. We set out shopping for any materials which we felt related to
‘false fragility’, mainly fabric, string and various thicknesses and
lengths of modelling wire. Upon returning we immediately started to
pour plaster into some existing moulds to ‘just see’ how things would
turn out.
“Throughout the week many of the major shifts in concept were brought
about by the sculptors. While I did follow and have opinions on all the
creative issues, I was left feeling slightly frustrated at how slow I was in
being spontaneous when compared to the art students. Throughout my
engineering study I have been taught how to design and control risk in
engineering projects in order to improve safety, reduce cost and ensure
a functional end product. Despite the importance of these factors, I feel
that prioritising them very early on in a project can limit the potential
for innovative and original ideas to be explored. During the initial
design phase, there is value in experimentation as a primary activity,
with project constraints being evaluated as a secondary process. This
became especially apparent while producing our final pieces, the ideas
for which had required active experimentation to fully form, and which
we were uncertain would satisfy our self-imposed brief of 'false
fragility' until the late stages of their design.
“The week's collaboration drew obvious parallels with the union (or
traditionally the lack of one) between architects and structural engineers.
There were however no serious clashes between the two disciplines,
possibly as a result of the engineers having expressed an implicit
interest in creative design by signing up for the event. The week
highlighted the merits of reckless experimentation in reaching original
solutions, a concept which all engineers should appreciate.”
It is noteworthy that the thinking of “home” discipline (art) seemed to dominate the thinking
and output of the exercise. Partly, as above, this was planned but the degree to which it
occurred was striking.
Staff
The staff involved with the activity (the first three authors) all felt it had been beneficial both
for them as a chance to learn about the differing nature of education of engineers and artists,
and for the students involved. Having gone out on a limb to try a completely different
educational approach, it was particularly rewarding to see the results of their initial ideas
realised, and to experience in person the real excitement and enthusiasm of their students for
what the activity had allowed them to achieve.
From the standpoint of educating engineers, the activity provoked thoughts about how the
conceptual, imaginative nature of design might be better taught in engineering. The
opportunity to see how art is taught has resulted in changes to design teaching within the
Civil Engineering curriculum at Edinburgh to encourage more creativity, including in a new
“Tools for Engineering Design Course” (Gillie et al, 2013).
External
The final exhibition on the Friday of ILW was very successful and was attended by a variety
parties not directly involved with developing the activity, including local arts advocates,
members of other part of the university and visitors from the Schools of Art and Engineering.
It proved a valuable opportunity to show what had been achieved both by interaction between
engineering and art but also more widely in educational terms.
Conclusions
A key conclusion from the engineering-art activity is that allowing willing engineering and
arts students (and staff) to interact is very educational in a broad sense. It improves
understanding of each other’s disciplines, suggests ways in which the two disciplines can
benefit from each other; stimulates external, public interest; and can lead to some unusual
output in a short period.
More generally, the experience of allowing engineering and arts students to interact in a
largely unstructured way shows the benefits of ILW in removing the constraints of the highly
structured and heavily assessed nature of much modern higher education. The EngineeringArt activity described here was short, one-off, and experimental. It would not easily fit within
an education structure where assessment and credit loads and levels are all required, but
nonetheless was found to be beneficial and educational by all involved. Providing space for
this and similar activities in University curricula is to be encouraged.
References
A Furber, M Crapper, M Gillie, T Stratford, L Bisby, J Blackford and D White (2013)
Innovative learning at The University of Edinburgh. Accepted by Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers Journal of Management Procurement and Law.
P Jones (2006) Ove Arup: Master Builder of the Twentieth Century, Yale University Press.
Edinburgh
16/10/13
(2013)
http://www.eng.ed.ac.uk/drupal/prospective/ug/strucarch,
Accessed
M Gillie, T Stratford, O Broadbent (2013) Creative Conceptual Design Teaching: It’s Not
about Rebar Curtailment! Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice,
10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000184
UK Trade (2013) UK Trade August 2013 Statistical Bulletin, Office for National Statistics,
UK
Edinburgh/ECA
(2013)
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-collegeart/about/merger-archive/vision, Accessed 17/11/13
ILW (2013)
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/drupal/Teaching/Current_Taught/Timetable/ILW_2013/OpenAccess/Event_4, Accessed 17/11/13
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4: The joy of the construction phase