Art has always had constraints: funding, the physical media’s capabilities, and the ability to reach an audience. This is why any time a new technology shift happens there’s a spike of artists trying things which were not previously feasible.

It's a spectrum. I just wrote down the two ends.

Also, an artist's constraints are often self-prescribed, and they can easily change them if they like.

> Also, an artist's constraints are often self-prescribed, and they can easily change them if they like.

the most amazing art (both graphics and music) i have seen on computer were from atari, amiga, & c64 demosceners. these artists had real software and hardware contraints.

i like what you said about it being a spectrum though. i think it's hard to tell when engineering becomes art and art becomes engineering. but one can easily spot pure (for its own sake) engineering or pure art.

There's also a fair bit of "engineering for engineering's sake" (as a parallel of "art for art's sake" - "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art's_sake), "divorced from any didactic, moral, politic, or utilitarian function".

This is reminiscent of the old divide between mathematics and philosophy:

true and useful = math

true and useless = philosophy

What occupation, I wonder, was the person who coined that joke? Compare:

"It is not possible to justify the life of any genuine professional mathematician on the ground of the 'utility' of his work." (G. H. Hardy, 1940)

Which side does the practice of distinguishing between the useful and the useless fall on?

philosophy decides :)

I wouldn't bet on the "true" part in philosophy. More like nonsensical.