It is interesting and important that we refer to these masks as &quot;artwork.&quot; Many of these older designs also have &quot;signatures&quot; etched into the silicon.<p>I claim that this notion extends to code, as well, and rightly into many other engineering and scientific projects (I suspect the pure math community might agree, i.e. by my reading of how they view their own discipline).<p>As an informal definition of art, I offer creativity within some bounds, i.e. the rules of the medium. Often, the tighter the bounds, the higher we elevate the end result (e.g. the most praised sonnet, or work of classical music). Here the bounds are pretty constrained: bug free, implements the ISA, manufacturable, and competitive and profitable.<p>As with many here, I am frustrated with my work when it is reduced to &quot;turning the crank,&quot; but I suspect many writers (e.g. your Reuter&#x27;s journalist) feel the same; and of course, we could introduce other examples from other disciplines. If working on a ground breaking project, then I can focus on that and derive some satisfaction from my contribution to that end.<p>Finally, my point: I submit these masks as evidence of the artificial dichotomy between the liberal arts and engineering disciplines. There should be more acknowledgement of the art produced on both sides of this divide, and more crossing the aisle (so-to-speak) from the thought leaders in this debate. Of course we need to train our next generation to work with these machines, and of course we should not kick the traditional liberal arts out of the curriculum. Sheesh. But I really would like some push back that claims our ground, i.e. technical achievement of this kind as art.