Pennsylvania surveyor Willi Schmidt has written about my distaste for the phrase, "art of surveying." He was accurate in portraying my reaction to a term that is in more or less widespread use across the profession and that I consider to be an embarrassment. My problems with the term run a little deeper than I was able to convey to him during our conversation, however. So, despite Willi’s good-faith effort at explaining my position, I felt an obligation to weigh in on the subject myself.

Willi is correct in that I view the use of the term primarily as a cop-out—a crutch on which surveyors who employ less-than-rigorous efforts can lean. This is my primary objection. Moreover, I suspect the phrase conveys an idea that in most cases is unintended, and is therefore misleading.

I Don’t Know Art . . .
Objections of this sort always raise the possibility of bias on the part of the person objecting. Fair enough—let’s consult Webster. Here are the definitions, in order, for the word art:

1) Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. Nope. 2) The conscious production of . . . elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty; especially, the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium, for example, painting or sculpture. I don’t think so. 3) The product of these activities; human works of beauty, collectively. Must not have seen his plats. 4) High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. Ever try to retrace her work? 5) Any field or category of art, such as music, ballet or literature. Or construction layout. 6) arts: Nonscientific branches of learning, for example, languages or philosophy. Now we’re getting somewhere . . . or are we? 7a) A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities, such as "the art of building." 7b) A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods, such as "pursuing the baker’s art." Hmmm. "trade or craft?" 8) Any skill or faculty, whether acquired by study and practice or based upon intuition, such as "the art of conversation." Finally!

Let’s set aside, for a moment, the fact that the definition which best seems to fit the idea is number eight. We should frame the discussion first. In my experience, most surveyors using the term are referring to the use of judgment in boundary retracement, not in the other aspects of our practice. Therefore, it is to that use that I direct my comments. Willi points out, correctly, that other elements of our practice are as deserving of the term as is retracement judgment. But why isn’t the phrase commonly used to describe these other activities? For instance, one never hears level runs mentioned as being part of the "art of surveying." I suggest that the reason stems from our intention to distinguish between the mechanical and the judgment-related aspects of the practice. If this is the case, even definition eight fails.

The problem with relying on obscure definitions to convey an idea (a definition such as number eight, instead of definitions one or two), is that the common meanings come to the listener’s mind when the term is used, whether or not they are the meaning intended. The most familiar definitions of art concern the creation of something. Retracement, by definition, concerns the recovery of something—namely the location of the boundary. Is imagination involved? Surely, as it is in any successful investigation. Intuition? Hopefully. Aesthetics? Not necessarily; consider what the Supreme Court said in the recent case of New Jersey v. New York: "We appreciate the difficulties of a boundary line that divides not just an island but some of the buildings on it, but these drawbacks are the price of New Jersey’s success in litigating under a compact whose fair construction calls for a line so definite." We have no authority to create or otherwise introduce aesthetic considerations in retracement.

The reality of modern retracement is that relevant evidence may exist that is unknown to the surveyor. There is nothing that can be done to eliminate that possibility. As a result, uncertainty is an inherent trait of the process. But that does not make the process art; art is not synonymous with uncertainty. Other occupations subject to the same sort of uncertainty do not reach for that cover. Do we think of private investigators as artists? (More to the point, do they think of themselves as artists?) Judges concern themselves with the evaluation of evidence . . . at best, an uncertain undertaking. Are they artists? I don’t think so.

Artful Dodger
Mis-characterizing judgment as art allows would-be professionals to cloak themselves with an unimpeachable (and mysterious) opinion. "You may disagree with my location if you wish, but in my opinion, the boundary is there. Why? Because I believe it to be so." Here, circular logic masks an inability to articulate the doctrines of retracement. If we have concluded correctly, valid principles underpin our opinion. If we have concluded incorrectly, no amount of "artistry" will excuse the action.

Although judgment can be correct or incorrect, art cannot be incorrect. Whereas correct judgment is based upon an adequate knowledge of the facts and rules concerning a specific situation (adequacy itself being dependent upon judgment), art merely requires an artist to declare it so. Masking oneself in this manner has no place in modern professional practice.

Our work is based on principles that are expressible, and in which every surveyor is deemed to be fully versed. There is no mystery in what we provide to society, nor should there be any mystery in the methods employed in rendering that service. Although judgment is an integral part of the process, the result is not art, nor is art a component of it.

So what are we really trying to say when we use the term? I’m afraid to ask.

Copyright © 1998 By Joel M. Leininger, LS