Is computer programming still an Art?
ret...@main.cc
Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art
is everything else we do. During the past several years an important
part of mathematics has been transformed from an Art to a Science...
-- Knuth, Donald E. (1995). Foreword. In A=B.
"
To remember those glorious days when computer programming was still an
Art.
__________________________
// Jianyuan Wu
// main.cc - defines main
Bill Godfrey
That which isn't an art can usually be automated. Turning high level code
into machine code was once a creative task. Now, we just have a compiler do
it. The work that still requires people to do is still a creative process.
That's what we're good at.
Artisticly, Bill.
--
http://billpg.me.uk/
usenet(at)billpg(dot)me(dot)uk
defines main
methords, coding standards, formulized patterns, etc, which inevitably
turnning software programmers from artists in 70-80's to labourers
since 90's.
Although industrialization do bring us cheaper and more reliable
software products, do we ever think of the needs for being old-favored
hand-craft programmers, or artists?
Bob Calvanese
is very much an art.
And as far as the programming of the 70's. Yes you had to be more creative
and challenged. But... Since the birth of OOP... We now have a new very
challenging (and more efficient) way to be creative.
IMHO... If you loose your passion for any profession... It is no longer an
art for you and maybe you should start looking for a new passion.
--
Bob Calvanese
<ret...@main.cc> wrote in message
news:1111141431.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
gsw...@mailcity.com
ret...@main.cc wrote:
> "
> Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer.
Art
> is everything else we do. During the past several years an important
> part of mathematics has been transformed from an Art to a Science...
> -- Knuth, Donald E. (1995). Foreword. In A=B.
> "
> To remember those glorious days when computer programming was still
an
> Art.
i think it is still what it was (!)
the 'art' is in the design of the application in the large and the
design of the code in the small (and implied - how the one enhances the
other).
So a well thought through application with well selected data
structures and algorithms can be said to like a work of art (just like
a really great bridge - one that sits within it's context and uses
great, appropriate engineering is)
Randy
That leads to the broader question, "Are S/W engineers laborers, artisans, or
artists"? Where do we fall along the artistic continuum -- from the mundane to
the sublime -- laborer > artisan > artist?
Artists produce products that evoke a psychological response. Artisans combine
artistic values with engineering to produce works that achieve aesthetic goals
as well as functional ones. Laborers employ neither -- they just toil
mindlessly until their (simple) task is done, achieving some purely functional
end. Among these, where does the construction of software fit in?
Offhand, I don't see S/WE as an art or as a labor. Like the work of artisans,
it obviously requires some creativity and consideration of trade offs in
implementation and in terms of economics. But is it fair to compare designers
and builders of software with semi-artistic craftsmen like potters or even
musicians (who generally interpret rather than invent).
I would say that *some* software development could be classified as requiring
the skills and perspective of an artisan -- building GUIs (that involve the user
and integrate them into the user experience), or perhaps computer graphics, or
maybe even an elegant solution to a mundane problem. But that last point is the
mainstay of programming, and to me, seems less like art and more like math.
Rather than involving the audience the way that artisan products do (and
should), elegant engineering is just the stripping of a solution to its bare
essentials. It's not purposefully aesthetic. It's minimal, and intended to be
maximally efficient (if not in its performance, then in its simplicity and ease
of being understood). That's purposefully practical, not aesthetic, and so,
it's not the work of an artisan (or artist).
As such, I think not only was Knuth wrong in referring to computer science as
art, but even referring to it as the work of an artisan is inappropriate.
Software is a kind of engineering. As such, a user of a program may view it as
having 'beauty', but only because it manifests traits that we personally value
-- like economy or elegance or psychological intuitiveness. In almost all
cases, software isn't designed to involve the user nor express the programmer's
interests or perspective. Therefore, it's not art. Nor is it the work of an
artisan.
I suppose software development should be seen a kind of labor. It requires
ingenuity (which is the root of the word 'engineer'), but it's fundamentally
purposeful rather than aesthetic.
Software that solves a problem inelegantly still has to bee seen as a success.
But software that evokes a sense of awe or aesthetic appeal, yet fails to solve
a problem, has to be seen as a failure. IMO, software is necessarily a means to
an end. It serves a labor. If it happens to evoke aesthetic appreciation,
that's swell, but that's extraneous, and it's no more an art form than a
passer-by appreciating a shapely pile of dirt that was meticulously formed by a
precise ditch digger. And that ain't art either.
Stripped to its essentials, I guess I would agree with Jianyuan: software
engineering is a form of labor which happens to require the use of mind rather
than body.
Randy
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> Artists produce products that evoke a psychological response.
> Artisans combine artistic values with engineering to produce works
> that achieve aesthetic goals as well as functional ones. Laborers
> employ neither -- they just toil mindlessly until their (simple)
> task is done, achieving some purely functional end. Among these,
> where does the construction of software fit in?
Watch a _good_ painter, plumber or carpenter at work and you will
soon change your mind. They do things right even when it is going
to be hidden for the next 50 years. Similarly the software
author. I have often done something and thought "no-one is ever
going to see this, but I know it's there".
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
Randy
> Randy wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
>>Artists produce products that evoke a psychological response.
>>Artisans combine artistic values with engineering to produce works
>>that achieve aesthetic goals as well as functional ones. Laborers
>>employ neither -- they just toil mindlessly until their (simple)
>>task is done, achieving some purely functional end. Among these,
>>where does the construction of software fit in?
>
>
> Watch a _good_ painter, plumber or carpenter at work and you will
> soon change your mind. They do things right even when it is going
> to be hidden for the next 50 years. Similarly the software
> author. I have often done something and thought "no-one is ever
> going to see this, but I know it's there".
I agree that the tasks completed by precise craftsmen like you are more likely
to accomplish their ends than those done by less precise folks. But does your
attention to detail make you an artisan, much less an artist? Or are you just a
superior laborer?
Greater efficacy is a boon to all workmanship. But it doesn't imply the
presence of creativity or imagination, much less the ability to communicate with
your audience. I think all of these are necessary before a craft can claim to
create art.
But I also think a craft must be able to *benefit* from attention to detail
before a worker can call himself even an artisan. Great performance as a
janitor does not make one an artisan. If the trade itself can benefit from
creativity and imagination, as well as communicate these to its consumers, only
then can it claim to be an art form (or its practitioners be called artists).
Is software development the kind of enterprise that can evoke passion in an
observer? (Other than frustration and anger, of course.)
Isn't the loftiest goal for software for it to be free from flaws? Is that art?
Randy
Bob Calvanese
> likely
> to accomplish their ends than those done by less precise folks. But does
> your
> attention to detail make you an artisan, much less an artist? Or are you
> just a
> superior laborer?
Yes if you put your passion and inspiration into it.
> Greater efficacy is a boon to all workmanship. But it doesn't imply the
> presence of creativity or imagination, much less the ability to
> communicate with
> your audience. I think all of these are necessary before a craft can
> claim to
> create art.
Yes it does.
> But I also think a craft must be able to *benefit* from attention to
> detail
> before a worker can call himself even an artisan. Great performance as a
> janitor does not make one an artisan. If the trade itself can benefit
> from
> creativity and imagination, as well as communicate these to its consumers,
> only
> then can it claim to be an art form (or its practitioners be called
> artists).
Hello... Look how far software development has come. Did it get that way by
itself? Or did it get that way through people who used creativity and
passion?
> Is software development the kind of enterprise that can evoke passion in
> an
> observer? (Other than frustration and anger, of course.)
If you are good at it, and don't loose your passion for it, the user
(observer) will be very happy and even display passion using it to do their
job.
> Isn't the loftiest goal for software for it to be free from flaws? Is
> that art?
Nothing in this world is or ever will be without flaws. So... Yes.
Maybe you have lost your passion, but I do my best to inspire works of art
for my users.
Bes regards
Bob Calvanese
MSCHAEF.COM
<ret...@main.cc> wrote:
>"
>Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art
>is everything else we do. During the past several years an important
>part of mathematics has been transformed from an Art to a Science...
>-- Knuth, Donald E. (1995). Foreword. In A=B.
>"
>To remember those glorious days when computer programming was still an
>Art.
That's kind of an odd, theoretical question. Does it matter if programming
is "an Art"? People find beauty and inspiration is many places, and if you
happen to find it in code, then programming can be an Art to you for as
long as you want it to be.
Personally, code can be beautiful, but what's really beautiful to me is a
useful tool or system. Putting too much emphasis on the code makes it easy
to overlook the most important aspect of the software: the users.
-Mike
--
http://www.mschaef.com
Programmer Dude
> Watch a _good_ painter, plumber or carpenter at work and you will
> soon change your mind. They do things right even when it is going
> to be hidden for the next 50 years.
One reason: you never know what's going to not remain hidden in 50 years.
Second reason: some people just need to do things right EVEN when it
"doesn't matter".
Programmer Dude
>>> Artists produce products that evoke a psychological response.
>>> Artisans combine artistic values with engineering to produce works
>>> that achieve aesthetic goals as well as functional ones. Laborers
>>> employ neither -- they just toil mindlessly until their (simple)
>>> task is done, achieving some purely functional end.
I think that break down is too simplistic, but I'll address that when I
reply to your original. But certainly laborers *can* do far more than
simple tasks.
>>> Among these, where does the construction of software fit in?
Who says there's just one answer?
>> Watch a _good_ painter, plumber or carpenter at work and you will
>> soon change your mind. They do things right even when it is going
>> to be hidden for the next 50 years. Similarly the software
>> author. I have often done something and thought "no-one is ever
>> going to see this, but I know it's there".
(We used to call that "Being Quality Minded.")
> I agree that the tasks completed by precise craftsmen like you are
> more likely to accomplish their ends than those done by less precise
> folks. But does your attention to detail make you an artisan, much
> less an artist? Or are you just a superior laborer?
With only two-and-a-half pidgeonholes, there's few sensible answers.
But I've always liked this take on it:
One who works with their hands is a laborer.
One who works with their hands and their mind is a craftsman.
One who works with their hands, mind and heart is an artist.
And my personal definition of Art (and, hence, Artists):
Art is the re-expression of a personal perception of reality.
The Artist is one who is driven to create these expressions.
I have a friend who's made a good living for 30+ years as a Commercial
Artist (it's quite possible you've seen his work). Yet in all this
time I've never seen him create something because he "needed to".
I think he's a hugely, incredibly gifted craftsman.
I'm not sure he's an artist.
In any event, there's lots of data points. Some laborers a little
more than muscle and bone and a barely-directable intelligence.
Others may simply enjoy working outside (I knew a guy who was on
the fast track to becoming an Engineer until he decided he'd
rather be a gardener.) And there is something to be said for a
day hauling rock or painting a house--a real sense of a day's work
accomplished.
One distinction: laborers don't usually create from scratch by using
the power of their minds. Craftsman (and women) do, though.
I don't know too many software laborers (but I do know a few).
I do know an awful lot of software craftsmen (and women).
Artists.... when you write a program because you just want to, I think
you are expressing something similar to what an artist feels when
they paint or write or play. When you are filled with joy over a
clever algorithm or program trick--you are feeling something similar
to what artists feel.
But then laborers can feel joy for their accomplishments, too.
A difference may be that one says, "I BUILT that" whereas the other
says, "I DESIGNED that". The first creation comes from the hands,
the second from the head or from the head and heart.
Bottom line for me is that the labels only vaguely describe the real
territory. Best not to get to hung up with trying to decide if
something as vast as programming is labor, craft or art. It's all.
> Greater efficacy is a boon to all workmanship. But it doesn't
> imply the presence of creativity or imagination, much less the
> ability to communicate with your audience. I think all of these
> are necessary before a craft can claim to create art.
First, don't confuse "good art" with "art". Art doesn't have to be
pretty, appealing, nice looking or even successful. It just has to
be an expression of the artist's heart.
The creativity and imagination can lie in the source code layout,
user docs, technical docs, comments, error messages or many other
places where a programmer can exercise those traits.
And I think creating a good GUI--one that works for the user and
also looks good--is art in the more traditional sense (invoking the
use of human factors: color, sight, sound, text, etc.).
> But I also think a craft must be able to *benefit* from attention
> to detail before a worker can call himself even an artisan. Great
> performance as a janitor does not make one an artisan.
Sure it can. An Artisan Janitor, to be sure, but still an Artist if
he or she works from the heart.
> Is software development the kind of enterprise that can evoke
> passion in an observer? (Other than frustration and anger, of
> course.)
I think it clearly is. Isn't Linux a work from a number of very
passonate hearts? Unix in general is what it is (IMO) in part due
to those that loved it and gave of it from their hearts.
ALL my hobby programs are works of art (not saying great art), and
I try to apply that same passion to my work work.
> Isn't the loftiest goal for software for it to be free from flaws?
I wouldn't call that the loftiest goal at all, but the basest one.
More lofty goals are that it should work, well, artistically. (-:
> Is that art?
The pursuit of flaws is a single act of programming and is no more
art in itself than stretching a canvas or a ligament. It is in the
whole act of programming (painting/dancing) that one acts the artist.
Programmer Dude
> That leads to the broader question, "Are S/W engineers laborers,
> artisans, or artists"? Where do we fall along the artistic continuum
Which artistic continuum? The one from good art to bad art? The one
from non-art to fine-art? Or one of the many others?
> from the mundane to the sublime -- laborer > artisan > artist?
Hmmm, assuming we consider artists sublime and laborers mundane.
(And your "artisan" appears to be my "craftsman". I rather like the
lack of "man" in artisan, but dislike the proximity to "artist".
I think I'll stick with craftsman, but you'll know what I mean.)
> Artists produce products that evoke a psychological response.
Is the response the point of the art, or is the art itself the
point of the art, or is it, perhaps, the act of creation? Is
it possible that audience response is secondary to the artist?
Also, that response can be negative--sometimes very much so.
> Artisans combine artistic values with engineering to produce works
> that achieve aesthetic goals as well as functional ones.
You might consider substituting "artistic" for "aesthetic", since
that's what you really mean, I believe..
> Laborers employ neither -- they just toil mindlessly until their
> (simple) task is done, achieving some purely functional end.
So... if I'm painting a house using engineering and aesthetic values,
but toiling mindlessly while listening to tunes, I'm laboring?
Or am I artisaning, what with the aesthetic values and engineering?
My point is, you're trying to draw hard lines where I don't think
they exist--or are very blurry at best.
> Among these, where does the construction of software fit in?
Any of the above. Depends.
> Offhand, I don't see S/WE as an art or as a labor.
It's BEEN both to me at different points. I've done a share of mindless
toiling that involved no creative input from me whatsoever. True blue
clockwatching stuff. I've also done work I consider to be as representing
of my heart as any tune I've written (and quite frankly, the programs
were all much "better" "art" :-).
> Like the work of artisans, it obviously requires some creativity
> and consideration of trade offs in implementation and in terms of
> economics. But is it fair to compare designers and builders of
> software with semi-artistic craftsmen like potters or even musicians
> (who generally interpret rather than invent).
(Um, don't agree about musicians, there.)
Again, depends. I'd not feel favorably compared to someone who throws
pots, but I would with someone who designs and builds high-tech race
cars.
> I would say that *some* software development could be classified as
> requiring the skills and perspective of an artisan -- ...
I think we have different definitions of artist. Yours seems to involve
skillsets and knowledge whereas mine is more based on outlook. (Neither
is right or wrong--just different.)
> ...seems less like art and more like math.
I have a friend who's been a successful commercial artist for 30 years.
For the last 20, it's all been done on a computer. And there are other
forms of art that require math or technology to create (I have a game
I play: count the number of times you see the word "digital" in the
credits of the movie you just watched).
> Rather than involving the audience the way that artisan products do (and
> should), elegant engineering is just the stripping of a solution to its bare
> essentials. It's not purposefully aesthetic.
One might claim that to those with an engineering eye, it's VERY BEAUTIFUL!
I know that my functions look "ugly" to me when they aren't a pure and
elegant as they should be. One way I know I'm losing control of a piece
of code is that it starts to look ugly. Good source IS beautiful!
> That's purposefully practical, not aesthetic, and so, it's not the work of
> an artisan (or artist).
If it comes from the heart, it's art.
> As such, I think not only was Knuth wrong in referring to computer science as
> art, but even referring to it as the work of an artisan is inappropriate.
Don't agree. We're not pure artists, we're functional artists (those of us
that are good enough to BE artists in the first place). As such, as with
my commercial artist friend, we work under contraints.
> Software is a kind of engineering.
So are many forms of art.
> ...software isn't designed to involve the user nor express the programmer's
> interests or perspective.
Then it wasn't created as well as it could have been.
> Therefore, it's not art. Nor is it the work of an artisan.
In many cases it's the work of laborers or hacks. But so is much "art".
Novelists, in particular, often just crank'm out.
> Software that solves a problem inelegantly still has to bee seen as a success.
A partial one, anyway. Not unlike a bad play that gets produced (or like
THE WHOLE TEN YARDS--I do NOT know how that saw the light of day!).
> But software that evokes a sense of awe or aesthetic appeal, yet fails to
> solve a problem, has to be seen as a failure.
Can you name such a thing? Awesome, yet broken? (-:
> ...it's no more an art form than a passer-by appreciating a shapely pile
> of dirt that was meticulously formed by a precise ditch digger. And that
> ain't art either.
What if the ditch digger is Rodan on a break and the pile is The Thinker?
Truly, I think any attempt to classify the act of creating software as
either This or That is doomed to fail.
Martin Eisenberg
thoughtful points in the snipped parts!
Programmer Dude wrote:
> Randy writes:
>> ...seems less like art and more like math.
Who says mathematics can't be art? ;)
>> But software that evokes a sense of awe or aesthetic appeal,
>> yet fails to solve a problem, has to be seen as a failure.
>
> Can you name such a thing? Awesome, yet broken? (-:
I think that Befunge, in its role as programming
language, does fit that description well.
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Randy
> Randy writes:
>
>
>>>>Artists produce products that evoke a psychological response.
>>>>Artisans combine artistic values with engineering to produce works
>>>>that achieve aesthetic goals as well as functional ones. Laborers
>>>>employ neither -- they just toil mindlessly until their (simple)
>>>>task is done, achieving some purely functional end.
>
>
> I think that break down is too simplistic, but I'll address that when I
> reply to your original. But certainly laborers *can* do far more than
> simple tasks.
And artists can also do less than produce art. It's not all or nothing,
but a confluence of will, skill, and thrill that defines art.
>
>>>> Among these, where does the construction of software fit in?
>
>
> Who says there's just one answer?
I'm not looking for a binary answer. I am still trying to see why any
part of software development should be considered a form of art, much
less then entire enterprise, or any of its products.
Given the difference in goals of the two domains (art vs software
engineering), I can't see common ground in either their means or ends.
...
>
> With only two-and-a-half pidgeonholes, there's few sensible answers.
> But I've always liked this take on it:
>
> One who works with their hands is a laborer.
> One who works with their hands and their mind is a craftsman.
> One who works with their hands, mind and heart is an artist.
>
> And my personal definition of Art (and, hence, Artists):
>
> Art is the re-expression of a personal perception of reality.
> The Artist is one who is driven to create these expressions.
So a sculptor or a surgeon (who work with their hands) is a laborer?
Every profession uses its hands, so that definition is less than ideal.
Conversely, even a ditch digger has to use his head a little.
I think we can agree that definitions like these are too simplistic.
But in trying to answer "what is art" and "what is programming"
together, I don't see much overlap. They don't seek the same goals, nor
employ the same techniques, nor involve the consumer of the product in
comparable ways.
CAN software be art. Sure. As others and perhaps you have pointed out
in this thread, it's possible. But I insist that it's not the norm, nor
is it even a rarity. In fact, it's a rarity that anyone would consider
software to be so well made that it might be considered the work of an
artist, much less, would it ever be considered art in itself. In over
20 years working in the world of software, I've never seen anything that
I would call art.
What software would you would consider to be art? Why?
Perhaps the closest thing I've seen to art is the original Macintosh
interface. It was original (mostly), intended to convey meaning, and
effective in doing so. It continues to be a landmark in my mind of what
software design can and should be. But I'm reluctant to call it art
because the meaning that it conveys is dynamic and is not the intention
of the developers. It's the meaning of the applications that it
supports. Perhaps that's a new meaning for meaning, but I'm reluctant
to call it art, because the intended message of the artist (Raskin,
Atkinson, et al) was contextually transparent.
Anyway, for me, that's as close as software can get to art, aside from
some computer games I've seen, I guess.
>
> I have a friend who's made a good living for 30+ years as a Commercial
> Artist (it's quite possible you've seen his work). Yet in all this
> time I've never seen him create something because he "needed to".
>
> I think he's a hugely, incredibly gifted craftsman.
> I'm not sure he's an artist.
I suspect s/he'd agree. I know several writers (trained as artists) who
work in producing writing for commercial customers. Their writings are
not art, and the act of producing them is not art, and I'm sure they'd
agree with that assessment.
Conversely, programmers are trained as engineers, not artists, and as
such their work is much less likely to be art or even artistic. So
perhaps the question really should be, "Can programmers produce art?"
To which I suppose the answer must be: sure, anyone can produce a work
that others might call art. But if you're not intending to produce art,
and you produce something that others consider to be art, is it art? Or
conversely, if you intend art, and you produce something un-artful, is
that art?
I would answer to both: no, that's not art. IMHO, art is two things: 1)
an attempt to communicate with the consumer in an original way, and 2)
success in doing so. Failing either is an absence of art. To wit, art
is not an noun or a verb; it's an event where purpose meets with success.
Yeah, I'd say there are a lot of folks out there who are called artists
but produce no art.
>
> In any event, there's lots of data points. Some laborers a little
> more than muscle and bone and a barely-directable intelligence.
> Others may simply enjoy working outside (I knew a guy who was on
> the fast track to becoming an Engineer until he decided he'd
> rather be a gardener.) And there is something to be said for a
> day hauling rock or painting a house--a real sense of a day's work
> accomplished.
If you're just keeping pants alive, gardening is not art. If you choose
the plants to plant and choose where to plant them, and then plant them,
it seems to me that could be art. I think it's all about the act of
cause *and* effect. Without both, no art.
>
> One distinction: laborers don't usually create from scratch by using
> the power of their minds. Craftsman (and women) do, though.
Yep. That's a step toward art, but insufficient. Simply painting a
house isn't art. Doing it extraordinarily well is a gift, and a thing
of beauty, but it isn't art, even if it elicits an emotional response in
the consumer. The missing ingredient in becoming art is the intent and
the act of the painter to change the work into something new, that
provides appeal in the recognition by the consumer of perhaps the effort
but especially the effect.
Sic, "craftsmen and women"? Did I miss your explanation for this
juxtaposition?
>
> I don't know too many software laborers (but I do know a few).
> I do know an awful lot of software craftsmen (and women).
Sic redux.
BTW, I think large numbers of examples denotes a trend, but not
causation or underlying fundamentals. I know a lot of X that does Y.
In principle, that proves only that it's possible that X does Y.
>
> Artists.... when you write a program because you just want to, I think
> you are expressing something similar to what an artist feels when
> they paint or write or play. When you are filled with joy over a
> clever algorithm or program trick--you are feeling something similar
> to what artists feel.
Sure. The same is true of someone who ably splits logs with an axe.
But satisfaction in a job well done is insufficient to call the act or
its product "art".
>
> But then laborers can feel joy for their accomplishments, too.
> A difference may be that one says, "I BUILT that" whereas the other
> says, "I DESIGNED that". The first creation comes from the hands,
> the second from the head or from the head and heart.
Taking pleasure in doing something does not make it art. Eating
something you like is not art. Watching a funny show on TV is not art.
If it were, we'd all be artists and the word would lose all meaning.
>
> Bottom line for me is that the labels only vaguely describe the real
> territory. Best not to get to hung up with trying to decide if
> something as vast as programming is labor, craft or art. It's all.
I agree completely. Labels are always inadequate. They capture only a
small portion of the whole, and they always fail to differentiate among
different examples. But words (and labels) are all we have in order to
communicate.
>
>>Greater efficacy is a boon to all workmanship. But it doesn't
>>imply the presence of creativity or imagination, much less the
>>ability to communicate with your audience. I think all of these
>>are necessary before a craft can claim to create art.
>
>
> First, don't confuse "good art" with "art". Art doesn't have to be
> pretty, appealing, nice looking or even successful. It just has to
> be an expression of the artist's heart.
I disagree completely. If you produce a turd that others appreciate as
art, it still isn't art. If you intend to produce an appealing turd,
but fail, it isn't art. It's only when you succeed on both counts that
it's art. But I agree, art doesn't have to be pretty.
Yeah, that's probably not the prevailing opinion. But any other
definition makes no sense to me. Just because someone who is officially
recognized as an artist produces something does not make it art -- not
unless others find value in it.
I think art involves both an end and the means to that end. Like
murder, art exists only when there was intent and the deed done.
There's no such thing as "attempted art" or "manslaughter art". To be
art, the artist has to try and succeed in committing art.
>
> The creativity and imagination can lie in the source code layout,
> user docs, technical docs, comments, error messages or many other
> places where a programmer can exercise those traits.
Yes, these can be original and perhaps creative or imaginative. But the
source code is not the product, except to another programmer. It's like
a bridge. The choices made by the engineer in which components to use
and their composition is not where the art lies. It's in the beauty of
the final product. Those hidden portions of the bridge that are beyond
perception of the consumer cannot contribute to the art.
I think the fascination of programmers with the infrastructure of the
product is EXACTLY where they should NOT be placing their attention.
The goal of software is to produce a software product that interacts
with the user in ways that are natural and intuitive and helps them get
their job done. The fact that a certain programming language or library
or O/S or design methodology was used is totally irrelevant to the
purpose of the enterprise. To take pride in one's workmanship is
natural and to be encouraged. But to consider something to be art
because of the artisan's choice of hammer or it was used is to miss the
big picture.
>
> And I think creating a good GUI--one that works for the user and
> also looks good--is art in the more traditional sense (invoking the
> use of human factors: color, sight, sound, text, etc.).
It's excellence, but not art.
I think part of our difficulty here is that there's no good word for
what you're describing. Excellence combined with innovation are
definitely something to be treasured and rewarded. What you're
describing is a beautifully designed and well built hammer. But it's
not art.
Art is an end unto itself. It's a means of communicating knowledge or
feeling to another person using innovation and expertise. And it's
definitely "artful" to do this as part of a larger enterprise like
building a user interface or another software artifact.
I know that's splitting hairs, but I think it's an important
distinction. To lose it is to conflate workmanship with artistry. I
think we don't want to do that, or what's a Heaven for?
>
>
>>But I also think a craft must be able to *benefit* from attention
>>to detail before a worker can call himself even an artisan. Great
>>performance as a janitor does not make one an artisan.
>
>
> Sure it can. An Artisan Janitor, to be sure, but still an Artist if
> he or she works from the heart.
No matter if the janitor is grossly incompetent and leaves more of a
mess than when s/he began cleaning?
Lots of us like to think of ourselves as artists, and I think we can all
be artistic. But that doesn't mean our efforts are art.
>
>>Is software development the kind of enterprise that can evoke
>>passion in an observer? (Other than frustration and anger, of
>>course.)
>
>
> I think it clearly is. Isn't Linux a work from a number of very
> passonate hearts? Unix in general is what it is (IMO) in part due
> to those that loved it and gave of it from their hearts.
Is Linux art? If so, what was Linus trying to say?
>
>>Is that art?
>
>
> The pursuit of flaws is a single act of programming and is no more
> art in itself than stretching a canvas or a ligament. It is in the
> whole act of programming (painting/dancing) that one acts the artist.
I think it's good to start with definitions of artistry and art, and
then work forward from artistry and backward from art to see if the two
meet. If not, then the definitions needs work.
But even if the definitions do meet, you should probably ask whether
your definition of art is ambitious enough. I've concluded that if a
work does not speak to me and communicate the intended message of its
creator, then it's not art. The work's creation must also have required
creativity and skill, or it's serendipity, not art.
I think a work must possess originality and intentional meaning and
succeed in conveying that meaning in order to be called art. In my
opinion, there are more appropriate words than "art" to describe
something that simply looks nice or works well, or both.
Randy
--
Randy Crawford http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~rand rand AT rice DOT edu
Programmer Dude
> Dude, you make some very good and
> thoughtful points in the snipped parts!
[blush] Thanks.
>>> ...seems less like art and more like math.
>
> Who says mathematics can't be art? ;)
Certainly the expression of math can be. Fractal Art, anyone?
>>> But software that evokes a sense of awe or aesthetic appeal,
>>> yet fails to solve a problem, has to be seen as a failure.
>>
>> Can you name such a thing? Awesome, yet broken? (-:
>
> I think that Befunge, in its role as programming
> language, does fit that description well.
ROFLMAO!! But then... can we really say Befunge is *broken*?
Or does it function exactly as its author/artist intended?
(-:
Randy
> Randy writes:
>
>>Artists produce products that evoke a psychological response.
>
> Is the response the point of the art, or is the art itself the
> point of the art, or is it, perhaps, the act of creation? Is
> it possible that audience response is secondary to the artist?
>
> Also, that response can be negative--sometimes very much so.
Excellent question. I say that the point of the art is the response.
Without the response, it isn't art. It's just a pretty picture. Or not
pretty, in the case of negative art.
>
>>Artisans combine artistic values with engineering to produce works
>>that achieve aesthetic goals as well as functional ones.
>
>
> You might consider substituting "artistic" for "aesthetic", since
> that's what you really mean, I believe..
Maybe. But what of a work of art that is called aesthetically ugly? I
would more readily call art ugly than call a thing aesthetically ugly.
The former implies that the work has deliberate ugliness that is
intended to be conveyed as part of its message. The latter implies that
something simply lacks beauty, presumably unintentionally so, since no
message from its creator that required the ugliness is implied by the
latter label.
I think the difference is that artistic ugliness is an effective means
to an end. Aesthetic ugliness just describes an ineffective end.
>
>>Laborers employ neither -- they just toil mindlessly until their
>>(simple) task is done, achieving some purely functional end.
>
>
> So... if I'm painting a house using engineering and aesthetic values,
> but toiling mindlessly while listening to tunes, I'm laboring?
> Or am I artisaning, what with the aesthetic values and engineering?
If you planned ahead what to paint and how, and then employed skill in
applying the paint, that's the mark of an artisan (but not necessarily
sufficient to make you one). If you had not planned, or had not
employed skill in painting, you'd be a laborer.
Artisan-ship arises only when a significant amount of design or effort
is involved in the thing. You met expectations. You were capable of
doing something that required skill. You're more than a laborer, doing
only what you're told, not having to use your brain to do it.
In order for an artisan to become an artist, s/he needs to add
originality and a message to the endeavor. Simply protecting the house
from the weather is not enough for its paint to be art, no matter how
nice it looks when it's done.
>
> My point is, you're trying to draw hard lines where I don't think
> they exist--or are very blurry at best.
We agree there, except on how blurry the lines are. It's also one thing
to believe the lines are blurry in the abstract -- in the definitions
themselves. It's another to believe the blurriness arises when applying
clear definitions to blurry life. I believe more in the latter than the
former. Platonic ideals are good.
...
>
>>Offhand, I don't see S/WE as an art or as a labor.
>
>
> It's BEEN both to me at different points. I've done a share of mindless
> toiling that involved no creative input from me whatsoever. True blue
> clockwatching stuff. I've also done work I consider to be as representing
> of my heart as any tune I've written (and quite frankly, the programs
> were all much "better" "art" :-).
Of course I don't know what you've done, but I would probably consider
them the work of an artisan, not an artist. Unless you employed the
other attributes of art as I've described them repeatedly elsewhere.
Is my discrimination between artisan and art not meaningful to you? I
suspect that among engineers who have a job to do and a thing to build,
the subtlety would have little meaning. But I think the difference is
significant when the product in an end unto itself.
For instance, a novel can entertain. If it succeeds, its author is an
artisan. A novel that transcends the appeal of its plot and characters
and succeeds in capturing a moment of history or communicates a deeply
felt ineffable moment in your life has accomplished something more. If
artisan == artist, then we have no terminology that captures the
difference between entertainment and art.
>
>>Like the work of artisans, it obviously requires some creativity
>>and consideration of trade offs in implementation and in terms of
>>economics. But is it fair to compare designers and builders of
>>software with semi-artistic craftsmen like potters or even musicians
>>(who generally interpret rather than invent).
>
>
> (Um, don't agree about musicians, there.)
In some cases, I agree. I think most musicians express themselves
through music. But I think precious few invent. I'd call the latter
artists, while the former are just fun to listen to.
There's a similar difference among actors. Most are artisans. It's
only a precious few who can transcend the medium and produce art.
For fun, some of the people on my list are: Linda Hunt, Ben Kingsley,
Meryl Streep, John Thaw, Katharine Hepburn, George C. Scott...
All of these people bring more to their work than talent.
>
> Again, depends. I'd not feel favorably compared to someone who throws
> pots, but I would with someone who designs and builds high-tech race
> cars.
I don't think the medium matters. Artistry arises when someone
transcends their medium. A good example is the Vietnam Memorial.
Simply brilliant. That's art. I've looked at other work by Maya Lin,
and while it's usually good, I'm hard pressed to call some of it art.
(Although I may not be the intended audience, so I probably should defer
judgment.) So even great artists don't necessarily always produce art.
>
>>I would say that *some* software development could be classified as
>>requiring the skills and perspective of an artisan -- ...
>
>
> I think we have different definitions of artist. Yours seems to involve
> skillsets and knowledge whereas mine is more based on outlook. (Neither
> is right or wrong--just different.)
In this discussion, I don't mean to imply right or wrong. But I do very
much mean to imply clear and unclear. Standards matter a lot. Meaning
arises only when you can transcend meaninglessness. Otherwise, fuzzy
thinking or fuzzy definitions will leave a person's words awash in the
din of background noise.
>
>>...seems less like art and more like math.
>
>
> I have a friend who's been a successful commercial artist for 30 years.
> For the last 20, it's all been done on a computer. And there are other
> forms of art that require math or technology to create (I have a game
> I play: count the number of times you see the word "digital" in the
> credits of the movie you just watched).
Is this the same friend you mentioned elsewhere who you and s/he would
not consider to be doing art? :-) I have no problem with using a
computer to do art. I just think there's a lot more workmanship out
there than art, whether a computer is involved or not.
>
>>Rather than involving the audience the way that artisan products do (and
>>should), elegant engineering is just the stripping of a solution to its bare
>>essentials. It's not purposefully aesthetic.
>
>
> One might claim that to those with an engineering eye, it's VERY BEAUTIFUL!
> I know that my functions look "ugly" to me when they aren't a pure and
> elegant as they should be. One way I know I'm losing control of a piece
> of code is that it starts to look ugly. Good source IS beautiful!
That's an interesting but fine distinction. Is elegance art? Is E=MC^2
or Godel's proof art?
Several recent books discuss the line between workmanship and invention:
"The Existential Pleasures of Engineering", by Thomas Dunne, and "The
Introspective Engineer", by Samuel Florman are two. I'm not sure either
discriminates discriminates between art an engineering as I do, but
both authors believe that good engineering can transcend the mundane
application of skill.
Probably we need to invent a proper term to capture great examples of
engineering as more than just craftsmanship. Much architecture
transcends its mundane purpose of serving as a building that keeps the
rain off of people. Is it art? Yeah, I think a lot of it is. Is it
engineering? Sure. Are the beams or rivets that were chosen to hold it
up art? Was the riveter an artist? No. Nor is source code art.
No work of art remains art when it is dissected. Its components are
mundane. It's only the composition that's art. Sure, in theory,
software can be art if it transcends its medium and brings a revelation
to the user. But source code is never art, any more than raw rivets or
well driven rivets are art.
>
>>That's purposefully practical, not aesthetic, and so, it's not the work of
>>an artisan (or artist).
>
>
> If it comes from the heart, it's art.
So anything that comes from the heart art? Hitler's hatred for the Jews
was art? :-( That makes little sense to me.
Can art just happen accidentally? What is necessary in order for
something to be called art? Is everyone an artist? All of the time, or
only when they're producing art? What happens when an artist
deliberately produces crap? Is it still art?
>
>>As such, I think not only was Knuth wrong in referring to computer science as
>>art, but even referring to it as the work of an artisan is inappropriate.
>
>
> Don't agree. We're not pure artists, we're functional artists (those of us
> that are good enough to BE artists in the first place). As such, as with
> my commercial artist friend, we work under contraints.
So no matter what your artist friend does, even if sh/he never produces
another piece of art ever again, s/he is still an artist?
I think constraints on art don't necessarily have any effect on whether
something is art. Historically, most works of art were commissioned and
thus were piece work. But if an artist (or engineer) just churns out a
product or produces a product that is *required* to be mundane, that's
not art.
For art to arise, the constraints on the work cannot *disallow* the
artistic expression of the creator. Expressiveness is central to art,
whether manifested by novelty of concept or technique or juxtaposition
or as a variation on a known theme. Art takes many forms, but all
require that the artist transcend what is expected of them. To produce
a fine work that is entirely as expected is not to produce art.
>
>>Software is a kind of engineering.
>
>
> So are many forms of art.
Yep. I never said art can't be engineering. I'm saying most
engineering isn't art, and no software engineering that I've seen.
>
>>...software isn't designed to involve the user nor express the programmer's
>>interests or perspective.
>
>
> Then it wasn't created as well as it could have been.
Conforming to expectations is necessary in engineering, or the primary
purpose of the thing is not served. Doing this well is admirable, in
that the thing will better serve its purpose.
However, *variation* on expectations is the heart of art. If you
produce a thing and do it well, you only meet expectations. If you
*exceed* expectations in a way that transcends the purpose of the thing,
especially if the way you transcend it is harmonious with the role of
the thing -- the way those things look, the way they work, the end they
achieve -- then you have transcended expectations, you have done more
than "well", and you have created art.
Yeah, software can demonstrate flashes of artistry. A browser can add a
feature that suddenly opens a door to a relevant thematic purpose that
hadn't been imagined before. Or it can accomplish a mundane chore is a
new less mundane way. But a better mousetrap really isn't art. It's
still a mousetrap, and economy and efficacy in achieving a dead mouse is
pretty much all anyone wants. Likewise, software produces applications
that achieve specific ends. Until software engineering can achieve more
than a less painful way to achieve those ends, I'm going to have a hard
time seeing art in mere absence of frustration.
>
>>Therefore, it's not art. Nor is it the work of an artisan.
>
>
> In many cases it's the work of laborers or hacks. But so is much "art".
> Novelists, in particular, often just crank'm out.
All novelists?
Again, the medium is not the message. Art can live in almost any
medium. Just not in software. :-)
Yeah, I know I'm being perverse. But until I see a useful hammer that I
consider a piece of art, I'll continue to insist that a medium whose
only purpose is to provide the user cognitive consonance in getting work
done is antithetical to self expression. Carpenters want their hammers
to work better, not be works of art. The same is true of artists --
painters want a better brush, so that they can create art.
Likewise, users of software want it to be invisible. For programmers to
innovate by making software in some way unusual and in any way less
obvious and intuitive to the user's task at hand is to go in the wrong
direction. Thus in the world of software development, art must die.
...
>>But software that evokes a sense of awe or aesthetic appeal, yet fails to
>>solve a problem, has to be seen as a failure.
>
>
> Can you name such a thing? Awesome, yet broken? (-:
Microsoft Bob. The Macintosh Lisa. The Altair. Pink (the very cool OO
Apple/HP/IBM O/S that never saw the light of day). The original 64KB
Macintosh (almost useless; without the almost immediate addition of
memory and a hard drive, it would have failed). Lotus Jazz.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands more. The longer you work in this
business, the more examples you're going to see of even your work being
thrown away because your software product may be cool, but it's no
longer competitive, i.e., it's broken.
Success in the software biz is a combination of 1) meeting expectations,
2) not pissing off your customer because you built the wrong tool, and
3) not having your competition exceed expectations. In software, #1 is
essential but it's not enough; you also need #3.
>
>>...it's no more an art form than a passer-by appreciating a shapely pile
>>of dirt that was meticulously formed by a precise ditch digger. And that
>>ain't art either.
>
>
> What if the ditch digger is Rodan on a break and the pile is The Thinker?
If Rodan expected his boss to be pleased, he's gonna be disappointed.
"You dumbass, Rodin! All I wanted was a ditch! What am I gonna do with
this damned statue? AND WHERE"S MY DAMNED DITCH??" :-)
>
> Truly, I think any attempt to classify the act of creating software as
> either This or That is doomed to fail.
Your software has to serve a need, or nobody's going to care what you
did. If you made it pretty, that's swell, but not if your competitor's
software is faster, cheaper, integrates better, is more reliable, works
better, is more intuitive to use and aggravates the user less.
There's a long list of essentials that must be met by any application
before art can add value. First, software has to do no harm.
Randy
Randy Howard
Ch...@Sonnack.com says...
> Martin Eisenberg writes:
> >>> But software that evokes a sense of awe or aesthetic appeal,
> >>> yet fails to solve a problem, has to be seen as a failure.
> >>
> >> Can you name such a thing? Awesome, yet broken? (-:
> >
> > I think that Befunge, in its role as programming
> > language, does fit that description well.
>
> ROFLMAO!! But then... can we really say Befunge is *broken*?
> Or does it function exactly as its author/artist intended?
Actually, you can say it was/is broken, in a couple surprising ways.
First of all, Befunge 93 was broken in the sense that it was
not turing complete, which made it broken compared to most
languages in a very interesting way, which ironically added to its
"charm" as a language.
Secondly, Befunge 98 added a number of extensions which made
it turing complete, along with other things that made it
less "evil", and indirectly, broke some of what the original
had achieved in being suitably bizarre for the most masochistic
programmer. So, it broke itself, if you will.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
Programmer Dude
>> But certainly laborers *can* do far more than simple tasks.
>
> And artists can also do less than produce art. It's not all or
> nothing, but a confluence of will, skill, and thrill that defines
> art.
I certainly agree with the will part. Not so much the skill part
(THAT informs good art from bad art), and I'm not sure who's thrill
you mean. If the artist's, I agree. If the audience's, I do not.
>> Who says there's just one answer?
>
> I'm not looking for a binary answer. I am still trying to see why
> any part of software development should be considered a form of
> art, much less then entire enterprise, or any of its products.
I think we've already agreed *parts* of it are (e.g. GUI design).
What about the "Visualizer" that comes with WinAmp? It has no
purpose but to be enjoyed visually. Software Art, isn't it?
How about the infamous FRACTINT program? Clearly a labor of love
and with a primary purpose of making pretty images. And if their
"license policy" isn' the statement of an artist, I don't know
what is:
**********************************************************************
* Contribution policy: Don't want money. Got money. Want admiration. *
**********************************************************************
> Given the difference in goals of the two domains (art vs software
> engineering), I can't see common ground in either their means or
> ends.
I don't agree the goals are different! In the *commercial* world,
software is a product produced (often) by less skilled programmers
and sometimes by non-programmers (or programmers who SHOULD BE
non-programmers). In the commercial world, art is also produced
by a range of artists (from skilled to not)--that was a big part
of Andy Warhol's point: that "art" exists all around us on soup cans
and cereal boxes. SOMEONE--probably someone who went to school to
learn art--designed all that commercial art.
On the other end of the range, are folks like those who did FRACTINT,
the visualizer in WinAmp and other hobbiests who write programs just
"because". That's pure art--the drive or need to create "Because".
>> But I've always liked this take on it:
>>
>> One who works with their hands is a laborer.
>> One who works with their hands and their mind is a craftsman.
>> One who works with their hands, mind and heart is an artist.
>>
>> And my personal definition of Art (and, hence, Artists):
>>
>> Art is the re-expression of a personal perception of reality.
>> The Artist is one who is driven to create these expressions.
>
> So a sculptor or a surgeon (who work with their hands) is a laborer?
> Every profession uses its hands, so that definition is less than ideal.
The nature of the expression implies "only with".
> I think we can agree that definitions like these are too simplistic.
> But in trying to answer "what is art" and "what is programming"
> together, I don't see much overlap.
I do, and I always have.
> They don't seek the same goals, nor employ the same techniques, nor
> involve the consumer of the product in comparable ways.
False, false and false. See above examples.
> CAN software be art. Sure. As others and perhaps you have pointed out
> in this thread, it's possible. But I insist that it's not the norm, nor
> is it even a rarity. In fact, it's a rarity that anyone would consider
> software to be so well made that it might be considered the work of an
> artist,...
I think that conflates quality with art. They are separate concepts.
> In over 20 years working in the world of software, I've never seen
> anything that I would call art.
You've never seen fractal programs? You've never seen visualizers?
How about screen savers? How about software for kids that uses a lot
of visuals? How about **games** (huge software market, BTW). Do you
have any idea how stunningly beautiful and artistic something like
the Myst series is?
> Perhaps the closest thing I've seen to art is the original Macintosh
> interface. It was original (mostly), intended to convey meaning, and
> effective in doing so. It continues to be a landmark in my mind of what
> software design can and should be. But I'm reluctant to call it art...
To the extent that it reflects the designers' vision, it *is* art.
> because the meaning that it conveys is dynamic and is not the intention
> of the developers.
But as a *way* of doing that dynamic something, it is very much in the
intent of the authors.
> Perhaps that's a new meaning for meaning, but I'm reluctant
> to call it art, because the intended message of the artist (Raskin,
> Atkinson, et al) was contextually transparent.
"Contextually transparent"? No idea what that means. The intended
message is very clear (and not in the least transparent): THIS IS THE
WAY FOR AN OS TO BE (AND BY THE WAY KEEP YER MITTS OUTTA MY INSIDES :-).
The Macintosh line--more so than most computer lines--very much represents
a strong single vision of what a computer should be, and in that sense
it is art to me.
>> I have a friend who's made a good living for 30+ years as a Commercial
>> Artist (it's quite possible you've seen his work). Yet in all this
>> time I've never seen him create something because he "needed to".
>>
>> I think he's a hugely, incredibly gifted craftsman.
>> I'm not sure he's an artist.
>
> I suspect s/he'd agree.
Nope. One of the few times we seriously disagreed. His feelings were
hurt, so I never brought it up again. His take is that, while he does
work by the requirements of others, he still brings his full artistic
training to that work.
And I think he may have had a good point.
> Conversely, programmers are trained as engineers, not artists, and as
> such their work is much less likely to be art or even artistic.
Possibly one reason so many programs are so sad.
> So perhaps the question really should be, "Can programmers produce art?"
> To which I suppose the answer must be: sure, anyone can produce a work
> that others might call art.
What I produce... I could care less what others call it, and THAT is the
real mark of an artist. There is a drive, a need, to create new things
in your chosen medium.
> But if you're not intending to produce art, and you produce something
> that others consider to be art, is it art?
To you, no. To them, it's probably just something pretty.
> Or conversely, if you intend art, and you produce something un-artful,
> is that art?
Define un-artful. Do you mean something ugly? Art can be ugly. Do you
mean something boring or derivative? Art (bad art) can be that, too. If
it comes from the soul and the heart, it's art.
> I would answer to both: no, that's not art. IMHO, art is two things: 1)
> an attempt to communicate with the consumer in an original way, and 2)
> success in doing so. Failing either is an absence of art.
I think every artist in the world would disagree. Certainly those up on
their "theory of art" would. I *absolutely* disagree with (2). And I
think, if you talk with real artists, you'll find they aren't trying to
communicate with anyone so much as express themselves.
> To wit, art is not an noun or a verb; it's an event where purpose meets
> with success.
So if no one had ever seen the Sistine Chapel ceiling, it wouldn't be art?
If Picasso had hoarded all his work in a closet, he wasn't an artist?
> Yeah, I'd say there are a lot of folks out there who are called artists
> but produce no art.
Well, I'd agree, but for different reasons. (-:
>> In any event, there's lots of data points. Some laborers a little
>> more than muscle and bone and a barely-directable intelligence.
>> Others may simply enjoy working outside (I knew a guy who was on
>> the fast track to becoming an Engineer until he decided he'd
>> rather be a gardener.) And there is something to be said for a
>> day hauling rock or painting a house--a real sense of a day's work
>> accomplished.
>
> If you're just keeping pants alive, gardening is not art.
> If you choose the plants to plant and choose where to plant them,
> and then plant them, it seems to me that could be art.
Even if no one saw them or liked them? If so, you're starting to see it
my way. As an expression of beauty perceived by the gardener. What
about a lovely Japanese sand garden only ever seen by its owner but
upon which is lavished hour after hour of time by a master artist?
>> One distinction: laborers don't usually create from scratch by using
>> the power of their minds. Craftsman (and women) do, though.
>
> Yep. That's a step toward art, but insufficient. Simply painting a
> house isn't art. Doing it extraordinarily well is a gift, and a thing
> of beauty, but it isn't art, even if it elicits an emotional response in
> the consumer.
Ah! Doesn't that indicate that perhaps *perception* of outsiders is
NOT a yardstick?
> The missing ingredient in becoming art is the intent and the act of
> the painter to change the work into something new,...
Ah, exactly so. Intent. Will. Desire. THAT spawns art.
> Sic, "craftsmen and women"? Did I miss your explanation for this
> juxtaposition?
I try to use inclusive language as much as possible, so "craftsMEN"
sticks in my craw slightly.
>> Artists.... when you write a program because you just want to, I think
>> you are expressing something similar to what an artist feels when
>> they paint or write or play. When you are filled with joy over a
>> clever algorithm or program trick--you are feeling something similar
>> to what artists feel.
>
> Sure. The same is true of someone who ably splits logs with an axe.
> But satisfaction in a job well done is insufficient to call the act or
> its product "art".
Splitting wood is (fun) exercise, not a creative act. (Stacking it might
be, though.)
>> But then laborers can feel joy for their accomplishments, too.
>> A difference may be that one says, "I BUILT that" whereas the other
>> says, "I DESIGNED that". The first creation comes from the hands,
>> the second from the head or from the head and heart.
>
> Taking pleasure in doing something does not make it art. Eating
> something you like is not art. Watching a funny show on TV is not art.
> If it were, we'd all be artists and the word would lose all meaning.
Right. Again, the *creative* act is central.
> I agree completely. Labels are always inadequate. They capture only a
> small portion of the whole, and they always fail to differentiate among
> different examples. But words (and labels) are all we have in order to
> communicate.
No. We have the **ideas** that words can communicate. It's just that
ideas are harder than labels and very confusing to some people.
>> First, don't confuse "good art" with "art". Art doesn't have to be
>> pretty, appealing, nice looking or even successful. It just has to
>> be an expression of the artist's heart.
>
> I disagree completely. If you produce a turd that others appreciate as
> art, it still isn't art. If you intend to produce an appealing turd,
> but fail, it isn't art.
Yet scratological art HAS been foisted on the public in various ways
(modern artists cover a lot of territory looking for something new).
If your producing a turd is somehow an expression of perception of reality,
it may well be a form of (crude) art. Given that no skill is required
and that the expressive palette is pretty limited, your expression is
probably doomed to be--at best--utterly mundane.
(Much more likely that no expressive drive exists for such a medium, so
the example is a bit forced and artificial.)
> Yeah, that's probably not the prevailing opinion. But any other
> definition makes no sense to me. Just because someone who is officially
> recognized as an artist produces something does not make it art -- not
> unless others find value in it.
The first part I'd agree with. The second part I consider totally wrong.
Art has nothing to do with whether someone likes or whether it is
successful. Some of the greatest art was not seen as art in the time
of the artist. Did it change from non-art to art just because people
decided it was? And if society changes its mind, is it no longer art
then?
Whether a thing is art **must** reside in the thing (or in some external
criteria), not in how people view it. BAYWATCH was one of the most
successful tv shows in the world. Ever. Is it art?
> I think art involves both an end and the means to that end. Like
> murder, art exists only when there was intent and the deed done.
> There's no such thing as "attempted art" or "manslaughter art". To be
> art, the artist has to try and succeed in committing art.
Bingo. And doesn't that tell you that it is the artist's intent that
defines whether the act is art?
>> The creativity and imagination can lie in the source code layout,
>> user docs, technical docs, comments, error messages or many other
>> places where a programmer can exercise those traits.
>
> Yes, these can be original and perhaps creative or imaginative. But the
> source code is not the product, except to another programmer. It's like
> a bridge.
Which implies there's some other way to get there (some other bridge).
With no source, there IS no product. You might be able to build a building
without a plan. But good luck building a software product sans source!
> The choices made by the engineer in which components to use
> and their composition is not where the art lies.
Absolutely it is. That's their palette. Just as a painter chooses which
colors, which type of paint, which type of surface, which style to use,
which brushes, etc. It all matters to the final product.
> To take pride in one's workmanship is natural and to be encouraged.
> But to consider something to be art because of the artisan's choice
> of hammer or it was used is to miss the big picture.
There's a bit more to it than choosing a hammer. For a musician, the
choice of instrument can be significant to their sound. The toolset
is--if nothing else--interesting and is sometimes quite significant.
(But this is a side issue not related to software-as-art-or-not.)
>> And I think creating a good GUI--one that works for the user and
>> also looks good--is art in the more traditional sense (invoking the
>> use of human factors: color, sight, sound, text, etc.).
>
> It's excellence, but not art.
>
> I think part of our difficulty here is that there's no good word for
> what you're describing. Excellence combined with innovation are
> definitely something to be treasured and rewarded. What you're
> describing is a beautifully designed and well built hammer. But it's
> not art.
It certainly can be. There are many types of art: fine art, pop art,
commercial art and even industrial art. A GUI certainly isn't fine art,
but is *exactly* in line with the sort of art produced commercially
every day by the truckload (cf. Andy Warhol, again). You might not
think so, this stuff IS art, but art with a point--it is designed to
be highly engaging and easily accessible (there is much art that does
not care whether you "get it" or not, but which is an expression of
the artist's soul).
A GUI is exactly the same. It should be engaging and accessible. It
should not be off-putting or garish or annoying.
Getting that right is a form of art.
> Art is an end unto itself.
If you understand that, why do you believe its success matters at all?
> It's a means of communicating knowledge or feeling to another person
> using innovation and expertise.
Art can do that. Much art does. It is not a *defining* characteristic
of art, however.
> I know that's splitting hairs, but I think it's an important
> distinction. To lose it is to conflate workmanship with artistry. I
> think we don't want to do that, or what's a Heaven for?
Agreed. And I'm not claiming all software is art. There's a range
of software and part of that range lies within what I very much
consider art. I think one of the closest analogs to programmers are
probably architects. Do you feel that some architects produce art
in their buildings (think Sydney Opera House or somesuch).
>>> But I also think a craft must be able to *benefit* from attention
>>> to detail before a worker can call himself even an artisan. Great
>>> performance as a janitor does not make one an artisan.
>>
>> Sure it can. An Artisan Janitor, to be sure, but still an Artist if
>> he or she works from the heart.
>
> No matter if the janitor is grossly incompetent and leaves more of a
> mess than when s/he began cleaning?
One assumes that a janitor with the heart of an artist would do exactly
the opposite. But if not, they may well be a grossly unskilled and
inept artist--IF WHAT THEY DO COMES FROM A NEED TO EXPRESS A PERCEPTION
OF REALITY. It is pretty silly to imagine janitoring would allow for
such expression, but within the bounds of possiblity, then why not.
> Lots of us like to think of ourselves as artists, and I think we can all
> be artistic. But that doesn't mean our efforts are art.
If you are expressing your personal view--especially if you are driven
to express your personal view--there is an artist in your heart. It
may be an unskilled, mundane, boring one, but that is another axis.
>> I think it clearly is. Isn't Linux a work from a number of very
>> passonate hearts? Unix in general is what it is (IMO) in part due
>> to those that loved it and gave of it from their hearts.
>
> Is Linux art? If so, what was Linus trying to say?
Ask a fan! (-:
> But even if the definitions do meet, you should probably ask whether
> your definition of art is ambitious enough.
I don't think of my definitions as having ambitions, but my definition
works for me in that it covers all ground I (in my gut) consider art
and excludes that which is not. It is, in fact, the definition I've
derived after decades of considering the question, "What is Art?"
(The question matters to be, because I've been associated with the arts
in one form or other all my life and do consider myself an artist.)
> I've concluded that if a work does not speak to me and communicate
> the intended message of its creator, then it's not art.
To you. That's a very personal definition. I imagine I could find a
vast number of items the world considers art but which would not speak
to you nor communicate any message to you.
Do you realize what you're saying is just another version of, "I don't
know Art, but I know what I like." In other words, you are expressing
your personal taste, not your knowledge of art.
> The work's creation must also have required creativity and skill,
> or it's serendipity, not art.
We definately agree about the need for creativity. Less so skill.
In my lexicon, skill informs good art from bad art. The creative
act--and the intent behind it--inform art from non-art.
> I think a work must possess originality and intentional meaning and
> succeed in conveying that meaning in order to be called art.
Nope. Consider impressionist art or abstract art. Part of the deal
there is what happens to YOU--which may be distinct from what happens
to anyone else--when you view the piece. The piece itself may be
without any specific message.
Gregory L. Hansen
Just by the way, if computer programming is no longer an art, does that
make it a science? The irony is there's no science to doing science, it's
very much an art.
--
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.
Programmer Dude
>> Is the response the point of the art, or is the art itself the
>> point of the art, or is it, perhaps, the act of creation? Is
>> it possible that audience response is secondary to the artist?
>>
>> Also, that response can be negative--sometimes very much so.
>
> Excellent question. I say that the point of the art is the response.
> Without the response, it isn't art. It's just a pretty picture. Or
> not pretty, in the case of negative art.
Then, bottom line, we simply define art differently. To me, the act
is central, the reception irrelevant.
>>> Artisans combine artistic values with engineering to produce works
>>> that achieve aesthetic goals as well as functional ones.
>>
>> You might consider substituting "artistic" for "aesthetic", since
>> that's what you really mean, I believe..
>
> Maybe. But what of a work of art that is called aesthetically ugly?
But we're not talking about works of art, but works of craft here
(which is exactly why I'm suggesting aesthetic over artistic).
> I would more readily call art ugly than call a thing aesthetically
> ugly. The former implies that the work has deliberate ugliness that is
> intended to be conveyed as part of its message. The latter implies that
> something simply lacks beauty, presumably unintentionally so,...
Or perhaps because the creators didn't value beauty.
> I think the difference is that artistic ugliness is an effective means
> to an end. Aesthetic ugliness just describes an ineffective end.
Most government buildings are aesthetically ugly. Yet effective.
See, beauty/ugliness is just a criterion that describes something.
It really has no other meaning beyond that.
>> My point is, you're trying to draw hard lines where I don't think
>> they exist--or are very blurry at best.
>
> We agree there, except on how blurry the lines are. It's also one thing
> to believe the lines are blurry in the abstract -- in the definitions
> themselves. It's another to believe the blurriness arises when applying
> clear definitions to blurry life. I believe more in the latter than the
> former. Platonic ideals are good.
Are they? Why?? (-:
We continue to disagree about the fundamentals. I believe that the
definition itself is *necessarily* blurry. I'll try to explain why
(if you know what physicists mean by "phase space" skip the next many
paragraphs).
Consider a criterion such as height of a human. We all have a height
that is characteristic (that is, not affected by being prone, e.g.).
The current height of any person is a number on an axis--a height axis.
We also have a weight number, and that could be marked on a separate
weight axis.
We could combine the concepts, arrange the axis perpendicular to each
other and generate a 2D space where in any pair of height-weight can
be recorded.
We could add a third axis, say birthdate, arrange this perpendicular
to the first two and have a 3D space wherein we have a triple of
numbers that describe height-weight-birthdate.
In principle (but not in the 3D world), we can keep finding criteria
that define a person and adding axis which we imagine to be perpendicular
to all others. (In practice, we can just work with a vector on numbers
where each number specifies a point on an axis.)
This multi-dimensional space of potential points--where each point
defines a given person--is called phase space by physicists. If you
consider that our axes are larger than needed to describe humans
(height, e.g., goes on forever) you see that the bubble of phase
space inhabited by humans is inside the total voume of that space.
For example, the region where the height axis is > 20' would have
no humans even though all other criteria might allow it.
If we go on to inscribe a point for every human extant in our phase
space, we end up with a cloud that is very dense in the areas where
the criteria converge on the human averages. And that cloud gets
less and less dense as you move away from that center.
Here's the question: Where's the hard edge in that cloud that defines
what is human phase space and what is not?
Answer: there isn't one. The "boundary" is comprised of many, many
points and you could compose a surface that included them, but can
you say for certain the next one you inscribe will necessarily be
inside that surface?
At one time, the four-minute mile would have seemed non-human.
The same thing is true of Art. There are so vastly many criteria
that describe art that the phase space is huge. And the boundaries
are just as vague and ill-defined.
>> It's BEEN both to me at different points. I've done a share of mindless
>> toiling that involved no creative input from me whatsoever. True blue
>> clockwatching stuff. I've also done work I consider to be as representing
>> of my heart as any tune I've written (and quite frankly, the programs
>> were all much "better" "art" :-).
>
> Of course I don't know what you've done, but I would probably consider
> them the work of an artisan, not an artist. Unless you employed the
> other attributes of art as I've described them repeatedly elsewhere.
That's by your definition. They--some of them--were things I just "had"
to create. I had a drive to create a new thing where none existed.
And it was a personal expression of my view of how that thing should be.
> Is my discrimination between artisan and art not meaningful to you?
Certainly it is. As I said before, your "artisan" is my "craftsperson".
Same concept. The little homily has it that "craftsfolk work with their
hands and their heads." Which is exactly what I hear you saying about
artisans.
My little labors of love came from my hands, head AND heart, and to me
that makes a significant difference.
> For instance, a novel can entertain. If it succeeds, its author is an
> artisan. A novel that transcends the appeal of its plot and characters
> and succeeds in capturing a moment of history or communicates a deeply
> felt ineffable moment in your life has accomplished something more. If
> artisan == artist, then we have no terminology that captures the
> difference between entertainment and art.
I think a key difference between us is how we view the *quality* of art
and its popular success. To me, these are separate criteria. A novel
is usually art, although it may be hack art or popular art. A novel
that transcends is good--even great--art.
THAT'S the terminology I use to distinguish. Art has a vast range from
pop to fine, from good to bad, from hack to skilled. There's plenty of
terminology available to distinguish art. People in that business have
been using it all along.
>> (Um, don't agree about musicians, there.)
>
> In some cases, I agree. I think most musicians express themselves
> through music. But I think precious few invent. I'd call the latter
> artists, while the former are just fun to listen to.
I'd agree except for the "precious few" part. MOST of the better
musicians write. The hacks and bar bands, not so much.
> I don't think the medium matters. Artistry arises when someone
> transcends their medium.
Whereas I state it that "Great Art" arises when someone.... etc.
> So even great artists don't necessarily always produce art.
Whereas I state it that "even great artists don't always produce great
art." Art is what artists do. Good or bad is a different question.
>> I think we have different definitions of artist. Yours seems to involve
>> skillsets and knowledge whereas mine is more based on outlook. (Neither
>> is right or wrong--just different.)
>
> In this discussion, I don't mean to imply right or wrong. But I do very
> much mean to imply clear and unclear.
I VERY much doubt the definition can be made clear to everyone. There
is much that is personal about it. And as this discussion shows, even
among those who consider the matter, there are varying ways of looking
at it.
> Standards matter a lot.
In programming languages, nuts and bolts and electrical connectors, sure.
In matters of human affairs--much, much less so (at least in the sense
of "standards" being applied here: labels and pidgeonholes).
>>> elegant engineering is just the stripping of a solution to its bare
>>> essentials. It's not purposefully aesthetic.
>>
>> One might claim that to those with an engineering eye, it's VERY BEAUTIFUL!
>> I know that my functions look "ugly" to me when they aren't a pure and
>> elegant as they should be. One way I know I'm losing control of a piece
>> of code is that it starts to look ugly. Good source IS beautiful!
>
> That's an interesting but fine distinction. Is elegance art? Is E=MC^2
> or Godel's proof art?
No, but I'm not equating the beauty of elegance with art. I'm addressing
the comment that engineering is not purposefully aesthetic and saying
that I don't think that's necessarily so. I'm not sure I can identify
what makes a function "elegant", but I can tell when it "looks good", so
it's a useful yardstick.
> Several recent books discuss the line between workmanship and invention:
> "The Existential Pleasures of Engineering", by Thomas Dunne, and "The
> Introspective Engineer", by Samuel Florman are two. I'm not sure either
> discriminates discriminates between art an engineering as I do, but
> both authors believe that good engineering can transcend the mundane
> application of skill.
So do I.
> Probably we need to invent a proper term to capture great examples of
> engineering as more than just craftsmanship. Much architecture
> transcends its mundane purpose of serving as a building that keeps the
> rain off of people. Is it art? Yeah, I think a lot of it is. Is it
> engineering? Sure. Are the beams or rivets that were chosen to hold it
> up art? Was the riveter an artist? No. Nor is source code art.
I agree with everything except that last sentence!
Let me ask this: where did the art of the building come from? Would you
agree it came from the architect's soul (or whatever you wanna call it)?
Yet the architect did not build the building--the riveters and others
did. So at what point is it art?
In the mind of the architect? Only in the final product?
If you would say only in the final product, are you also saying that
a Beethoven symphony is not art UNTIL it is played and heard? That
the "source code" itself is not the real source of the art? Suppose
Beethoven's best work was lost, never played, never heard. (But if
it had been heard, everyone would agree it's his best ever.)
Is that lost work art? It ONLY exists as "source code".
What if the building were never built and only existed as "source code"?
> No work of art remains art when it is dissected.
Actually, Rogar Ebert holds seminars where he dissects PULP FICTION
almost literally frame by frame. It is often in the deconstruction
that we realize the true artistry.
> But source code is never art, any more than raw rivets or well driven
> rivets are art.
But source code is NOT the rivets. It's the blueprints.
>> If it comes from the heart, it's art.
>
> So anything that comes from the heart art? Hitler's hatred for the Jews
> was art? :-( That makes little sense to me.
Of course not, you're being a literalist. Some common sense is required.
> Can art just happen accidentally?
I don't believe so, no.
> What is necessary in order for something to be called art?
Intent. Creation. Expression of personal perception.
> Is everyone an artist?
No. Many people have no heart, no imagination or no creativity.
> All of the time, or only when they're producing art?
If you have the soul of an artist, you are an artist. Period.
> What happens when an artist deliberately produces crap? Is it
> still art?
Sure. It's just crappy art. Happens a lot!!
>> Don't agree. We're not pure artists, we're functional artists (those of us
>> that are good enough to BE artists in the first place). As such, as with
>> my commercial artist friend, we work under contraints.
>
> So no matter what your artist friend does, even if sh/he never produces
> another piece of art ever again, s/he is still an artist?
Yes. Absolutely.
> However, *variation* on expectations is the heart of art. If you
> produce a thing and do it well, you only meet expectations. If you
> *exceed* expectations in a way that transcends the purpose of the thing,
> especially if the way you transcend it is harmonious with the role of
> the thing -- the way those things look, the way they work, the end they
> achieve -- then you have transcended expectations, you have done more
> than "well", and you have created art.
Maybe. You have certainly transcended traditional boundaries. Whether
that work is art depends on your intent and motivation.
>> In many cases it's the work of laborers or hacks. But so is much "art".
>> Novelists, in particular, often just crank'm out.
>
> All novelists?
Obviously not.
> Yeah, I know I'm being perverse. But until I see a useful hammer that I
> consider a piece of art, I'll continue to insist that a medium whose
> only purpose is to provide the user cognitive consonance in getting work
> done is antithetical to self expression. Carpenters want their hammers
> to work better, not be works of art. The same is true of artists --
> painters want a better brush, so that they can create art.
Well, there is certainly a difference between work-a-day tools and works
of art. The person who creates your useful hammers might also create a
work of art hammer as a personal expression of his hammer expertise.
The two are not at all exclusive.
> Likewise, users of software want it to be invisible. For programmers to
> innovate by making software in some way unusual and in any way less
> obvious and intuitive to the user's task at hand is to go in the wrong
> direction. Thus in the world of software development, art must die.
Utterly false. Same as hammers. There is software intended to be a
working tool and software intended for other uses. Some software is
intended just to be viewed.
>> Can you name such a thing? Awesome, yet broken? (-:
>
> [snip]
None of those (that I knew of) were awesome to me. Interesting was a
far as any of them got.
> Success in the software biz....
Certainly, in the business of selling software there are constraints.
If you would focus on this aspect, you should then compare business
software with commercial art, not fine art.
>> Truly, I think any attempt to classify the act of creating software as
>> either This or That is doomed to fail.
>
> Your software has to serve a need, or nobody's going to care what you
> did. If you made it pretty, that's swell, but not if your competitor's
> software is faster, cheaper, integrates better, is more reliable, works
> better, is more intuitive to use and aggravates the user less.
>
> There's a long list of essentials that must be met by any application
> before art can add value. First, software has to do no harm.
I agree with all that. Art--except to artists--is a luxury. To artists,
it's more like oxygen.
Randy
> Randy writes:
...
>
> In programming languages, nuts and bolts and electrical connectors, sure.
> In matters of human affairs--much, much less so (at least in the sense
> of "standards" being applied here: labels and pidgeonholes).
If you don't care about standards "in matters of human affairs", then
you don't care whether you and I:
1) understand each other's terminology (use standard definitions)
2) learn each other's terminology (develop standard definitions)
3) apply that terminology to a topic of conversation using criteria on
which we agree (use standard definitions in a standard way)
In that case, I have to conclude that you just like to argue.
Randy
Randy Howard
I suspect he'll argue about that last part too. :-)
Programmer Dude
>>> Standards matter a lot.
>>
>> In programming languages, nuts and bolts and electrical connectors, sure.
>> In matters of human affairs--much, much less so (at least in the sense
>> of "standards" being applied here: labels and pidgeonholes).
>
> If you don't care about standards "in matters of human affairs", then
> you don't care....
You can stop right there. I never said "don't care". I said they matter
less. And I was also very specific in exactly what sort of standard I
meant. If you're going to participate successfully in a discussion about
something as subtle and varied as Art, you'd better learn to pay attention
to what is actually said.
> ... whether you and I:
>
> 1) understand each other's terminology (use standard definitions)
>
> 2) learn each other's terminology (develop standard definitions)
There's a difference between hard standards that precisely define a thing
and the fuzzy way general words, such as "Art", are defined in human
experience. Screws and electrical connectors can be precisely defined.
Most human experiences are harder to define precisely.
Did you ever take the Philosophy 101 exercise of trying to define a
chair? It's harder that it might seem to come up with something
that includes all chairs, but excludes all non-chairs.
> 3) apply that terminology to a topic of conversation using criteria on
> which we agree (use standard definitions in a standard way)
Seemed to me we were in the process of negotiating those criteria.
Rather than whining about imaginary issues, perhaps you'd like to try
actually responding to the topic matter.
> In that case, I have to conclude that you just like to argue.
I like to debate (there's a difference). It's good for the mind.