One of the easiest tells that a developer is immature is when they refer to software itself as an art, or poetry.
Computer programming as an art (1974)
11–19 of 19 posts
Re: Computer programming as an art (1974)
#12It's always a joy to re-read Knuth's work. For what it's worth I consider programming a "craft", and myself a "craftsman" - or, if you prefer, an "artisan". I'd say the key difference between what I see as "art" versus "craft" is the primary purpose. The purpose of art is to express one's self; the purpose of a craft is utility. Note that this does not mean that self-expression is not possible through craft; on the c…
> The purpose of art is to express one's self; the purpose of a craft is utility. That is the clearest distinction I've seen yet between these. Thank you for that insight.
IMO the purpose of art is psychological and emotional concentration, distillation, and abstraction.
You can express yourself in all kinds of ways, but the ways that connect with an audience are the ones that create a novel and intriguing experience. One of the most reliable ways to generate resonance and intrigue is to generate some element of psychological/cultural/emotional insight and mirroring.
Technical skill in a medium is nice to have, but if there's no emotional payload or cultural reflection it doesn't work well as art.
Some reflections are superficial, over-familiar, and banal, which is where art drifts into cliches and entertainment. Others are so rich and deep people have argued about them for centuries.
Code in itself is unlikely to do any of the above. It can be made with skill and elegance, and even with a certain kind of self-expression. But there isn't usually much artistic psychological mirroring in - say - a kernel scheduler or a device driver.
You can argue that you need psychological insight to write good applications - and that's true. But the difference is that art gives an audience a staged non-trivial experience and insight into itself. Code doesn't usually do that. It doesn't even try to.
(Which is also why generative art is often so dull - it's just code statements flapping around semi-randomly with no expressive purpose or insight.)
Re: Computer programming as an art (1974)
#13I went to a great conference back in the beginning of 2000 at Ars Electronica, if you haven't gone I would highly recommend it, it's been around since the late 70es and is where art, technology and academia meets.
Anyway in 2003 I was there the talk was about Code as language.
Many interesting talks and debates that year. I think many of the talks are video-recorded.
https://ars.electronica.art/aeblog/en/2014/11/04/code-die-sp...
Re: Computer programming as an art (1974)
#14One of the easiest tells that a developer is immature is when they refer to software itself as an art, or poetry.
I suspect that's not the characterization most people would apply to Prof. Knuth.
Re: Computer programming as an art (1974)
#15I went to a great conference back in the beginning of 2000 at Ars Electronica, if you haven't gone I would highly recommend it, it's been around since the late 70es and is where art, technology and academia meets. Anyway in 2003 I was there the talk was about Code as language. Many interesting talks and debates that year. I think many of the talks are video-recorded. https://ars.electronica.art/aeblog/en/2014/11/04/c…
Thanks for sharing this!
Re: Computer programming as an art (1974)
#16It's always a joy to re-read Knuth's work. For what it's worth I consider programming a "craft", and myself a "craftsman" - or, if you prefer, an "artisan". I'd say the key difference between what I see as "art" versus "craft" is the primary purpose. The purpose of art is to express one's self; the purpose of a craft is utility. Note that this does not mean that self-expression is not possible through craft; on the c…
You can not separate self expression and utility absolutely. In my opinion, lisp is art, sketchpad is art, TeX is art, the first spreadsheet is art, emacs is art, and others that show something extrodinary, that make you breathless, that feel like great music and painting, can all be called art.
Re: Computer programming as an art (1974)
#17It's always a joy to re-read Knuth's work. For what it's worth I consider programming a "craft", and myself a "craftsman" - or, if you prefer, an "artisan". I'd say the key difference between what I see as "art" versus "craft" is the primary purpose. The purpose of art is to express one's self; the purpose of a craft is utility. Note that this does not mean that self-expression is not possible through craft; on the c…
> The purpose of art is to express one's self; the purpose of a craft is utility. That is the clearest distinction I've seen yet between these. Thank you for that insight.
It's a nice distinction. I wonder whether we can go further though, and not even need that distinction. Here's my take on it.
Any human endeavour is worth its salt if it succeeds at discovering and expressing beauty. It can be a mathematical proof, a theory in physics, an elegant algorithm, a painting, a dance, a novel, a relationship - the list is as endless as the number of ways humans can come up with, and can be as deep and complex and subtle as they wish to make it, but it always comes back to finding and expressing beauty.
Re: Computer programming as an art (1974)
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The purpose of art is to express one's self; the purpose of a craft is utility. That is the clearest distinction I've seen yet between these. Thank you for that insight.
It's a nice distinction. I wonder whether we can go further though, and not even need that distinction. Here's my take on it. Any human endeavour is worth its salt if it succeeds at discovering and expressing beauty. It can be a mathematical proof, a theory in physics, an elegant algorithm, a painting, a dance, a novel, a relationship - the list is as endless as the number of ways humans can come up with, and can be…
Keats famously said something quite similar, but this to me seems a bit reductionist.
Re: Computer programming as an art (1974)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a nice distinction. I wonder whether we can go further though, and not even need that distinction. Here's my take on it. Any human endeavour is worth its salt if it succeeds at discovering and expressing beauty. It can be a mathematical proof, a theory in physics, an elegant algorithm, a painting, a dance, a novel, a relationship - the list is as endless as the number of ways humans can come up with, and can be…
Keats famously said something quite similar, but this to me seems a bit reductionist.
I'm embarrassed to say that I wasn't aware of Keats' writings and your comment sent me to get more educated about him, which I found very interesting, so thanks for that :)
Not sure in what sense you find the view reductionist, but I suspect it could be from inadequately expressing what I mean