🔒 Locked

Is Code Art?

Started by valg3 Oct 6, 2001 at 12:03 AM 96 replies 4.8k views

Original Post

Oct 6, 2001 at 12:03 AM

Just the other night I had a debate with a roommate over whether programming is an art like painting, sculpting, architecture, you name it. We are both students at DigiPen, and in our first year. For background's sake, this is his first time in an away-from-home college(as far as I know), and has minimal coding experience if any. I on the other hand have been coding for the past few years, doing games and simple simulations and the like in Java, C/C++, and ASM and have a deep passion for it. I heavily believe it is an art just as anything else. I believe coding is an art. Just as the paintings of the great masters (even though can you truly compare art to art? Please stay with me because its futile to argue if a sculpture rivals a sketch, afterall) use brushstrokes, we use intricate commands and arrangement of code as they arrange colors and objects on their canvas. Art is an expression of one's self, not the product of buckets of paint. I express myself through code because that's what I'm good at. No one can convince me that demos such as Rebirth and Worthless on NeHe's site are not art. We put a great deal of design, thought, and long hours work into what we do to express ourselves like this. Does this not constitute art? I'd like to hear your opinions on this. Here's our conversation, it's slightly long for a thread but I believe it is necessary for everyone to see. It was surprisingly brief but I won't go into my opinions why. The names have been changed just to be considerate. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roommate>: Yeah. I'm surprised at the kinda friends I've made over the years. One chick works for Lycos' art department, another's studying at UCLA's art dept., that guy a Shiny... Roommate>: Heh, I guess it's to be expected, though; much as I like art I'm not surprised to be friends with a bunch of artists.... Me>: so why are you into RTIS instead of art then? Me>: just curious Roommate>: ::laughs:: Because I've got the manual dexterity of an oyster. I can't draw for crap. Me>: lol Roommate>: I mean, I can draw sorta good, but not enough to make a career out of it. Roommate>: #include is always #include. A shadow, a line, a perspective, those are always different. Every assignment means you have to start from square one. Me>: excuse me? Me>: I think you just went over my head Roommate>: Code is always code. Drawings are unique every time. There's a certain amount of adaptability, a knack for making things from nothing, that coders don't require. Me>: um, I think you're wrong there Me>: new things can be created from nothing Me>: the best way to find new methods sometimes is to start from nothing Me>: its just a different art Roommate>: Well, yeah, but like I said, #include is alwas #include. In art, every line and shade and color has signifigance. You can do the same picture 20 different times and have 20 different signifigances. The craft of art, the skill required, is much more complex than coding. Roommate>: Granted, coding is very complicated in its structure, but the actual craft of writing code is just typing on a keyboard. Roommate>: Anybody can write code if they know what to write. Me>: they can write code, but they may not have the right logic to write it as well Me>: and there are a million ways to write one program, but its still built of the same basic components such as #include Me>: its just arrangement, like brushstrokes Roommate>: True, but the point still stands. To get better at coding, you only need to know how to arrange the code. The craft of it is just typing on the keyboard. The finesse required in drawing, or even moreso in paintingor using an unforgiving medium like Conte' is still beyond what's required of coders. Roommate>: Artists require the same mental dexterity as coders to plan out their works, but the physical dexterity is something of a unique requirement of art. Roommate>: Your argument of coders needing mental dexterity is valid, but it's still not to the point of what's required of artists. Me>: both take practice, but I still see coding as its own art. Not all art deals with painting, or sculpture. Art can be the arrangement of objects, much like coding. Roommate>: Again, I agree, but it's the static nature of said objects you're arranging that lowers the craft of the art form. To simplify, coding is like playing with legos, while something like painting is like laying with clay. Me>: its all a matter of perception. I just see it as its own art. Two people can code teh same thing, just like two artists paint the same thing, and just so the two works will not be the same. Roommate>: With legos, you can grab a wing and put it anywhere you want. with the clay, not only do you have to place the wing, you have to create it from scratch. Me>: without the instructions from a guy who plays with legos all day you cannot create what they show on their boxes. That person has created something unique, and you cannot create the exact same thing without their help. Your craft may look totally different. Me>: clay is a building block just like legos. Roommate>: Right, and while the esign is totally up to you, the craft still remains the same: You stick the legos together. Roommate>: But with the clay, you're given an amorphous form with which you have to form every single little nuance yourself. Me>: but isn't a blank page as formless? Me>: a page means nothing, just as a lump of clay means nothing until it is shaped. Roommate>: Perhaps, but functions and declarations and such are still building blocks. There're no building blocks to paint. The start might be formless, but again the crafts are different. The methods of creation. Me>: right, but remember the assembly scuptures? those were built out of pieces of things already made. Me>: and its art Me>: its all because of arrangement, and overall effect Roommate>: ::wags finger:: Ah ah ah, you're confusing things. Granted assembly structures were put together, but each piece had to be created just as if the whole sculpture was one piece of created art. Roommate>: Good gravy, it's 2 in the morning. I'm gonna try and go back to sleep. Roommate>: But don't think I've let you off the hook; I'm not through with you yet. ;D Me>: but when arranged, and built, code becomes something that is one gigantic form. You take away a piece and it falls apart. **Roommate> signed off at 1:51:51 AM. ** Me>: The smallest snippet taken away may cause it to break ----------------------------------------------------------------- I'd like to hear other opinions on this. Sorry about the long post, but I believe this had to be said. --Valg3 Edited by - valg3 on October 6, 2001 1:05:49 AM

Densun

151

Densun

Oct 6, 2001 at 12:23 AM

I see code more as a blue print, not art. An analogy: code is to art as the english language is to writing.

bishop_pass

297

bishop_pass

Oct 6, 2001 at 12:28 AM

Is designing a hydraulic pump art? Is coding a Webpage art? Is building a coalition art? Is wiring a house art? Is combing my hair art?

Is your code art? I don''t know, but it sure seems like a really good coder would focus on really good code, not code that passes muster as art.

bishop_pass

297

bishop_pass

Oct 6, 2001 at 12:48 AM

Is driving my car to the store art? Consider: I begin with the non-existence of the event. Behold! It forms within my mind. Such beauty! I open the door to my car. There are so many ways that I could do it. I could have delayed an extra second. I could have given a casual toss to my head while doing it. Just imagine!

I seat myself in the car. Observe with such grace as I turn the key. So many possible outcomes! Just like the unpredictable way the paint will lay down upon the canvas. The engine roars to life! With aplomb I release the key and stylishly throw the car into reverse as my foot ever so gracefully keeps the brake pedal depressed.

The route! Imagine the myriad ways that I could go! No two trips will be the same. Such excitement! This is an act to watch, to participate in, to revel in the feeling of, like a song. My car's engine purrs as I cross the intersection. To think I could have gone left and then straight, instead of straight and then left. I have crafted this from my own mind! This enactment of my vision is art!

Edited by - bishop_pass on October 6, 2001 1:49:11 AM

tuxx

Oct 6, 2001 at 10:54 AM

Ok I just got a new login name (my old one is ChocaPaluza123), so I''m dying to post. I think that when you write code, its a task. When you debug it, it''s a chore. When you try to find a different way, better way, easier way, more readable way, or just something to be different, its an art.

BTW, if you are ever in a computer lab, bring a floppy disk and elmers glue. when youre monitor or sysadmin or someone is looking, put in the floppy, and when they are not looking, pull out the floppy, put glue around the floppy drive(to look like it''s drooling), and say that the floppy drive ate your floppy and say that its even drooling.

"It''''s the Big, Evil Microsoft Corporation & Wicked, Greedy, Too-Fucking-Rich Bill Gates vs. the We''''re-In-It-for-the-Love-and-Free-Software-for-Everybody & the Self-Effacing (Seeming) Folk Hero Linus B. Torvalds thing."
- Linus Torvalds, describing how many portray him

MarkyD

Oct 6, 2001 at 11:01 AM

I think it''s art.

But try telling that to Picasso...

bishop_pass

297

bishop_pass

Oct 6, 2001 at 11:08 AM

I see a bunch of people musing philosophically about their abilities to code. Get over it. Code isn't art.

Code is engineering. Are you ready to accept engineering as art? In general, engineering uses scienctific study to create economic functionality from a minimal set of materials and energy. That is not the primary goal of art.

For example, in designing a better hydraulic pump, few if any of the principles of art come into play. If the end result looks artistic, it is because society has an apperciaion of the 'form follows function' principle.

Get over it. Code isn't art. However, if what the code does is artistic, than the product of the code could be considered as art, but that is a different issue than raised by the topic starter.

Edited by - bishop_pass on October 7, 2001 1:54:21 AM

Chris Hargrove

Oct 6, 2001 at 7:18 PM

Bishop, I wouldn''t be so absolute in your position. Personally I believe programming is very much a form of artistic expression, albeit a technical one.

I doubt I''m alone in this viewpoint, otherwise I wouldn''t hear the phrase "elegant code" nearly as often as I do. And don''t forget, Knuth''s classic tomes are titled "The Art of Computer Programming"...

Apparently some people seem to be going on the idea that art and engineering are mutually exclusive. I don''t believe this is the case. I know plenty of engineers who have an artistic view of their work, and this includes both software engineers and engineers in other disciplines as well.

I will agree that engineering is based on the importance of function over form, but once you know that the requirement of function will be fulfilled, there is no reason in the world not to add additional value in terms of form. And even without form, there is just as much artistic value in the creation of function. Attempting to reject the benefits of artistic expression and technical creativity is more likely to impede you in programming than benefit you. Personally, my programming efforts rely just as much on might right brain as they do on my left.

My high school class ring has "Art" on its side. Back in high school and early college I used to do a lot of artwork (mostly pencil, pen&ink, and oil painting). I''m very out of practice with my drawing skills, but I still do oil painting now and then. So I consider myself an artist at heart, and one of the things that attracted me to programming (and which keeps me interested in it today) is its purity as an artistic medium. With traditional art media, the foundations lie in the tools and palette of a medium itself. But the palette of programming is largely abstract in nature. Instead of colors, you work with concepts. In the process of creating something functional, the artistic side of programming gives you the freedom to create using building blocks that exist only inside your mind. The code itself is a written permutation of an abstract medium which has no physical basis. The resulting program is the realization of this abstraction into something concrete. Both the code and the program have artistic value.

Everyone has a different opinion on this subject, and that''s fine. The debate of whether programming is an art form has been going on for almost as long as there have been programmers. So I don''t expect to "convert" any nonbelievers by saying any of this. I will say this, however: If you don''t believe programming is a form of artistic expression, then you may be missing out on one of the greatest joys of this profession.

Fantasy Edge

Oct 6, 2001 at 7:40 PM

this really depends on your outlook and what you consider art. to be strikingly honest, i dont see it as art Because logic does not become art. However, as you talk to different people and more and more diehard programmers, you will get a different idea of this. Question, does looking at well written code make you feel sad, happy, angry or any other emotion?
I tend to say no, so programming is not art.

But if your an insider to programming, that may be a differnt way of thinking. Im an artist. I could care less about color pallets and poly counts. i dont see whether or not a model is efficiant of whether a face could be changed in some way. I see if the PICTURE does anything for me. How well it was done really has no baring as far as im concerned simply because even nature has its many ways of doing the same thing.

programming has a lot of the basic requirments for art but it will only appeal to a very select crowd because of what it chooses to demonstrate I think.

Houdini

Oct 6, 2001 at 8:51 PM

I used to believing programming wasn''t an art. However, when I started to grow as a programmer, I started to see above the logical statements and functions. I started to focus primarily on the design, architecture, and flow of a program, as a whole. There is an infinite number of ways to approach a design, and most of them end up as dead ends that make your life harder in end. However, there are those few designs that amaze you how they can be so elegant yet practical. They lead you into different avenues of thinking, allowing you to approach new designs from different angles. They abstract your thinking from the logical problems into a higher level of thinking.

Someone compared programming to engineering, and in some ways they are correct. There is a finite amount of ways to perform an action, like converting an integer into a string. There is also usually one best way to do these things. Design is a totally different beast. There is no best design for any program.

I dunno, maybe I''m being too philisophical. Still, I believe programming can be art, if approached the right way.

- Houdini

Martee

126

Martee

Oct 6, 2001 at 8:52 PM

How about a different spin on this topic?

Art
Pronunciation: ''ärt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at ARM
Date: 13th century
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

It would seem that programming fits the first definition fairly accurately. Is programming a branch of learning? Maybe not. It''s certainly an occupation requiring skill and knowledge. Number 4 is probably what comes to mind when most of us think of art, and it applies, except for the ''especially in the production of aesthetic objects'' clause. 5 and 6 are a bit off.

Please don''t get the idea that I beleive art can be put to a dictionary definition, or that programming is, beyond any doubt, an art. I just wanted to give everyone something to think about.

bishop_pass

297

bishop_pass

Oct 6, 2001 at 10:49 PM

All of you ''trying to be overly philosophical'' types are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If you have to work hard at making it seem reasonable that programming is art, something is wrong.

With just as much energy, if not less, I could argue that a million other things are also art, but I wouldn''t see the point or value in it.

Densun

151

Densun

Oct 6, 2001 at 11:27 PM

I believe art is a universal language. If someone reads poetry, he will see that the writer has written something more than prose. If someone sees Rodin's The Thinker , he will see a meaning behind it. You can play music, and anyone will know it is music and not just a noise. All of those can be done without the observer knowing how to write, sculpt, or make music.

Now show someone code, and he will think it is a foreign language. Even if he understands the language, he won't necessarily see any art behind. The programmer may, though, because it is his own creation, kind of like how parents feel their child is the most special. That's basically what bishop_pass meant by "anything can be argued as art."

Edited by - Densun on October 6, 2001 12:34:58 AM

Vetinari

Oct 6, 2001 at 11:36 PM

quote:

Question, does looking at well written code make you feel sad, happy, angry or any other emotion?
I tend to say no, so programming is not art.

I can spend all day looking around an ''art'' museum and not experience any emotion from the ''artwork'', therefore must not be art. I can look at code and see the beauty of the solution, the carefullness of the details, and marvel at it''s creativeness. Good code has made me laugh, feel good when I see how it work.

Is programming art? What is to one art, is to another garbage. Of course it''s art, form flowing not only from function, but implementation. Some spend may spend a lot of ''energy'' claiming it''s not art, but so what? If they can''t see it, it''s their problem. I can''t see art in many things others can, and that''s my problem, but it doesn''t make it non-art.

Mike

bishop_pass

297

bishop_pass

Oct 6, 2001 at 11:50 PM

quote:
Original post by Vetinari
I can look at code and see the beauty of the solution, the carefullness of the details, and marvel at it''s creativeness. Good code has made me laugh, feel good when I see how it work

Sure, I can look at code and feel the same way. I could look at the linkage connecting a yoke to an aileron on an airplane and possibly feel the same way also. I could look at many of the products of evoloution and have similar feelings evoked. By gosh, everything must be art.

Vetinari

Oct 7, 2001 at 12:09 AM

Great, so why couldn't everything have the potential to be art? Though people generally define art as something done by humans.

Mike

Edited by - Vetinari on October 7, 2001 1:09:51 AM

bishop_pass

297

bishop_pass

Oct 7, 2001 at 12:21 AM

quote:
Original post by Vetinari
Great, so why couldn''t everything have the potential to be art

Because as soon as everything becomes art, the definition of art ceases to have meaning.

Densun

151

Densun

Oct 7, 2001 at 12:22 AM

quote:
Original post by Vetinari
I can spend all day looking around an ''art'' museum and not experience any emotion from the ''artwork'', therefore must not be art.

There is more to art than evoking emotion. It could be something that''s meant to be interpreted or have an aesthetic value.

quote:
I can look at code and see the beauty of the solution

When you say beauty, do you really mean something more like ingenious or eloquent? I don''t want to put words into your mouth, but I doubt you mean the traditional sense of beauty applied to tangible things.

quote:
and marvel at it''s creativeness

Again, you''re using a word that could mean different things. You most likely mean ingenious or clever, which is different from someone getting creative with grammar, such as with this sentence: I was driving down the road, and then I hit a deer.

quote:
the carefullness of the details

Art is not about details.

quote:
Good code has made me laugh, feel good when I see how it work.

Again, I don''t want put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you''re saying it was the understanding of the code that made you feel happy, not the code itself. When I understood a math theorum I felt happy because I understand the concept, but that''s not what happens when I look at art. Art is about understanding (or interpreting) what the author is trying to convey.

quote:
Is programming art? What is to one art, is to another garbage. Of course it''s art, form flowing not only from function, but implementation.

I''ve always thought of programming as trying to find the best solution for a problem. It can be considered ingenious or clever, but that would be function over form, which art is not.

I may have not made sense with everything, but that may be because I''m tired right now.

Vetinari

Oct 7, 2001 at 12:24 AM

quote:
Original post by Densun
I believe art is a universal language.

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. I could read poetry all day and still not 'get it'. I could look at Rodin's statue all week and not see anything more than a bronze guy with his head on his hand. Fortunately I have the ability to see art in music (or I don't by your definition, because it only evokes emotion, nothing more). There is nothing about inherint or substansive about art that you can definativly say "this is art" and "this is not art". Otherwise we'd be saying all rocks that someone has chiveled is art, anything that someone claims as a poem is art, and any sound is music, therefore art. Certianly some people think that way, (I can just imagine someone saying "Wow, look at the way he pounded that hammer into the rock seeminly randomly, but he's really expressing inner rage in this neoclassical sculpture") but the fact that many disagree shows that art is not universal.

Mike

Edited by - Vetinari on October 7, 2001 1:38:47 AM

Vetinari

Oct 7, 2001 at 12:42 AM

quote:
Original post by bishop_pass
Because as soon as everything becomes art, the definition of art ceases to have meaning.

I didn''t say everything is art, obviously some code I wouldn''t consider art. But why couldn''t hydrolic pumps, combing hair, or, heaven forbid, driving your car be art? What prevents them from becoming art?

Mike

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.