Programmers are artist?
-
Pretty much the first criteria of any project I start, or code I write, is that it has to be aesthetic in its architecture and code. It's a goal and real life often enters in, but it is something I always have at the fore when writing code, API's, tests, etc.
Latest Articles:
A Lightweight Thread Safe In-Memory Keyed Generic Cache Collection Service A Dynamic Where Implementation for Entity FrameworkI hear you. Usually when I start any project, I pseudo code it for clarity and purpose. That's my art slant. I don't view as such, but sometimes it is. Similar to mathematics when one wants to simplify an equation. There are also exceptions when a quick solution is needed and brevity counts. There is art in that sometimes, as well. Large projects start in much the same way, but with more thought given to naming conventions, data structures, etc. I had one project where I used a lot of hash tables, n-ary trees, command line parsing, 3D computer graphics pseudo programming language with equations. Threw the kitchen sink of my computer science techniques at it. Got it functionally useful in several months, but a few years to cement it for the users. Not sure where the art lives, but I put my heart into it.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
-
In the past yes. But the industry has "evolved" to a point where everyone uses a library for everything, understands nothing, and Google's stack overflow to get their job done. It's not being an artist to let ChatGPT do everything for you. And, most coders are already doing that - just with stack overflow.
Jeremy Falcon
There's nothing inherently wrong in using libraries. A photographer is using a camera instead of paint and a brush. But doesn't need to know how the camera works to be able to produce beautiful pictures. But as with all things, a good camera doesn't make a good photographer.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
I live in Italy, a country full of artistic works. If it is true that an artist creates something beautiful or functional from scratch, can the same definition be used for a programmer?
Frankly no these days they are scribes trying not to make too many copying errors
-
There's nothing inherently wrong in using libraries. A photographer is using a camera instead of paint and a brush. But doesn't need to know how the camera works to be able to produce beautiful pictures. But as with all things, a good camera doesn't make a good photographer.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Going out on that sidetrack :-) (You invited to it! And, I will stay within the creative realm).
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
But doesn't need to know how the camera works to be able to produce beautiful pictures.
Doesn't have to, that is true. If you want to use motion blur as a creative effect, you should have a good understanding of shutter speeds, and in the silver days: The differences between a central shutter and a focal plane shutter. Also, when using a flash, the shutter mechanism is/was essential. Understanding how the aperture affects depth of field is very useful if you want to use out-of-focus as a picture element. In the silver days, understanding graining was essential if you wanted to use it creatively. In principle, we have the same todays, but the pixel resolution is regular, not random like the grains. So you can deliberately use low resolution (i.e. enlarging only a small part of the image) and use the 'staircase' effect creatively. And so on. Like, you can become a composer without going to any music school, but some training in music theory sure helps! (You may be surprised by how many composers of even the simplest popular music tunes actually have a formal music education!)
But as with all things, a good camera doesn't make a good photographer.
Most certainly true! Then: I've heard too many (amateur) photographers using shortcomings of their equipment as an excuse for their photos not being quite what they allegedly could have been, given better equipment. So I very early decided that the requirements for my equipment is that it should be so good that I could never blame the equipment for my poor pictures. I have stuck to that since my late teenage years. I never blame my equipment. A curious case: My first digital camera didn't have a very sensitive sensor. In low level light (i.e. 'highest ISO setting', in modern terms) it created a lot of noise; the image was speckled with multicolored dots. In one of my favorite photos (it show an old man in a wheelchair in front of a grave, I guess it is the grave of his wife or children), the specks create an "impressionistic" character, like that of a few painters that created their pictures from thousands of small dots. This character adds a very special touch to my photo. Lots of my photo friends are eager to point out the 'noise', and I stop them in the track: That is exactly what I wanted fo
-
Using that definition however then the words 'art' and 'artist' would no longer have any actual meaning. After all is not a cake beautiful? Is not a bridge? What about a garden full of carefully laid out vegetable rows? Or a field of corn? What about a house which has just received a beautifully applied new coat of paint? On 'This Old House' (TV show) when they replumb one of those old houses and then they display the plumbing in the basement with multiple pipes and cutoff valves to each part of the house that certainly looks beautiful to me.
-
There's nothing inherently wrong in using libraries. A photographer is using a camera instead of paint and a brush. But doesn't need to know how the camera works to be able to produce beautiful pictures. But as with all things, a good camera doesn't make a good photographer.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Totally agree. Don't re-invent the wheel. I reckon my peeve is with those who don't take the time to understand how to make what's in the library and/or comp sci principles. Like, I sure as heck wouldn't want to make OpenGL, but have a basic understanding of how it's made at the very least.
Jeremy Falcon
-
I live in Italy, a country full of artistic works. If it is true that an artist creates something beautiful or functional from scratch, can the same definition be used for a programmer?
It depends on your definition of “art”. I like the definitions that say it is an art because it’s a creative process.
-
I live in Italy, a country full of artistic works. If it is true that an artist creates something beautiful or functional from scratch, can the same definition be used for a programmer?
If Donald Knuth says it's art[^], then it is art.
-
I live in Italy, a country full of artistic works. If it is true that an artist creates something beautiful or functional from scratch, can the same definition be used for a programmer?
Roberto, The short answer to this heavy question, before I finish my first cup of morning coffee, is no. Software programming is a creative work, but not all creative work is considered art. An engineer who designs a bulldozer isn't thought of as an artist. And few, if any people would look at the product and call it art. It may be called a work of art, or state of the art, but that's not the same use of the word. Likewise, writing is a creative art, but authors aren't called artists either. Generally, art does not have a function beyond viewing or entertaining. That goes to the "work of art" usage, so a chair can be a work of art in terms of its design, but by itself is not art. Programming might possibly create a work of art, though it's fairly rare and something that is more likely to be said by someone within the industry; which is meant as a comment on creative skill.
-
Going out on that sidetrack :-) (You invited to it! And, I will stay within the creative realm).
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
But doesn't need to know how the camera works to be able to produce beautiful pictures.
Doesn't have to, that is true. If you want to use motion blur as a creative effect, you should have a good understanding of shutter speeds, and in the silver days: The differences between a central shutter and a focal plane shutter. Also, when using a flash, the shutter mechanism is/was essential. Understanding how the aperture affects depth of field is very useful if you want to use out-of-focus as a picture element. In the silver days, understanding graining was essential if you wanted to use it creatively. In principle, we have the same todays, but the pixel resolution is regular, not random like the grains. So you can deliberately use low resolution (i.e. enlarging only a small part of the image) and use the 'staircase' effect creatively. And so on. Like, you can become a composer without going to any music school, but some training in music theory sure helps! (You may be surprised by how many composers of even the simplest popular music tunes actually have a formal music education!)
But as with all things, a good camera doesn't make a good photographer.
Most certainly true! Then: I've heard too many (amateur) photographers using shortcomings of their equipment as an excuse for their photos not being quite what they allegedly could have been, given better equipment. So I very early decided that the requirements for my equipment is that it should be so good that I could never blame the equipment for my poor pictures. I have stuck to that since my late teenage years. I never blame my equipment. A curious case: My first digital camera didn't have a very sensitive sensor. In low level light (i.e. 'highest ISO setting', in modern terms) it created a lot of noise; the image was speckled with multicolored dots. In one of my favorite photos (it show an old man in a wheelchair in front of a grave, I guess it is the grave of his wife or children), the specks create an "impressionistic" character, like that of a few painters that created their pictures from thousands of small dots. This character adds a very special touch to my photo. Lots of my photo friends are eager to point out the 'noise', and I stop them in the track: That is exactly what I wanted fo
You totally conveyed the point in a very detailed way. It's ok to lean on others (libraries) but that's no excuse for knowing nothing about it. To bring it back to development, I can't begin to tell you how many frontend developers know nothing about CSS, color correction and spaces, etc. There's always some UI library to do the grunt work and they barely know how to use that and call themselves devs. I suppose on one hand that would be ok, but don't call yourself a developer. These days everyone is an "engineer" because they learned how to bold text in a spreadsheet.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Going out on that sidetrack :-) (You invited to it! And, I will stay within the creative realm).
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
But doesn't need to know how the camera works to be able to produce beautiful pictures.
Doesn't have to, that is true. If you want to use motion blur as a creative effect, you should have a good understanding of shutter speeds, and in the silver days: The differences between a central shutter and a focal plane shutter. Also, when using a flash, the shutter mechanism is/was essential. Understanding how the aperture affects depth of field is very useful if you want to use out-of-focus as a picture element. In the silver days, understanding graining was essential if you wanted to use it creatively. In principle, we have the same todays, but the pixel resolution is regular, not random like the grains. So you can deliberately use low resolution (i.e. enlarging only a small part of the image) and use the 'staircase' effect creatively. And so on. Like, you can become a composer without going to any music school, but some training in music theory sure helps! (You may be surprised by how many composers of even the simplest popular music tunes actually have a formal music education!)
But as with all things, a good camera doesn't make a good photographer.
Most certainly true! Then: I've heard too many (amateur) photographers using shortcomings of their equipment as an excuse for their photos not being quite what they allegedly could have been, given better equipment. So I very early decided that the requirements for my equipment is that it should be so good that I could never blame the equipment for my poor pictures. I have stuck to that since my late teenage years. I never blame my equipment. A curious case: My first digital camera didn't have a very sensitive sensor. In low level light (i.e. 'highest ISO setting', in modern terms) it created a lot of noise; the image was speckled with multicolored dots. In one of my favorite photos (it show an old man in a wheelchair in front of a grave, I guess it is the grave of his wife or children), the specks create an "impressionistic" character, like that of a few painters that created their pictures from thousands of small dots. This character adds a very special touch to my photo. Lots of my photo friends are eager to point out the 'noise', and I stop them in the track: That is exactly what I wanted fo
trønderen wrote:
Doesn't have to, that is true. If you want to use motion blur as a creative effect
But that goes to intent. An artist wants to create art. But to my mind a photog taking real estate pictures should be striving for something different. And a criminal forensic photog should definitely be striving for something different than artistic depictions.
-
Yeah, I've come across my fair share of developers, who you might consider to be artists - if you think abstract squiggles are art! And in amongst those squiggles, are some lovely, (artistic?) booby-traps, that the rest of us have to watch out for. In my experience, the developers with genuine practical abilities are the ones that develop code I would be most happy to pick up. I would take someone who can build a house over someone with a degree in Art, every time. Good developers are artisans, not artists.
-
Interesting publication. But one who wrote like me can also be considered an artist 10 CLS 20 Print "Your Name (N for exit)";: Input "",W$ 30 if W$="N" goto 100 40 Print "Good morning"; W$ 100 END :laugh: :laugh:
-
I agree. I think by definition, art does not have function. Some of my programming falls into that category, but not intentionally :)
-
You are in right :-D
-
I live in Italy, a country full of artistic works. If it is true that an artist creates something beautiful or functional from scratch, can the same definition be used for a programmer?
No they are not.
-
No they are not.
a little too direct as an affirmation. Explain your point of view :thumbsup:
-
Yeah, I've come across my fair share of developers, who you might consider to be artists - if you think abstract squiggles are art! And in amongst those squiggles, are some lovely, (artistic?) booby-traps, that the rest of us have to watch out for. In my experience, the developers with genuine practical abilities are the ones that develop code I would be most happy to pick up. I would take someone who can build a house over someone with a degree in Art, every time. Good developers are artisans, not artists.
took the words right out of my mouth. I think early on in their career, every developer needs to be assigned to a maintenance project. They get a bonus if they stick it out. It will make every piece of their future code scarred with the sins of the past. You analogy - the bad developers take a perfectly good landscape and sling red paint on it. Some of the most "artistic" developers I've worked with cannot comprehend the results of their "red paint."
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
-
Yeah, I've come across my fair share of developers, who you might consider to be artists - if you think abstract squiggles are art! And in amongst those squiggles, are some lovely, (artistic?) booby-traps, that the rest of us have to watch out for. In my experience, the developers with genuine practical abilities are the ones that develop code I would be most happy to pick up. I would take someone who can build a house over someone with a degree in Art, every time. Good developers are artisans, not artists.
I concur, good developers are artisans. Reading well formatted logical code, with adequate, not overlong, identifiers, producing something that reads almost like natural language, is a bit like admiring a skilled weaver's fabric. :) Cheers
-
took the words right out of my mouth. I think early on in their career, every developer needs to be assigned to a maintenance project. They get a bonus if they stick it out. It will make every piece of their future code scarred with the sins of the past. You analogy - the bad developers take a perfectly good landscape and sling red paint on it. Some of the most "artistic" developers I've worked with cannot comprehend the results of their "red paint."
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.