Is Programming Art?

[codeexploiter]

Hi all,

What is the nature of programming? Is it art or science?

what is your view about this?

Regards

[jscheuer1]

Programming as a discipline is language. Language is both art and science.

[BLiZZaRD]

It definitely takes both sides of the brain, where "normally" art is right sides and language/science are left.

Ever wonder why there are more/better left handed artisits and more/better right handed lingusts and mathematicians? :D

[Twey]

Gosh, isn't this board getting philosophical? First morality, now aesthetics?

I believe that anything that requires ingenuity is a form of art. Programming definitely qualifies for this, as does mathematics, linguistics, and, yes, philosophy :) And, of course, all art is also a science; the aim of art is to create something original whilst adhering to certain rules that make the piece "beautiful," or worth creating. We don't always know what those rules are, but they definitely exist, in painting, mathematics, philosophy, and definitely in programming, as anyone who is experienced in that art will well know. To give a stereotypical example of chemistry, one can quite easily simply combine any two chemicals, but this won't necessarily be special, since it has no purpose and no outcome -- we've overstepped the rules that define the use of the experiment, so it no longer has any meaning.

The rules for things that are commonly considered art, such as music or painting, differ from those of chemistry only that we don't know exactly what they are. A painter can know that by combining a certain set of colours, s/he will produce something that is pleasing to the eye, or evokes a given emotion, but can't define exactly what it is about that combination that causes that effect.

[jscheuer1]

When I said language (of which programming is a subset) is both art and science, I was thinking of both the science involved (grammar, usage, history, etc.) and the art of its use in novels, poems, most speech, etc.

It is possible to have examples of a language that are virtually devoid of art. In actual practice, this is almost never the case.

[djr33]

Cleary, syntax is science. Logic is as well.
However, creative use of both, which is what makes a program good or bad (anyone can cut and paste an if statement...) is art.
Also, much of the time, what is generated is art, like a webpage (or an application, on that end of programming. Or even an image, with the PHP GD library and other things.)

[Twey]

Similar to the debate over whether fractals are art, I suppose. More human involvement, though.

[chechu]

Programming a code is science, deciding what a code should have to look like onlie, is art.
My wife, a paintor, sometimes draws designs of sites, while my cousin, a programmer, tries to make a code so that it looks like my wife's design.

[Sikky]

I love this discussion - in this case Im an artist and scientist "hurray" at last.

[jscheuer1]

Programming a code is science, deciding what a code should have to look like onlie, is art.

It can't always be broken out that easily. Even the way code with no presentational aspect is written, can be art.

[djr33]

Well, either way, it's all based in science.
You need no skills to "try" to paint. You need skills to do anything even basic with programming.

Of course you could claim that misshapen code is equal to a randomly fingerpainted picture, but the difference is that one "works" and the other doesn't.

//thoughts

[Sikky]

I agree with you djr33

[Twey]

You need no skills to "try" to paint. You need skills to do anything even basic with programming.

Of course you could claim that misshapen code is equal to a randomly fingerpainted picture, but the difference is that one "works" and the other doesn't.Not really. Some basic skill is required to even try to paint (like how to use a brush, how to use paint). The person who writes completely misshapen code that doesn't even run is like the amateur painter who, not understanding the principles of painting, decides to poke holes in the canvas with the wrong end of the brush. A randomly fingerpainted picture would be closer to code that worked but obeyed few principles of programming -- repeated code, blocking with infinite loops, that sort of thing.

[djr33]

Yeah, but a 3 year old can paint and I doubt they'd be very good at programming.

Even an experienced programmar may make a bad program, just like a painting. But the difference is that no training is required to paint. Obviously, holding the brush is implied..... you can't claim that walking is like programming just because one must first learn to stand.


the amateur painter who, not understanding the principles of painting, decides to poke holes in the canvas with the wrong end of the brush.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is anyone actually that stupid. AND if there is, then I would further assert that there is no chance s/he could program.

Certainly programming is harder to learn, at the basic levels, than painting. To proficiently draw a person, someone must know how to draw a stick figure. To create a basic html page, one must know about open and close tags, double check that they work and add some content in between as well as have a basic ability to handle a mouse, operate a computer, and type. Additionally, html is just the basics of programming, and, in fact, is really just markup language. When talking about 'programming' in the denotative sense, we are referring to the science of building an application/script that acts due to user input or variables and is much more complex logically than a simple (though hard to create artistically) painting.

The other thing about programming is that, at least in terms of syntax, etc., there is a right or wrong. With art there is not. The output of a program can be considered artistic, but to create that, the programmer must follow a basic set of rules.
Good and bad art are subjective, whereas programming is either correct or incorrect and it's output will show if it is correct (without giving an error). (Yes, again, the output can be seen as "good" or "bad" and therefore, since it's subjective, be seen as art.)

The difference, at a fundamental level, between art and science is that of right vs. wrong and opinion.

[jscheuer1]

mwinter was writting OO code at age 21/2 :)

[djr33]

I was painting at 2 :p

Really? I doubt it. But I almost believe it.

[chechu]

Quote:
the amateur painter who, not understanding the principles of painting, decides to poke holes in the canvas with the wrong end of the brush.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is anyone actually that stupid. AND if there is, then I would further assert that there is no chance s/he could program.

Wrong ! Never heard of modern art ? Really like to know how much they can earn ? Have you seen Pollack doing normal stuff with a brush ?

Real art (not meant to sell) comes from within, an energy, a desire. My wife is on another planet when she's painting, like she's not there. And she doesn't care if I sell it or not. She ones destroyed a finished work someone wanted to buy, because she wasn't happy about it.

It is a way of living, and so cannot be copied in the exact same way. Coding can be copied and pasted, two people can code the same thing.

It is a hard discussing, but if you see art as it should be seen (skip the wannabes and commercial paintors), then coding doesn't even come close to it.

[Twey]

Obviously, holding the brush is implied..... you can't claim that walking is like programming just because one must first learn to stand.Of course I can. Programming (as it stands at the moment) requires a series of basic skills as well: the ability to type, the ability to use a text editor... Only the difficulty of the entry-level skills differs.
Real art (not meant to sell) comes from within, an energy, a desire.As does coding. Again, neglecting those who're still working at getting up to speed and those who do it only for the money it can bring, it can be a very... personal, I suppose one would say... process. I've been known to take on a job involving swapping a few images on a website, see how ugly the code for the site is, and rewrite the whole thing from scratch. I don't charge for that, of course.

[jscheuer1]

Real art (not meant to sell) comes from within, an energy, a desire.

I agree with this one. I often say, "It is easier to do it than to not do it." Although, this only captures a part of it. I also agree that it is difficult to put into words.

It is not meant to sell, it is also not meant to be not sold. Art is selling neutral, artists are not always.

It has been my goal to get paid for things that I couldn't keep myself from doing, my art. At the same time, I don't like getting paid for what seems to me to be unfinished or flawed in certain ways. Other flaws are fine, if they are a real part of the object.

[mwinter]

mwinter was writting OO code at age 21/2 :)

LOL! I completely misread that first of all, due to my minimum font size. I thought you meant 21/22 and I was thinking, What would be so unusual about that?! There's bound to be younger people using OO languages.

The character ½ might be useful in future. :p

Mike

[jscheuer1]

The character ½ might be useful in future.

LOL, thanks again, Mike.

[BLiZZaRD]

I like how Mike didn't DENY being 2 and one half when writting OO. ROTF

[djr33]

Yeah.

Twey, I'm just laughing at your argument at this point. What does not require a set of basic skills? So... everything is art? Everything is science? What's the debate, then?

[jscheuer1]

So... everything is art? Everything is science? What's the debate, then?

Just for the sake of this argument then, I imagine you have your own ideas, right? To you then, give us an example of each - one example of something that under no circumstances could be considered art and one example of something that under no circumstances could be considered science.

[djr33]

Math (algebra, if you need specifics) is science, painting is art.

If not, then there's no debate here.

[jscheuer1]

Math (algebra, if you need specifics) is science, painting is art.

I was really looking for more specific examples, but -

So, according to you, algebra under no circumstances could be considered art, and painting under no circumstances could be considered science?


If not, then there's no debate here.

You really are willing to give up so easily, aren't you?

[Twey]

Math (algebra, if you need specifics) is scienceWhy?

Have you ever seen a fractal image (http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=fractal)?

[chechu]

What is that fractal image ? How is it made ? Fascinating !

Painting is not always art. Go to a gallery, where you will find a curator that will tell you how the painting has been made, the idea and methods behind it, etc. So he makes it into a science, just to sell it.

There is no separation between two. To me, art can become a science in se, and science can become an artform. All depends how you look at it, but above all: what you know about.

[Twey]

What is that fractal image ? How is it made ? Fascinating !A fractal is a visual representation of a mathematical formula. In the case of the landscapes, textures have been added by hand afterwards.
There is no separation between two.I agree. Art can be defined as something that evokes emotion in the beholder, or as something that was created as an expression of an emotion. Both, of course, can apply to just about anything.

[djr33]

Yeah, there are exceptions to math, such as a fractal image, but on the whole, it's science, not art.

Everything is, I suppose, on a scale somewhere between art and science. Math is certainly more toward science and painting is more toward art.

In the sense of math used to create art, it's just that. The formula itself is SCIENCE, though the result may be ART.

Interestingly enough, this is just like programming.


In the sense of programming, arguably, style is art, but the overall medium of programming is science more than it is art.


At this point, if there is no difference between the two, then there's no point in debating. And, just to contradict myself, I'll note that there must be a difference between the two or they would have the same definition. But, since it's an opinion, you can't PROVE it either way, though I find it to be quite clear that it generally makes sense.

[chechu]

After having read this quote, I will retire myself from this debate, as this says it all:


The formula itself is SCIENCE, though the result may be ART

And vice versa: there is a grey are in between ...