Printable View
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
I agree with you djr33
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
mwinter was writting OO code at age 21/2 :)
I was painting at 2 :p
Really? I doubt it. But I almost believe it.
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 ?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Obviously, holding the brush is implied..... you can't claim that walking is like programming just because one must first learn to stand.
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chechu
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jscheuer1
The character ½ might be useful in future. :p
Mike