When I started programming, my whole day revolved around development. I’d wake up, write code, and go to sleep. And that’s how it was day in and day out. My entire social circle consisted of people who also wrote code. I studied frameworks, libraries, and various programming languages.
I honestly think trying to define programming as art is just an attempt to unnecessarily elevate it. Programming is utilitarian. It is meant for a specific practical purpose. It does not reveal a shared human experience the way a movie, book, or game does. I have no need to convince myself, a professional software engineer of this because I am perfectly happy accepting that what I do is useful and do not need to try to put myself in a category with artists.
All the author is saying is that people enjoy programming. I also enjoy eating. Is that an art? I even have my own “eating style” in that I like to eat food in specific order, combine two items into one bite, the way I build a bite, etc. But I’d never try to elevate it because I’m a normal person who doesn’t waste brainpower trying to make myself feel special.
I won’t begrudge anyone their definition of art, because it’s an extremely slippery concept.
But I do think it’s worth pointing out that there are clearly at least two rather different notions of art: one as a product with value that rich people like to buy and trade, and one as a behavior that all human beings perform. I don’t think the latter category has any inherent “elevation” to it, the way the former does.
And also that having a utilitarian specific practical purpose doesn’t automatically prohibit it from being art, in most popular conceptions of the term. Some of the earliest artifacts that are widely considered art were primarily utilitarian: cups, bowls, and other tools.
Also, a good excuse to share this excellent piece: Tomatoes, or How Not To Define “Art”
I certainly don’t disagree with the points made in the video. It in fact points out something related to what I’m saying. He states he notices that people that claim something is not art are often gatekeeping something from becoming “elevated.” I’m extending the converse argument: many people trying to claim something is art are trying to elevate it to a new status.
My problem with calling programming art is not that I don’t think programming is art, but rather that I think that label is not useful in this context. Programming is something that is very much valued without that label. Thus adding the label is just an attempt to tack on unneeded elevation to the craft. In some ways the video supports my viewpoint. The debate over what is art is a bit tired. It’s worth having, but personally I don’t think it is needed in this case.
I’m going to be real, “Ok, I think it is art, I just don’t want it to be called art” is a wild stance is any other context. As an extension of that claim, I’ll say it is bogus in this context too.
I didn’t say I think it’s art. I don’t know if it is, and I don’t really care if it is or not. I also don’t care if it’s called art. I’m just saying the mental gymnastics of trying to convince someone that something like programming as art is cringe.
If you’re defining programming as simply translating an algorithm. Into code as is, sure it isn’t art. However, designing abstractions and the structure which allows said algorithm to work with various parts of a program seamlessly and beautifully can be art.
Some people’s code is art (just not mine or yours I guess)
Have you ever looked at code and thought “oh this is beautiful”? Or - even better - have had someone else look at your code and say it? Pure bliss.