• kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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”

    • KRAW@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

      • DaleGribble88@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • KRAW@linux.community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          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.