You must log in or # to comment.
Where this falls flat for me is, opportunities to write code that people will be willing to experience directly are rare. Much of it doesn’t even allow them to do so, or at least programmatically crams it all together in an unintelligible mess (ie. the javascript rendering a typical website). How can something be art if the audience is kept away from it? But even when it’s like that, people will still do it without a financial motive. You can still have a result in mind and go through the process of finding the shortest path to it, and that can still be art, even if some of the materials aren’t. Even if it’s not art, it’s exercising power, it’s desirable regardless of money.
That said, I do think there is something really special about code as writing, where it is written to be read and understood and making full use of it necessarily entails doing so. Shared awareness of abstract structures is really underrated.
Far more to art exists than what you see as an audience member - when you watch a film, you do not know or care about the camera the cinematographer used, but it shapes what you experience. When you go to a live music show, you can’t hear the cues and countdowns in the performer’s ears that make sure everything happens in perfect time, but they are as essential to the performance as the lights that colour the stage. And yet it is a part of the art nonetheless - something does not have to be seen to have meaning or to be part of a performance.
For a lot of open source projects, there is a significant audience viewing the code itself rather than just what it does. There’s encouragement for the user to open the bonnet and look at it and also tinker with it themselves. Even if you don’t do that, there’re still ways that the craftsmanship can show through and leave the user thinking about how it was made and how it works, and there’s plenty of conventional art where the point isn’t to think about the final product but instead what went into creating it.
As for the minified JavaScript in a typical website, it’s not that different to graphic design where achieving a purpose for a business can come ahead of any priorities related to being art. Even if we say for the sake of argument that graphic design for commercial purposes is never art, it doesn’t automatically mean that anything else that uses the same techniques, like drawing, can never be art.
There are also kinds of art that people produce that are never intended to be experienced by anyone else, e.g. a doodle in a diary, so I’d say there could still be art in code that was only ever seen by its creator and which was totally obfuscated when given to users as an app or website.
As for the minified JavaScript in a typical website, it’s not that different to graphic design where achieving a purpose for a business can come ahead of any priorities related to being art
I guess the main thing I want to get across though is, there’s more here than just these two types of motivations, the instrumental business coder and the beauty driven purist, and this isn’t just about AI, there are so many potentially ugly tools and practices out there that are widely used anyway. Personally as a hobbyist who doesn’t program for money anymore, I’m going to do things the way I want to do them and the main thing I normally want to do is get something working quickly that I can see how the top level concept works in reality before I get lost in the weeds and lose interest. I have (often strong) feelings about the code itself, and really appreciate seeing something done the way I feel it should be, but these are situational. And they are tied to how the code itself serves its purpose. For instance a case where the user cannot or should not have to trust the developer, and so the overwhelming focus of the design is accessible verification of the application’s security properties, that’s awesome to me. So when the author of the blog post says this:
But there’s another type of person. These are true programmers who write code regardless of income. They write code simply because they can’t help but write it. It doesn’t matter to them how much money they make from it. They might work on open-source projects that will never generate any income for them.
They enjoy writing code, solving development challenges, designing, figuring out the logic, fixing bugs, and understanding the entire system as a whole. They enjoy the process itself. And they’ll never hand that over to AI agents.
I think they are missing some stuff. This can’t be reduced to just being about isolated enjoyment of the process. We have a relationship to the software we write and use, and the nature of that relationship matters and has consequences. And caring about that isn’t synonymous with use or rejection of any particular tool.
Regarding the last paragraph:
If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking. -Leslie Lamport
Regarding the rest:
It seems like he’s really only arguing that some programming is art. I’d argue that nearly all programming is art. And that all art is political. Therefore, nearly all programming is a political act.
I think that framing does a better job of explaining why some devs are not merely indifferent to AI coding but view it as a threat to the future of computing. But the author seems to be pro-AI, so I don’t think he can really put himself in that headspace.
Edit:
I was just reflecting on how exactly programming is an art form, and I related it back to the way I usually explain how games are art.
In a game, unlike in a book or a movie, you don’t just witness what’s “supposed to happen” — you can personally interject and ask “what if this happened instead?” By offering you the ability to actively inspect the game’s world from any angle you choose, it can create a deeper sense of the shape of the elements and themes of the game.
Code is similar. Any non-trivial chunk of code invites dozens of “what if?” questions, and the way the author chooses to handle each of those scenarios expresses some kind of philosophy about how the world should be. (Not just what the code currently does, but how it encourages or discourages certain kinds of edits.) These scenarios often have mutually-exclusive options, so it’s not possible to do the “proper” thing in all conditions. Trade-offs are inevitable, and so the code becomes a window to the values of the coder.
I think that part right there is why there’s such a gap between open source sentiments toward AI and enterprise adoption of AI. For FOSS code, the esoteric behavior of the edge cases of a subsystem’s subsystem is not a chore but a moral test.
In a megacorp though? The answer the corp wants is “whatever everyone else does”, or “whatever maximizes revenue”, or “whatever minimizes liability”. You kinda know the morality of the biz before you even consider the specific question. It’s not surprising, it’s not interesting, and delegating to a chatbot whose morals run on autotune doesn’t change much.
It is still art, and it is still political… but it’s Walmart home decor aisle art, and the politics of a Coke ad.
If I asked an AI to write a text on the topic “Programming is art”, that thought process wouldn’t happen. I wouldn’t experience the same emotions that come with writing it myself. For me, writing is art that I pursue regardless of money. I think people who enjoy writing code feel the same way.
Huh. The turnaround given the top comment here is interesting.
the Devil whispered behind the leaves, “It’s pretty, but is it Art?”
The Conundrum Of The Workshops by Rudyard Kipling
Computer code is not art. It has no aesthetic quality. It’s generally not even seen and frequently hidden.
It’s engineering - you don’t need to get all up yourself by claiming to be “artists”.
As someone who has performed in orchestras, hosted touring musicians, shot video onstage at festivals, livestreamed events, and worked with photographers, sound engineers and producers — Computer programming and software development is just as much art as any of them. Calling what we do engineering is a poor excuse to forgoe solidarity with our fellow creatives.
Your bonafies don’t impress me.
Coding is not an art. It’s creative at times but it’s categorically not an art. The output from coding is not artwork. Code is not a work of art. It has no aesthetic quality. It’s used to create software.
Programming is more than code
So what?
The story is about programming, not just code. Your comment suggests you believe programming is only about writing code.
Programming is not an art. The output of an artistic process is art.
Do you think that even holds true for indy games with solo developers, like Stardew Valley, Braid, or Undertale?
k;double sin() ,cos();main(){float A= 0,B=0,i,j,z[1760];char b[ 1760];printf("\x1b[2J");for(;; ){memset(b,32,1760);memset(z,0,7040) ;for(j=0;6.28>j;j+=0.07)for(i=0;6.28 >i;i+=0.02){float c=sin(i),d=cos(j),e= sin(A),f=sin(j),g=cos(A),h=d+2,D=1/(c* h*e+f*g+5),l=cos (i),m=cos(B),n=s\ in(B),t=c*h*g-f* e;int x=40+30*D* (l*h*m-t*n),y= 12+15*D*(l*h*n +t*m),o=x+80*y, N=8*((f*e-c*d*g )*m-c*d*e-f*g-l *d*n);if(22>y&& y>0&&x>0&&80>x&&D>z[o]){z[o]=D;;;b[o]= ".,-~:;=!*#$@"[N>0?N:0];}}/*#****!!-*/ printf("\x1b[H");for(k=0;1761>k;k++) putchar(k%80?b[k]:10);A+=0.04;B+= 0.02;}}/*****####*******!!=;:~ ~::==!!!**********!!!==::- .,~~;;;========;;;:~-. ..,--------,*/Oh, wow, I never considered that art could be created from code. You totally got me.
Or not - the fact that you had to modify the code to turn it into art proves my point.
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.
not that I don’t think programming is art
My problem with calling programming art…
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.
Some people’s code is art (just not mine or yours I guess)
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.
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.
