next »

[Pishtaco]

I think you can distinguish between an algorithm and the code that it's expressed in. I have heard algorithms described as beautiful, or clever, or elegant, so I would say that they can be thought of as art more naturally than code can. It's the same for the idea of a mathematical proof, versus the language it is written in.

[Gravious]

I think you can distinguish between an algorithm and the code that it's expressed in. I have heard algorithms described as beautiful, or clever, or elegant, so I would say that they can be thought of as art more naturally than code can. Its the same for the idea of a mathematical proof, versus the language it is written in.

Further this, i present you with what i should have linked in my original post: Quakes' Fast Inverse Square Root

[portabello]

code as art?  yes.
http://benfry.com/distellamap/

[HannesP]

You can also have code-formatted jokes, and that can be art in the same way that jokes are art.

E.g.

Code:

while($lifes_a_bitch) {
live();
}
die;

My patch:

Code:

while ($lifes_a_bitch) {
	try {
		live();
	} catch (Exception $e) {
		getHigh();
	}
}

die();

(I suppose you based your code upon the same song that I based mine on)

[Gravious]

code as art?  yes.
http://benfry.com/distellamap/

OMG, thats awesome, i need to buy some of those prints!

[mirosurabu]

Code? Not really.

Algorithms and flowcharts? Maybe.

[Gold Cray]

If the algorithm is an idea and code is the implementation, then wouldn't it be just as accurate to call code art as it would be to call a painting art? Saying an algorithm can be art but code cannot is sort of like saying the meaning behind a painting is art, but the painting itself is not.

[Gnarf]

I think you can distinguish between an algorithm and the code that it's expressed in. I have heard algorithms described as beautiful, or clever, or elegant, so I would say that they can be thought of as art more naturally than code can. It's the same for the idea of a mathematical proof, versus the language it is written in.

Saying that it is the idea and not the expression of the idea that is the work of art sounds kind of contradictory to things people typically say about art.

I've also heard code described as beautiful, clever and elegant. Clever and elegant more frequently. And ugly more often than that again. Also been in a fair amount of arguments about which way to do one thing or another, where everyone knows that each way of doing it will work just fine, and it's really just a matter of which way is nicer. It's aesthetics.

Can't see any good reason why code can't possibly be art. Same as with anything else. Though if we really don't like code or something I'm sure we can pick or make up a definition of art that excludes it. That'll teach it.

[J.G. Martins]

If the algorithm is an idea and code is the implementation, then wouldn't it be just as accurate to call code art as it would be to call a painting art? Saying an algorithm can be art but code cannot is sort of like saying the meaning behind a painting is art, but the painting itself is not.

I think the analogy breaks at that point. I'm not a painter, but it seems to me that the design phase of an IT project is a bit more complex than the planning phase of a painter. If we still want to maintain the analogy, I would've thought that the design phase would be equivalent to a somewhat detailed sketch over which you paint the final work - not the idea behind the painting.

I don't feel it fits perfectly, but this way one consider the first part (coming up with the idea, figuring out the details, planning ahead, for both painting and programming) as artistic or creative, while the second part (coding it or painting/shading the sketch) as a purely technical endeavour.

That isn't to say that coding or painting themselves aren't beautiful to behold or noteworthy - on the contrary: they most certainly are, especially when associated to the years of practice it takes to elevate your skill to a decent level. One can't but respect the effort and perseverance, in my opinion

[redoubtable troutbot]

I don't get these "is x art" discussions. The definition of art is, after all, totally subjective. Things get extra silly when x is an entire medium/genre/whatever. It's like if I should ask whether or not movies are good.

Am I missing something?

[Don Andy]

Am I missing something?

No.

[Gold Cray]

Maybe it's easier to pretend that games are widely accepted as art if we "move on" to discussing X as art.

[Kekskiller]

I don't get these "is x art" discussions. The definition of art is, after all, totally subjective. Things get extra silly when x is an entire medium/genre/whatever. It's like if I should ask whether or not movies are good.

Am I missing something?

Hm, no, your're right. But please keep in mind: programmers are creative people who WANT to be artists. Even if they dont admit it. They need colorful feedback for all of their work. And sometimes they just want to say: thats art. So... why not?

[mirosurabu]

If the algorithm is an idea and code is the implementation, then wouldn't it be just as accurate to call code art as it would be to call a painting art? Saying an algorithm can be art but code cannot is sort of like saying the meaning behind a painting is art, but the painting itself is not.

Sorry. There was no logic behind what I said. I was just trolling. (again sorry about that, but sometimes it happens to me)

Anyways, as redoubtable trout said, it's silly to discuss things when terms such as "art" are not well defined. "Can code be art?" can be interpreted in so many different ways, that I can't try to answer it without feeling that I might be misunderstanding you.

If "art" is supposed to be a way to communicate meanings, meanings that cannot be as effectively communicated verbally or are way to complex for verbal representation, then code can be an art. Then anything can be used as art.

[redoubtable troutbot]

Hm, no, your're right. But please keep in mind: programmers are creative people who WANT to be artists. Even if they dont admit it. They need colorful feedback for all of their work. And sometimes they just want to say: thats art. So... why not?

That was my point, though. If you want to call something art, go right ahead. Nobody can say you're wrong, because there is no objective definition of art. Just as there's no objective definition of good or bad. It all boils down to matters of taste, and discussing matters of taste is completely futile, isn't it?

[Lord Tim]

My code tastes better than yours.

[Kekskiller]

That was my point, though. If you want to call something art, go right ahead. Nobody can say you're wrong, because there is no objective definition of art. Just as there's no objective definition of good or bad. It all boils down to matters of taste, and discussing matters of taste is completely futile, isn't it?

Yup, art is a kind of trend whore phenomenon. I tend to say: "It's just output."

[Chris Whitman]

Inasmuch as nearly everything we do is a 'trend whore phenomenon.'

You may note that everyone dresses pretty similarly (you don't see a lot of people walking around with their pants on their heads) and talks quite similarly (at least in North America) and most of us share a lot of the same practices.

The fact that your culture shapes the way you look at things doesn't make you a trend whore.

[mirosurabu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm_art

Much to my surprise. Algorithms can be and indeed are considered to be form of electronic art.