Where Is The Line Between Programmer And Artist?

frinsore asks: "What jobs are programmers and what are artists? Game creation seems to have blurred the line between the two. While some fall easily into either side, others don't. Where does the map creator fall? They have to know what the engine can do and how the user can interact with it, they also have to make it look pretty and keep it challenging. What about interface design? Giving users as much access as possible while not overwhelming them with details. Do these people land into one camp or another or are they some where in the middle?" This a difficult question to answer and it entirely hinges on how you define art. For me, a piece of code, or an elegant mathematical proof is as much art as a Picasso, or Beethoven's 5th Symphony. As always, feel free to share your thoughts on this subject.

Comments

Programmers are more like modern day sorcerers.

[root]

Programming is not art. It is the modern day equivalent of sorcery. And on the darker side of sorcery too.

We cast spells (programs) to make inanimate objects (computers) do things. And the images and icons associated with computing are sorcery related. Daemons (note archaic spelling), zombies, ghost jobs, magic numbers, wave a dead chicken, etc. My video card is labeled "trident". Hmmm.

And magic is about as reliable now as it was back then too. Usually it does what you expect, but sometimes it blows up for no reason; the daemon runs amok leaving a trail of destruction and data loss in its path. The accident can't be reproduced. And the program/spell can never be provably guranteed to do what it's supposed to do, so the users have to just take it on faith. It could happen again. Who knows?

And sloppy sorcerers eventually end up facing angry mobs with torches and pitchforks. Today these people are the ones calling you on the technical support phone. Hell is still hell. Nothing new here.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is masturbatory

[the red pen]

Oh puh-leez. This is really just a "Programmers: Are we cool or what?" dicusssion. Yeah, programming is cool, but real art appeals to people who aren't artists. If you want to be an artist be an artist. If your self-esteem needs proping up, get therapy.

Re:This is masturbatory

[Squid]

So you're saying something qualifies as art only if it's sufficiently accessible. I guess modern dance isn't art, as many people don't "get it". I guess music isn't art, since some people are deaf.

OK, that didn't come out quite lucid - I can't help it, I've got the flu and my brain has gone home for the day.

So let's try that again: sometimes the most meaningful art is the stuff that the average person just won't appreciate. I don't mean abstract splatters either - I mean stuff like Max Ernst, real sick surrealism with depth, the closer you look the more you find. And you're not likely to find his stuff hanging over someone's sofa. No denying it's art, but also no denying it's just a bit inaccessible.

Programming is akin to literature. Yes, it's 9/10ths mathematics, but well-done code will have an artistic quality - elegant structure will be visible to those with eyes to see it. So not everyone knows how to read source code, not everyone can "read" subtle nuances in a painting either.

I don't think most code counts as art - but I do think if programmers thought of their code as art, we might see more pride taken in the work, and that would lead to better, cleaner code. It's something I know I try to work toward in my code.

Re:This is masturbatory

[dark_panda]

If this was the case, then why is Beethoven an artist? Musical composition is basically just mathematics, putting musical notes into harmonious equations.

Or what about programming's end product -- the software (usually, anyways). Can a non-programmer appreciate the OS X interface or a nice well programmed web page?

It takes just as much skill to write a program in C as it does to write a good sonnet in English. The end product might be different, but the concept is pretty much the same.

J

Creativity more than just Art

[sacherjj]

I am a Electrical and Computer Engineer. What I found most interesting attending an Engineering College, was the diversity and great creativity of the better engineering students. Many played music, were great artists, or very accoplished writers. Any type of engineering is an art. You have a fixed set of tools and must create something from those limitations. Programing IS art, when done right. This is the same with a brilliant bridge design or an elegant circuit design. All of these are forms of artistic expresion, IMHO.

No-one's really answered the question yet...

[mav[LAG]]

So let me try instead of getting sidetracked by the "is code really art?" argument. The basic principle is this: knowledge gained about every area of a game will always help, no matter what your job description in the team.

So for instance:

• Artists will generally produce better work once they understand the concept of finite resources - frames per second, memory and compression.
• Level designers work better when they have a concept of basic graphics principles such as "Overdraw is bad."
• Coders have more sympathy for developing good tools when buggy ones can wipe out a team member's hard work.
• Producers have more sympathy for sleepy team members when they try and solve Heisenbugs in 100 000-line listings themselves.

Asking "where do coders and artists fit in" these days is a tricky question. In the very best teams there's always some crossover knowledge to be gained. What counts is your attitude: can I work within these limits that the other people have set me?

If you're not only willing to learn all you can about your own discipline but as much as possible about the others, you'll be able to solve more problems when the crunch comes.

Misunderstood art

[Bilestoad]

Yes code is art, but more often than not the wrong kind of code is seen as art. Some people think "art" is using every obscure language feature to pack as much as possible onto one line. Others think it is getting creative with the preprocessor. Usually these are kids who don't know the language and are still excited by newly discovered features.

If you don't have to think too hard about a piece of code to re-use it then it's art.

REAL art code is obvious, even to a VB programmer. Anyone can read it and understand it easily. It's efficient, but does not sacrifice readability for cycles unless it absolutely has to. And it even looks nice.

It's an artificial dichotomety

[UnknownSoldier]

An artists "paints" with his mouse, chisel, hammer, chainsaw (dam, I love those ice sculptures!)

A programmer has a screen as their "canvas", with his/her "brushes" being their "keyboard." A well crafted API, with clean, commented code is just as much a thing of beauty.

Here is the key: *BOTH people create something!

While code isn't as visible to the consumer, it can still be elegant.

As a programmer, we constently changing between the macroscopic design, and microscopic implementation. I would imagine artists go thru the same thought process. Yes? No?

In that one in a million time when the artist's ego get out of line, a funny respons is: "You can have game without artists, but you can't have a [computer] game without artists ;-)"

And of course when the programmer's ego's get too big, a good response is: "Programmer art. Ugh. For the love of my eyes, no!"

Seriously, artists need coders, coders need artists. Without the other, you got, crappy games. (Yes, I love text adventures, but I want my eye candy now ;-) Quake 3... mmmm.

*shrugs* -- just a game programmer...

Defer to Frank Zappa...

[Satai]

FZ put it beautifully once. I'm paraphrasing from memory here, but the message should be the same.

Art needs three things.

1. A frame - so you know where the art ends and the world begins. Otherwise how can you tell a painting from "that shit on the wall."
2. The artist needs to will it to be art.
3. The audience needs to receive it as art.

Frankly (haha), I agree with him.

Re:Proof that Geeks Don't Understand Art.

[Brownstar]

I'm sure Van Gogh was a hit with the ladies (particularily after he cut off his ear.)

What about printer music?

[www.sorehands.com]

What about programs that make your line printer play Jingle Bells" or the theme from Mission Impossible?

Re:Art

[Kingfox]

There are a few coders I've seen who create elegant code that rivals fine art. Not quite Beethoven, but music has been around for a bit longer, and has had more time to create such fine artists. Maybe a few hundred years from now we'll see a code-god of Beethoven's level.

The M* I work on has been a great experience for me to see a wide variety of code. The game has exchanged hands many times since it started in 93/94, going through dozens of various coders. Some fix bugs through elegant user-friendly well-written code that looks gorgeous. Others toss on nasty patches that look like someone's stapled a band-aid to a leper's open sores. After dealing with spaghetti code for hours, a certain coder's works truly look like Beethoven to me.

But perhaps that can be attributed to the thirsty man in the desert thinking that the muddy water is Poland Spring. *grin*

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why do we call it Computer science if it's an art?

[cvd6262]

So that we can get paid more. :)

posers

[Sebastopol]

* Every programmer I know makes a fat salary.

* Every artist I know can barely afford ~$200 a month rent and eats a lot of rice.

* Programmers are engineers who solve problems using code.

* Art must have different meaning to different people, otherwise it is propaganda.

* A piece of software only does one thing.

This discussion would only arise among this community. I'm so far removed from how artists think, live and behave, and it sounds like so are the rest of you who like to pontificate about the artist/programmer duality.

What a great example of young minds struggling to fit a marketable identity.

Quit posing. Quit fantasizing about how many demographics you can span.

Quit sighting cliche examples of supposed high-brow enlightenment: an elegant mathematical proof, a Beethoven symphony, fucking swan lake, or gotterdamurung. Gag.

Just do what you enjoy and stop listening to soft-drink commercials.


---

this is silly

[zephc]

the definition of the border between the two is so blurry as to be different for each person. It's what you make of it, not what one person or group of people say.

-----------
MOVE 'SIG'.

Re:Proof that Geeks Don't Understand Art.

[SCHecklerX]

Your theory, of course, breaks down totally when it comes to beautiful women who can appreciate artistic code. Of course, these are usually intelligent women. I guess you just don't know any? That is a shame.

Yes, I have shown some girls what I have done, and even though they may not understand it at the lower level, they are impressed, and I dare say aroused!

Btw, most of these ladies are also athletes. I don't think I've ever met a fat slob that I could honestly say I found above average intelligence.

You are ignoring other important questions

[OlympicSponsor]

Like:

Where's the line between fish and fowl? (penguins)
Where's the line between hacker and cracker?
Where's the line between mother and non-? (host/surrogate/adopted mother)

You are confusing at least three different concepts. The first is "these two categories are so conceptually close that drawing a line between them is difficult" (hacker vs cracker). The second concept is "ill-defined categories" (fish, mother). The third "very different categories that contain many of the same members"--which concept applies to programmers and artists, I would argue.

Art is about conveying beauty and/or a message to an audience (sometimes just the artist himself).

Programming (and other mathematical/engineering disciplines) is about building useful structures. The humans doing the building may be partially guided by artistic concerns, but that doesn't make the output "art". The primary purpose is "does it work" not "is it nice to look at" or even "is it elegant."

Just because the categories of "artist" and "programmers" contain many of the same members, doesn't automatically make the output of the Programmer class art any more than it makes the output of the Artist class software.
--

Art is a way of expressing yourself

[Verne]

I think these are two different types of things. Art is creative visions represented physically (or something like that) where as art for computer games are just pictures.
Programming can be creative, and graphics for games requires artistic talent, but I would not call game graphics art, as it is not really an expression of anything.

For me, a piece of code, or an elegant mathematical proof is as much art as a Picasso, or Beethoven's 5th Symphony

I really disagree with this statement. Composing music is the ultimate way to express yourself. I would hate to think there is any way to express yourself in a mathematical proof...