Hackers: The Art of Abstraction

scubacuda writes "Wired: Inspired by McKenzie Wark's The Hacker Manifesto , Madrid's MNCARS's exhibit, Hackers: The Art of Abstraction , explores the connections between hackers, artists and anyone engaged in any kind of creative work. The centerpiece of the exhibition are documentary films and videos made by independent filmmakers and hackers from all over the world, including Freedom Downtime by Emmanuel Goldstein, Free Radio by Kevin Kayser, The Hacktivist by Ian Walker, Unauthorized Access by Annaliza Savage, New York City Hackers by Stig-Lennart Serensen and Hippies From Hell by Inne Pope."

Comments

Hacking is not an art...

[Da Fokka]

Well, maybe for the few true geniuses out there. But for most hackers it's merely a skill, maybe a craft at most.

Re:Hacking is not an art...

[millahtime]

" Well, maybe for the few true geniuses out there. But for most hackers it's merely a skill, maybe a craft at most."

Is it really more of a skill?? The coding itself may be a skill but the way you do it isn't. Sure maybe for your average joe who knows little but for your hacker the way you code can be art. It's your own style and flavor. I guess the way you code could be considered art. Just like writing poetry.

Re:Hacking is not an art...

[Zakabog]

Except in writing poetry, if you throw out every rule in the book, you can create some masterpieces. Nothing has to fit any kind of mold saying "This works and this doesn't."

When you decide, hey I don't like using loops, lets write 10,000 if statements, you aren't creating art, you're creating a bad program and ugly code. You don't have much freedom in code, I guess you could say efficient code with as few lines as possible is art, but not the same way poetry is an art.

Re:Hacking is not an art...

[millahtime]

"it's more like architecture:"

When designing something it can be both art and architecture. Look at buildings. Many are very artistically done but have great architecture to them. Look at the designs for the new world trade center building. To be the tallest building in the world there is a great amount of detail to the architecture but it is a very beautiful design that is artistically done.

Re:Hacking is not an art...

[TwistedGreen]

Untrue. You still need to follow some rules, otherwise it'd be complete gibberish. Even if you look at the famous Jabberwocky, rules are followed. The words themselves may be nonsense, but:

1. They still conform to proper phonemic structure of English;
   
2. English grammar is upheld;
   
3. The English phonology and alphabet are used;
   
4. Rules of poetic structure are upheld (eg. rhyme, meter, etc.).

Poetry, or indeed any artistic expression, is all about intelligently manipulating a structured system in some creative way. Language is a supreme example of this, and programming can be as well. You cannot throw out every rule, as there would then be no context for understanding the art. Coding is more restrictive than spoken language, but that makes the art of coding all the more esoteric and challenging.

Ever read The Story of Mel?

Re:Hacking is not an art...

[Ephemeriis]

Not entirely true....even in poetry you have to remain within the confines of what defines "poetry". If I just pour some ink on the page, make a big ol' ink blob...that isn't poetry. If I crumple up some paper in a big ball, that isn't poetry. If I cut off my ear and stick it in a plastic box, it isn't poetry. If I run naked through my back yard, it isn't poetry.

All of that could, possibly, be loosely defined as some sort of art...but not poetry. In order for it to be poetry, you need to obey some basic rules - rules such as writing words on paper. Same thing goes for programming, you need to follow basic rules - such as using valid statements that will actually compile.

Just because the basic rules in programming are somewhat more strict than those of poetry, does not mean that you cannot be creative or artistic with it.

yrs,
Ephemeriis

Re:CHAOS

[millahtime]

"Chaos is what drives the creative process"

It really depends on what you are trying to create. If you want to create strictly art then maybe chaos drives teh creative process but much of the creative process is due to there being something needed to be created. Like something an engineer creates. An engineers creating something has little to do with Chaos and a lot to do with structure.

Art & computers

[192939495969798999]

I believe that art (fine art) and computers are integrally related in the methods of abstract creativity requried for the initial creative phase. After that, they deviate in the techniques and level of creativity required. Fine art generally allows for more creativity, because there is not necessarily the business push to "get it done now". As a fine artist whose day job is I.T. related, I can say that it is an easy transition.

But why?

[Realistic_Dragon]

Why do all these programmers want to be considered artists anyway?

An artist is someone who ignores function and concentrates on form where they think beauty lies. An engineer is someone who sees beauty in pure dedication to achieving a function in the most efficient fashion.

A perfectly calculated arching cantilever is beautiful, a painting of a waterfall is just an inferior copy.

-- An Engineer

Re:But why?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Why do all these programmers want to be considered artists anyway?

Because programmers are just like normal human beings, in the sense that most of them have that subconscious yearning for the approval and respect of their fellow man.

Now look at the amount of respect society at large bestows on artists and programmers / engineers. Artists are generally well-regarded... even the people who think that most artists are lazy and weird, can muster some respect for them. Contrast that with the amount of appreciation programmers garner these days. Most non-techs have little respect for programmers, or geeky activities in general.

A perfectly calculated arching cantilever is beautiful, a painting of a waterfall is just an inferior copy.

Yet very few 'regular' people will notice the beauty in beautiful bridges... but will fork over good money for that painting of a waterfall. Unsurprisingly... to appreciate the beauty of most engineering works, you have to have at least some working knowledge of the underlying principles. But if you know nothing about painting, proportion, shading and composition, you are still able to be moved emotionally by a piece of art. And that is what art is about.

Re:Correct.

[orthogonal]

The act of calling ANYTHING related to precise science "art" can not be anything but a mis(ab)used metaphore (sic)

The mathematician, contributor to the Manhattan Project -- and a founder of modern computing -- John von Neumann, considered by knowledgeable colleagues to have contributed to all fields of mathematics except topology and number theory, disagreed. Describing the qualities of a good mathematical proof, von Neumann wrote :

One also expects "elegance" in its "architectural," structural make-up. Ease of stating the problem, great difficulty in getting hold of it and in all attempts at approaching it, then again some very surprising twist by which the approach, or some part of the approach, becomes easy, etc. Also, if the deductions are lengthy or complicated, there should be some simple general principle involved, which "explains" the complications and detours, reduces the apparent arbitrariness to a few simple guiding motivations, etc. These criteria are clearly those of any creative art.... all this is much more akin to the atmosphere of art pure and simple than to that of the empirical sciences.

(John von Neumann as quoted in William Poundstone, Prisoner's Dilemma).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given von Neumann's seminal influence on computer programming, his description of a good mathematical proof reads to me very much like a qualities I expect to see in a good algorithm, function, or class when I'm reading or writing code. Foe me, elegance is always of first importance when I -- and I use the word consciously -- craft code: a function that does not flow, a class the instances of which cannot be used in an elegant and (at least from the user's point of view) transparent way, is almost always bad code, and illuminates a lack of understanding on the part of the coder.

Kludges are offensive, not because they don't work -- the only justification for a kludge, after all, is that if nothing else, it works -- but because they are indicative of a lack of craft, and because they indicate a lack of understanding, either on the part of the coder himself, or the on the part of framework/clases/language he is coding in or with. A kludge is bad because it is the pulled thread in the fabric of the program, a pulled thread that threatens or exposes a potential for further and MORE disastrous unravelling.

Re:This seems like a bad ripoff of the Mentor.

[mwood]

Yeah, I been there, but with differences.

I didn't go around breaking others' art; I made some of my own.

I was bright enough to figure out that, if I do it the way the teacher wants it done, I don't get hassled. I can always do it my way when I'm doing it for me, and then nobody has the authority to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

I showed some promise and was rewarded with more challenging (and interesting) stuff by teachers who cared. That's how you *find* teachers who care.

You can learn the system and get what you want. Or you can turn your back on it and let it hit you from behind. Your choice.

Programming is essentially a creative endeavor

[rafael_es_son]

Programming is essentially a creative endeavor where beauty emerges from the harmonious implementation of function - i.e. a function (creation) in harmony with the object (material or imagined) which is the program's intention to model and with a given set of factors or rules (the API, language, instruction set.) This kind of creativity is in this sense more akin to that expressed in building architecture and industrial design than that expressed in the fine arts and philosophy.

Terming programming as a fine art is quite a stretch apart from the latter's primary concern - which is the creation of beautiful objects. Programming's primary concern is the creation of interactive models of objects in harmony with their material or imaginary counterparts and the boundaries that define the model space.

In this other sense, the aesthetic pleasure derived from programming or observing beautiful code is similar in nature to that derived from the construction or contemplation of philosophical concepts - both can recur to visual metaphors but are in essence invisible.

creative?

[kyw]

Art work is there to create an atmosphere, to procure an emotion, so it has a function.

Its not because the function is psychological that it is inexistent. The summit is to be able to associate beautiful with practical form, and that's what design is all about.

I have seen beautiful designs by hackers, so to me many have artistic concepts, and are inspired.

Hacking a way of slicing reality for mathematical minds?
A good cook is creative in his art so is a doctor undertaking a chirurgic operation, so is, so is so is.....

All professions have their amount of creativity, and some are more creative then others, no matter the occupation.

In all cases, the inventor has to master the rules who define the medium he applies, thus to use the maximum possibilities, for the creation to be well balanced, i.e. ingredients in the case of a dish, colours for a painting, sounds for music, etc...