Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hackers: The Art of Abstraction

Posted by Hemos on from the slackers-the-heart-of-distraction dept.

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."

6 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Hacking is not an art... by Da+Fokka · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Hacking is not an art... by Zakabog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Hacking is not an art... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If it's an art, it's more like architecture: you have to conform to strict rules or your code won't compile/building will fall over. There may even be rules imposed by others: coding standards/building regs. Then there's ergonomics to take into account: GUI design/ergonomics of building use.

      But within those restrictions, there's still a lot of freedom to express oneself creatively.

    3. Re:Hacking is not an art... by TwistedGreen · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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?
  2. Hackers and Painters by amitshah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hackers and Painters by Paul Graham is a great read on why artists and hackers have similar interests and mindsets. A must-read for hackers.

  3. Define art first... by cherokee158 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think there are as many definitions of what constitutes "art" as there are aspiring artists (or their parasitical campfollowers, art critics).

    I'm a traditionally trained commercial artist. (You are welcome to slashdot my site at spanishcastle.com to confirm that pronouncement). I also have done a limited amount of programming. I find them to be two distinctly different experiences, but not altogether different. I think any act of creation done in the pursuit of excellence can be considered art.

    However, I tend to prefer my own simple formula for answering the age old question: is it art? They are:

    1) Is it beautiful? (which is a loaded question, too, really)
    2) Would you have it in your home? (or, in the case of large works, in your town?)
    3) Five hundred years from now, when some future archeologist digs it up, will it still be recognizable as art?

    Obviously, some art forms are simply too ephemeral (like music or dance) to meet these conditions completely...although you could also argue that the best of them are preserved in one fashion or another (symphonies are committed to paper, and dances are taught to the next generation)

    I think programming might be considered more akin to graphic art than fine art.

    Fine art is a form of expression. I am not sure how well programming does this. Were it not for commented code, I don't how one could discern the author of a great piece of code from another.

    Graphic art is a form of communication, which programming is designed to do, after a fashion. It is a means whereby a person may communicate with a machine.

    Perhaps only machines know the difference? Perhaps we are bearing witness to a new form of art: machine art. Maybe one day, sentient machines will look and marvel at the elegance and simplicity of some tidy bit of code with the same fascination and admiration we might admire an artist's rendering of our own universe today.

    I'm still waiting for both hardware and software manufacturers to address the issue of permanence, though...