Slashdot Mirror
Feature:Open Source as an Ant Farm
Where Open Source is concerned, hyperbole from the digerteratti hype meisters proliferates nearly as quickly as the hyperlinks they hype. Let's face it -- Clapton has been deposed; Linus Torvalds is now God. And those pundits shouting his divinity the loudest can^Òt even tell a stack register from a walrus. I wonder if Jesus had the same problem?
This constant lionizing of Linus is getting on my nerves. I mean, he is probably a great guy and all (if you know what I mean), but a great man? Usually you wait until people are safely dead (and unable to further embarrass themselves) before heaping those kinds of laurels on their heads. If I was he I would start worrying about that strange human proclivity for taking our living idols down a notch once in a while. Or even nailing them to a tree. Not to mention burning at the stake, drawing and quartering and satirizin g on TV.
But I knew things were getting ridiculous this last week when I saw three different weblogs pointing to the same dumb article using variations on the same dumb caption: 'Open Source as an Art Form' . I mean come on, just because a bunch of nutzoid art types gives Torvalds an award for Linux doesn't mean that an operating system or a development model is art! Yeesh!
Not that I don't think of programming as art mind you. After all I am a programmer myself and I often like to compare what I do to the creation of art. A kind of raw industrial art perpetuated underneath the digital world by Morlo cks like myself while the Eloi cavort on the surface, unaware of the immense complexity (and fragility) of their world. In other words code is art, but it is exclusionist art. No more approachable to the everyday person than a Jackson Pollock work. And twice as incomprehensible!
After all if everyone could do it, it wouldn't be art, would it? It would be just another craft. And if everyone could appreciate good code the way I appreciate the Impressionists then it would be 'Classical' (read 'Dead') Art. Not something alive and thriving. Bubbling and fermenting and making funny smells the way the process of hacking out good code does.
But, you say, it is being appreciated just as you would like! After all, isn't that what the award was all about?
Well, no frankly. Not even close. In my opinion if you can't write good code you can't appreciate good code. At the most you can only appreciate the end result, the compiled program. And, while some programs are definitely 'art' in their own right, many others cannot be described as such based on their even visible-to-the-user external features. And Linux, while a work of art in my programmer eyes, is really just a kernel. A piece of code that, if everything is working right, the user will never see directly. Some of my peers would agree with this. Some will not. As always opinions are all over the map...
One poster on Slashdot tried to have it both ways when he opined "Which part of the programming is the art? Is it the code, neatly formatted, with creative comments and clever algorithms or is it the finished product? When you look at 'art' in a museum, all you see is the finished product . . . So which is the art? The code or the program? I personally think it's the program, and beautiful programs usually have very nice/efficient/clean code."
While another lamented "When the New Yorker compares Open Source to the Algonquin roundtable, the seventh seal will be complete and Microsoft will be free to release Windows 2000."
And another asks "So how is this art going to be displayed? Will art galleries have framed printouts of C code, or will they just give out Linux CDs?"
How indeed? Well, if you read the dumb article I mentioned above you will find the author's thesis is that neither the source code nor the compiled Linux kernel code is the issue, rather the art in question is the Open Source development model that built it! He bases this proposition the following facts:
- China Youth Daily used the Microsoft consternation over Open Source for propaganda purposes.
- The Open Source development model (as described by Eric Raymond) is about cooperation and participation.
- Indian Potlatches were about cooperation and participation.
- The Surrealists did some stuff that involved cooperation and participation.
- A lot of twentieth century art uses 'quotation' (like painting soup cans or sampling 1970's Rock and Roll for Rap music) and 'quotation' is kind of like Open Source, isn't it?
- John Myatt's art forgery scam was kind of like 'quotation' too! And it was kind of like art as well
- When some people share a pseudonym to do wacky performance art, and then someone else uses the same nom de plume to crack a web site or to write an on-line 'tag-team' novel you have cooperation and participation and quotation and propaganda all rolled into one, with an Internet connection as a sweetener!
My first thought on reading the article was "Huh?" Then I reread and listed the salient points above and reiterated "Huh?"
Clearly Harvey Blume isn't a programmer. If he was I wouldn't trust him to code a 'for' loop based on his demonstrated grasp of simple logic. Nonetheless if he had simply stated that Open Source programming with the Bazaar model is 'Art' because he says it was art I would have much less to quibble with. After all art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Only he didn't. Instead he chose to defend his allegation using arguments that indicate he doesn't understand anything about the subject. In other words, I cannot say Mr. Blume is wrong, but I can state with near certainty that he is the wrong person to make the claim. He might be right, but for the wrong reasons.
So, assuming you can call a development model an art form -- how do you hang it on the wall? I would argue that it is already there. The main point about Open Source is that it is (wait for it) . . . OPEN! Duh^Å Unlike 'Closed' development the source code is available for all to see. And often the discussions between developers are available as well, archived on one list server or another. In the Internet sense you can't get up against the wall any more that that!
But what does the average art lover see hanging there? Open Source as an Art Form? I think not. More like Open Source as an Ant Farm! At most they will get a glimpse of we scurrying workers as we toil underground. But they will never, ever understand. As I said before, I am OK with that.
Non programmer types can present art awards for Linux or even Sendmail if they like, but it doesn't signify to me. In my opinion these awards mean nothing until they are given by someone who understands why the jargon file definition of 'Recursion' is funny. Until then I would rather they just threw money. Wouldn't you?
if 'artists' can make music which dosent make people dance, and painters can paint pictures that are 'ugly' -- well i have no problem with writing beautiful code. not even functional or bug free, but i still think its beautiful! http://www.response.cx -- more about pointless code
Some points I agreed on, others I disagreed on. One thing I agree strongly about is, stop making Linus Torvalds out to be God. I can't say I've ever met him, but I know what I would think if I were in his shoes. That some people thinking he's amazing are nuts. I'm sure fame for anyone would be nice. But please, let him die before you make him a saint.
Operating systems pass, Art alone endures.
Excellent essay! I loved the hyperactive hyperlinks! Good job!
>if everyone could appreciate good code the way I appreciate the Impressionists
false parallelism: categories do not align
fatal error
exit
I have for some time viewed open-source programmers and software as ants and honey. If you leave a jar of honey out with the lid off, the ants will swarm all over it.
Proprietary software is like a honeycomb. The busy team of bees go to work and produce the wax combs and the honey.
Opened-source software is a third category. By this term I mean things like the GIMP, which came out of the efforts of several people, who then permitted the ants to crawl around in the code. It wouldn't exist as it does if it hadn't started as the focused effort of a few people.
All these insect metaphors fall down on further analysis, of course, because humans seldom act like ants. Very few people are selfless enough to polish any of the real rough-edges in most open source software. Ego enters into the equation in a big way; nobody wants to clean up after somebody else's mess. Ants or bees wouldn't hesitate for a second. It's in their genes to make their best effort for the collective. Humans don't work that way.
Every group that practice a craft with great skill and care wants to believe it's art - from coders, engineers, and architects to chefs, graphic designers, journalists and house painters. And certainly, all of these trades require a certain sense of elegance, and aethetics, to practice at the highest level. Often, the true skill of the best practicioners is only apparent to other masters of that craft.
Unfortunately, that doesn't make it art. These are all still skills and trades tightly constrained by the need for true functionality in their creations. Art is about creating purely for aesthetic impact, without regard to function.
If people created beautiful code purely for the beauty of the logical structure, the wonder of the abstract models, then it would be art. But unconstrained by the need for good function, it wouldn't be good code anymore. So the concept of code being art is contradictory: if you truly created code as art, it would no longer really be programming or engineering.
I have worked both as a programmer and journalist, and both professions face this same issue. They'd love to be artists, and they consider themselves craftsmen aiming for much higher ideals than the average person could understand. But to truly become artists and turn their works into art, they would have to compromise the very basic principals of their chosen craft. A journalist who writes just based on the beauty of the words is no longer a journalist, nor would a programmer who just writes code for its own beauty really be a programmer any more.
i originally clicked on the link because i thought it read "ant farm" instead of "art form". my confusion led to curiosity, as is almost always the case. -"ac"
I could accept that code is art if it is never compiled and only written for aesthetics.
However, when you compile it, debug it, and use it, you are now doing engineering. Engineering can involve great creativity and elegant designs/implementations, but because it is meant to be useful, it is not pure art.
One engineer can appreciate the "beauty", insight, or genius of another engineer's work, but I don't think it is art.
Art is that which serves no purpose but to be contemplated. Code is a means to a utilitarian end; a novel, a statue, or a symphony is not. Therefore, the Linux kernel is not art -- not in the strict sense of the term.
However, one can admire the work that went into it, the beauty of it, and the skill with which it was constructed. (Where applicable.)
(p.s. check out The Romantic Manifesto. Hey, it wouldn't be Slashdot without the occasional Ayn Rand Rant!)
-- Anonymous Coward
IMHO creation is art. It doesn't matter if you are creating a painting, code or a baby.
Art is what an artist creates. Art must have quality, which should rule out most software.
Humans are the audience of true Art. Machines are the audience of Code. Humans can read, understand, learn from, and appreciate Code, but the primary audience remains the Machine for which it was written. Stop speaking to the machine, and you're no longer writing Code. // final
Would [hue]man cast Linus Torvalds as GOD with Linux as His Testament? No probably not. And nobody really does. Do they? Some revere, maybe even kind of worship, Linus and his Art. Which is okay. But as has been pointed out many of the most ardent Linutics, perhaps because of their devotion, seem least able to comprehend what was necessary to create Linux, nor are they interested in delving into how the little kernel really works, much less engaging in a rational discussion of Linux as just another OS.
But maybe if Linus can't, nor do I think that he wants to, be our GOD might he not serve as our social liberator? Indeed Linux-as-Art is just another twist on the now familiar dogma of Linux-open-source as a neo-technical people's revolution; you know, freeing Us from the crushing boots of compu-capitalists; have you been subjugated today? But then if Linux is Art or Reform one has to wonder; when was the last time government regulators reined in an overly vogue artistic genre--say impressionism, with the sole intension of forcing open the art market? And of course it goes without saying that governments are not in the business of encouraging alternative forms of social organization. Then too what about the lack of a backlash by the social-conservative-watchdog-sect who always resent alternative ideas[art/reform]? No doubt Linux offends Mr. Gate's sensibilities, but I doubt these objections fall along purely moral lines. Well--I'm willing to rethink this particular point. As for people who think of Linux-open-source as a viable vehicle for compu-social liberation... why not pick up something created by a real artist, may I suggest Orwell.
No it's called baking a cake. if an artist bakes a cake it's called baking a cake too.
Art does not need to be beautiful. Coding is engineering, it olny resembles art in that in both endevors something is created. Creation is also not art, just look to any microsoft program.
Do you really believe this? Haven't you never read someone else's code and learned something from it?
I think you're missing the point... If you can read someone else's code and learn something from it, then you can write good code -- But if all you can do with code is stare blankly at it and wonder why so many words are misspelled (and never mind the over-use of punctuation), then you'll never truly appreciate it.
The best you can do then is write for ZDNet.
It seems it would not be that difficult to automagically turn ordinary text into a linkfest in this manner. Just run something like a simplified Eliza over the text to find the interesting subjects, and then link those to whatever shows up first in Google. Bork bork.
I can not program or even write a script but I am a profesional artist(craftsman if you will) and I use Linux. Is code art, sadly I'd have to say NO. A craft yes but art, no. I don't belive all paintings or all music are art either. In fact art is pretty rare. I have an idea about what consitutes art. Art is an exploration of our human nature. Not unlike science being an exploration of our external world. It is the function of art to allow us to experience another's perspective vicariously and through it come to know a bit more deeply what it means to be human. When I listen to Tom Waits or read Raymond Carver I don't nessisarily want to be those characters But I do get to -for a moment- become them. I get to experience life from a new perspective, safely, and the experience expands my understanding of humaness. Now does great code do it for me? No. I use software every day And It is practical but not exactly mind expanding. Does that make it any less important? No. Open source is more akin to a political movement and science. You take your code and put it out there for the world to see and improve. That is a powerful Idea and may have a greater impact than any one piece of art.
OK, a hypothetical situation. A sculptor finds a piece of driftwood. He looks at it carefully, and realizes there is a beautiful form hidden in there . He takes it home, carves away some of the distractions, polishes the rough surfaces, and presents the result as art.
Is it? Even though what he's presenting was already embedded in nature, just waiting for someone to find it? Does merely finding such a thing count as art?
If so, then maybe Charles Darwin created art when he saw into the way nature perpetuated itself, saw the elegant process of evolution, and displayed it for others to see. He didn't *invent* it, but he was the first to see it embedded in nature, and first to display it for others.
And perhaps Linus created art when he discovered, embedded in the assumptions that quality software only comes from high pay, and high pay only comes from high profits, and high profits only come from closed source, the implication that open source could actually kick closed source's butt. In a very elegant fashion. Er, so to speak.
Wonderful article. I read that "Open Source as an Art Form" article and reach the same conclusion: bunch of artsy clueless guys talking a lot about things they dont understand, doing their typical "I will talk so long and about so many thing and mixing so many pseudo-ideas you would not understand anything" trick. Your article pinpoints exactly all the flaws in it. The fact that, for instance, medieval cathedral were built by a collective process, with hundreds of anonymous artist and a few public ones working together, doesnt make the "process" art... the cathedral is the art, the process is something for history & sociology to understand. Same thing with Open Source; the hackers coding Linux are not into "happenings" or things like that; they arent doing it as a performance. Its just the method they use to build something they want. And the result can be considered art only for those who understand it, as you say. Just my $.02
Cause only the initiated can really understand the constraints, problems and issues the artist is grappling with and the solutions to those things that he employed, and only they are qualified to see the elegance, originality, relevance and other aspects of those solutions. Anyway, this is irrelevant. The guys that wrote the first article know as much about art as anyone else. They are just the kind of effete intelectuals that care more about controversy, politics and massaging their egos than real work.
#!/usr/binder/purl -Swede
use Hurdy;
use Gurdy;
while (1)
{
print "Bork, ";
}
Linux isn't art. Bits of Linux are art, the VM system is one of the clearest and easiest to follow I've seen (especially compared to the Mach derived BSD one). However bits of Linux are _really_ ugly, take drivers/scsi/st.c for example, a 500 line function to write to the tape that does _everything_. ICK! (I'd fix it if there wasn't an IPR conflict). We need to recognize Linux's flaws. Accept that it isn't perfect. Those who work on the kernel know this all too well. The rest of us mortals need to accept this too.
All art/creative efforts go through the same process, no matter what type of art they are. Step 1: The creator has an idea about what he wants to create. Step 2: He attempts to express this idea to the best of his ability in his chosen medium, be it paint or clay or code Step 3: His work is viewed by another, when his work is viewed, the viewer is interacting directly with the mind of the artist. So code is art in the sense that all three of these steps occur in the process of creating code. Take for example, Linux. Torvalds had an idea: to create the perfect operating system Torvalds and others coded this operating system into being. Others use and appreciate Linux, thereby recieving the benefit of Torvalds' original idea. Code is Art!
I found way too many dead links in the article.
Bring out yer DEAD (links)!
*CLANG*
Bring out yer DEAD (links)!
*CLANG*
*PLOP*
Bring out yer DEAD (links)!
*CLANG*
link: But I'm not dead yet!
*CRACK*
Now you are.
Bring out yer DEAD (links)!
I hold that if something can be beautiful then it can be art. I take pride in my code. I'll do things the long way if it's more elegant. The very act of bending the computer to your will to do something neat could be considered artistic. And I consider it, at some level, art.
Saying that code can only be art if it's never compiled is also silly. How many symphonies were created and never revised? How many novels go out without an editing process and sometimes years of revision by the author? While the majority of our work might be considered "Engineering" there is a lot of creativity we put into our work as well.
Hehe, that is pretty cool... .. .nyagh! You're richieb of mzx-devel fame. It's a small world after all..
F0 07 C7 C8
HaHa Hrrrm... Pretty entertaining article.
OUT!
#941
If (a dead sheep in formaldehyde == art || a crucifix in a tank of piss == art)
then
mozart is not art and piccasso is not art and rembrant is not art and dega is not art and cezanne is not art and bach is not art, etc, etc
But, IMHO, this statement is not true. A lot that passes for art is not art, it is eqo saying it is art and making you say that it is art also.
The specification contains no "for" loops, no fopens, no mallocs. It is a sculpture, embodying the essence of what you are trying to make, without the details of what you are making. Most importantly, specifications are elegant and graceful, by necessity.
But how does this apply to coding? Code is ONE possible implementation of that sculpture. There will be many ways to implement any given specification. The code you produce will be just one of these.
The translation of that specification into code requires the application of imagination and taste. (If you implement it line-by-line, you'll produce slow, bloated code. Rather, it takes imagination to see what the specification is trying to say, and taste to choose how to implement that vision.)
This gives you the second part of the definition of art ("The fine arts are those which have primarily to do withh imagination and taste") and meets the last requirement ("but the term is often confined to... ...architecture.").
Can code be "beautiful", though? That's the one key requirement that's left. We've got everything else. To answer that, I'll ask "what is beauty?" If beauty involves everything working together (or not) in the way the artist intends, then code can be said to have that. Classical beauty is about symmetry and proportion. Structure, in code, gives a good approximation to these.
So, by the dictionary definition, I can't see anything wrong with calling coding imaginitively "art". It seems to me to meet all the requirements.
How about the OSS model? Well, that's slightly more complex. I liken the OSS model to the model used by Stoneage and Ironage storytellers. Each storyteller learned the most "recent" version they could find, adapted it to their needs, thus creating a new version, and singing or reciting that.
Now, in terms of licence, concept and mechanism, the two models are practically the same. If one is art, then by implication, so is the other. (As I'm confining this to the MODEL and NOT to the product, I'm not going to look at the issue of what is produced by either.)
This part is perhaps the most open to question, and I'll leave it for others to argue it out. However, whatever holds true for Bards holds true for OSS coders, and vice versa. If OSS coders are not inherently artists, neither were Bards.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That confused jumble by Cygnus would be barely usable, even if you had the time to study it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm sorry but I don't have the time or the bandwidth to follow all of the links in this article.
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
Pointless perhaps, but not off-topic...
Denny
Police State UK - news and
The source is art and so is the result.... ;-)
...richie - It is a good day to code.
So if a plumber bakes a cake, we call it plumbing?
**>>BELCH
I must add, however, that getting the Arts Community in general to vociferously subscribe to the idea that "PissChrist" IS Art was *truly* a great work of Art!
**>>BELCH
Maplethorpe was a master, no doubt. His pictures pushed buttons and provoked, BUT, unlike a swastika on a bathroom wall or a religious icon in a urinal, his images took patience, skill and cleverness to create.
**>>BELCH
artifice \Ar"ti*fice\, n. [L. artificium, fr. artifex artificer; ars, artis, art + facere to make: cf. F. artifice.] 1. A handicraft; a trade; art of making. [Obs.]
2. Workmanship; a skillfully contrived work.
3. Artful or skillful contrivance.
4. Crafty device; an artful, ingenious, or elaborate trick.
Does it apply? I think so.
This definition is exactly why I think works like "PissChrist" are NOT Art, but simply cultural provokation and sophmoric button-pushing. There's nothing clever OR skillful about it. The fact that we respond emotionally to something does not (alone) make it Art.
**>>BELCH
Re your last paragraph, that was Richard Stallman, not Linus. RMS is the free software visionary, Linus is the pragmatic and supreme expert engineer.
We're damn lucky to have such a pair, and indeed others like Alan Cox that stand on the very same pedestal in my book.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Much as a shoemaker or smith of yore. There is a an artistic element to be sure, but there is a pratical result. Think of the guild system: apprentice, journeyman, and master. I think the parallels are strong. You can appreciate a handcrafted sterling teapot made by a master of his craft, but that's so different from a Picasso.
"In my opinion if you can't write good code you can't appreciate good code."
The Prix Ars Electronica award had nothing to do with code! It was about art. It was about social movement, and philosophy. It was about how a bunch of deep-thinking, smart and creative individuals (thousands of them) have set out and created something (what exactly isn't important here) realively original, and stirred up a lot of thought/emotions/attention. To such extent that our whole society is affected. Those involved in the making of creative works (of any kind) in the future will have to take the FS and OS philosophy into account. Facing up to history, just like they have to with Rodin, Picasso, Pollock, Warhol and all the others.
"But what does the average art lover see hanging there? Open Source as an Art Form? I think not."
And I say: If you don't know anything about art and art theory you can't appreciate, and comment on, good art. (This is of course somewhat arrogant, but so is the whole article. Ignorant and arrogant!)
Modern art is not just about objects. It's about ideas, creation, participation, performance, objects, and all sorts of other things. It's complex, and where they're gonna hang it just doesn't enter into it!
Open source has not been declared an art form. Just think about it... - The award was just given for something that has potentially affected art in a serious way.
Just deal with it guys. What you are making is affecting artistic and creative work all around you.
It is (probably) not art in itself, but it sure is affecting art. - It is probably going to have tremendous permanent effect on the art world as we know it!
So step down of your arrogant poles and take off your ignorant head-bags and smile, because you're doing something important, and you are being appreciated for it!
(P.S. I'm an not-so-humble art-student and I can tell you that at least my artistic philosophy has been greatly affected by the free-software and open-source ideology, and I think the Prix Ars Electronica for Linux was well deserved.)
Linux is cool and all....and I am glad Linus saw fit to release it. I am also glad so many saw fit to work on it and contribute to it. I have been using it for 4 years and it has been something that I am constantly impressed with...... ....in the end Linux was and is, and those that used it saw that it was good, and having used it, gained productivity and reduced hair loss. So it has been written and recorded unto time hence forth....etc., etc, ...so forth and so on.
.......but why does it *have* to be art. Is it less of a thing if it is not *art*?? By the same media that once denounced it, it is now elevated to ArtHood. Please,
Science is about discovery, research. If your findinng out how something works - its science. That could be astronomy, physics, math. I could also be reverse engineering somthing - in essence physicics are reverse engineering the universe. It can also be sitting on a pillow doped up just thinking - philosophy.
Art is about creation. Taking what the physicsts and philosophers have come up with and making something out of it. It could be a bridge for CE's. It could be a symphony for musicians. And it could be code for programmers.
It isnt, however a performing art, nor a graphic art (wtf do you call [paintings+sculptures+...]?). We generaly dont apperecate structures for there engeneering aspects. They might look good, but only other ring knockers can realy understand its structure.
But the real distinction here is utility. One generaly gets some utility from a bridge or a program. The only utility you get from more traditional art forms is emotional and prehaps spirtualy utility. Using linux or the result of other open source programs dose not give me a warm and fuccy feeling. However, knowing how it was build does. The methods - open source - dont give me any practical utility, they do give me emotional utility thouugh. Therefor they can only be Art.
The article was interesting, but it looks to me like there was so much time spent making the article appear a la Suck (note the last URL, incidentally), that the real focus of the article is lost.
Suck manages to lightly pepper their columns with URLs. IMO, there are so many here that it makes it hard to track what's really being said.
It all depends on what we consider art then, doesn't it?
:). Or the Microsoft Wal-Mart minimalls...
After all, an uncommon work of architecture, such as the Parthenon, Notre Dame Cathedral, the Guggenheim (sp?), Chrysler bldg, or even some contemporary private residences are artistic.
They are the realization of a unique vision, rendered in stone (or whatever) for all to see. Much like a great symphony, they immortalize their creator, or even become cultural cliche.
BeOS and NeXT are certainly works of art in this respect. Linux is more like the Red Rocks, or the Grand Canyon. Shaped by the forces of nature and tailored by their environment. Art is the creation of a single vision, whereas GNU and Linux are more jargon than a piece of poetry. More or a common Bazaar minstrel than a Cathedral hymn, eh? But how many folk songs are considered art?
Works of art often represent the culmination of an era or style, i.e. Gothic, Baroque, etc... By this token, a mid-70's hunk of GOTO ladden FORTRAN spaghetti is also a work of art. It's a reminer of the glorious splendor of our decadent past. Y2K anyone? Let them eat cake!
We can draw a number of comparisons between software and building architectures. Take the mach kernel and the minimalist geodesics of Buckminster Fuller. Or the the massive 3rd Reich designs of Spier and OS/360
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Is it art, what's art? Wow, lofty questions.
But I think the fish-in-formaldehyde or crap-in-a-tin Is/Isn't art debate can be cleared up by saying this:
There's two categories: in and out.
I can attach a probe on your brain and measure brain waves (Outside) but to find out what you are thinking I have to ask you (Inside).
So if in every fibre of your being you have slaved and dedicated your energy to creating a feeling of elegance, illumination and clean-ness in Your code, then you're an Artist with his/her Art. (Inside)
If a number of users remark "hey, this system is clean, powerful, almost Beautifyl" then that's Art (Outside).
Neither category can be reduced to the other. Each is valid in it's own right.
I thought the use of links was, well...ART!
Follow them if something strikes you as interesting, but if familiar with the underlined text it's nice not to have to scan through a laborious explanation.
Efficiency--I love it.
Slashdot: Liberal News for Nerds. Liberal Stuff that Matters.
I recently saw something that made a similar confusion -- alleging that historically, "art" was made by men, and women made only "crafts". The difference, allegedly, between painting and weaving.
... but that's a different story.)
I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it here. The historic status of craftsmen was high. The respect given a blacksmith or a stonemason was in proportion to the quality of their work. (Try to get a decent tuckpointing job these days
The difference, then, was between art being something luxurious and unnecessary, and yet an expected part of life, and craft being the art, as it were, of making necessary things unexpectedly well. To me, programming falls into the latter camp. And that is a mark of respect.
A good coder is a good craftsman. The code does something necessary (the end result) but the virtue of being good code is not necessary to that end result -- it is simply doing the necessary well.
Open Source may help this process along, encourage it, even make it practically mandatory in certain circles. Of course, Open Source isn't the only way to get there. Good craft comes from within, from the personal pride of the craftsman, from the knowledge that his skill is something special.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
There is no such thing as art. High culture is an illusion. Art is just people running around like ants trying to define themselves as gnostics and being "different". So even if you agree that Linux is Art, you're not really saying that much. Maybe we're not being fair to ant farms.
That's craft more than art. Art is generally morem time
/-$k*$k+int((($p=$b)+50)/132*$n)*$k]=$;):($_=$#
than cleverness and determination, as that project
certainly exhibited. Some of the Obfuscated Perl
Contest code are closer to art (utter inscrutability
helps, IMHO); for example:
*_=\$#;$/=q#(.)#;$#=10;$^X=~s|.*/||;$\=chr;$#=g
$#;substr($#,$^F#^F*$^F**$^F-1)=al;s$\$/( )\$/\$/$e\
$2\u\$^X\$2\$3o\$1r$ && print time
or
$k=100,$_=P,$n=200;print while(($z++?($_="",$z):
($_.="6\r$n $k $n "))0)*sin(log abs $p-5),$#[int(($l=$a)-70)
[$*++==$k*$n?exit:$*]?O0h:God))
On a side note, I learned Pig Latin ended -ay,
not -a. Hmm. Maybe a continental question?
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
pleasant mix of sarcasm, wit, and common sense.
;-)
And look everyone, it's posted by The Burrito Man, instead of by whatz hiz name.
oops. what a useless post.
"I want peace on earth and good will toward men." "We're the U.S. government. We don't do that sort of thing!!"
The question has been asked for centuries, about pretty much everything. If a dead sheep in formaldehyde can be considered art (not to mention a crucifix in a tank of piss), then why not code, or even the open source paradigm? (sorry for saying 'paradigm'; it won't happen again). Whether you consider it art is a personal thing. Me? I don't, but I'm willing to listen to people who want to convert me.
As for the apotheosis of Linus; every cause needs a figurehead, and it's natural for some to place that figurehead on a pedestal. It's no biggie.
Yes. Of a sort. It wouldn't appeal to everyone in the same way that pencil sketches often don't appeal, no matter how good they actually are, to people used to full color oil paintings.
Mel's program would be sort of like the hidden art of Bev Dolittle (?) where there's a simple nature scene and hidden in it, if you know where to look, are ten wolves, or a man on horseback, etc. Or maybe it's be like some piece of kinetic sculpture that appears to be out of an MC Escher book.
But yes, he wrote a program in ways other people have problems understanding, and it worked faster and better because of this, so yes, there is art in that.
Not that I'd want it hanging on my wall, for two reasons. One, I usually like big colorful things, regardless of actual artistic merit (ie, sat. pics of the area, N.G. Maps of the world, etc) and two, while it may have been artistic, that just means that everything Mel did was probably that way and this was just the minor job that was later given to someone untrained enough to have to wrestle with it yet enlightened enough to be able to grok it with study. This is probably as artistic to Mel as the canvas Rembrandt cleaned his brushes on.
Pig Latin Code in the shape of a pig
Mark
Some code is lever-pulling work. Drivers require following instructions and schematics.
/\$#@! in code.
Some code is craft. Driver architecture requires the ability to identify common structures all drivers depend on. The design and interaction of the different objects in the code is what makes Unices powerful.
As for art I'd say languages are art. Perl is very well done, aside from the fact that one must get used to
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
and art like Linux is that art follows a philosophy that may or may not be well defined.
Functional architecture or that which is Just Code(TM) is driven by momentary winds, like 3-D is hot now let's put 3-D in our software. Or just a set of code that performs one function.
I agree BeOS and NeXT are works of art. I patially agree that Linux gives into the demands of the world it lives in more than those two, thankfully. However, the philosophy is still there. Only more subtle. It emulates the Unix style in striving for clean, versatile code, though not necessarily small.
Look at the efforts with Video 4 Linux and especially ALSA, where they keep a collection of processor interface code so that they can access the chips on different cards without rewriting code for each card. Beautiful.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Would you consider the code in 'The Story of Mel, a Real Programmer' in Hacker's Dictionary: Appendices to be a form of art?
The C code that produced this is definitely not art! However, not all of my code is so artless. ;)
Seriously, I believe that code is art. At least some of it... and that has to include Linux!
Geeky modern art T-shirts
To throw my thoughts on the pile... art is where form is beyond function. A simple truss bridge to cross a river is not art, but an elegant bridge that is more stylized or intricate than necessary may be art.
A simple "Hello World" program is not art, but many of the programs in the "Obfuscated C" contest accomplish as much as the 3 line "Hello World" that is C Programming 101, but have a form that is far beyond what is required by function. Thats is "art", IMHO.
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
But I know what I like!
Don't like my sig? I don't either.
Anyone can put paint to canvas. Some can make it look like something. Very few can turn it into art. But in the end, Art is where you find it.
But really, I think someone spent more time digging up the links in the article than thinking through what he was linking... I mean writing about.
... it just shouldn't be exaggerated.
People like Linus, Larry Wall and Richard Stallman have become something like heroes among geeks, and I think there's nothing wrong with that. After all, what they have accomplished is quite remarkable. And I really don't think most of the geeks take it too far.
But because of the success of Linux and its potential threat to MS's dominance, the media have caught on to Linus Torvalds, and I think they make it a bit ridiculous sometimes.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Why can art only be appreciated or even recognized by the initiated?
It is possible that I don't understand the brilliance behind a working application but I can still percieve it as a fine piece of work. Of art even, as it seems to outshine all other applications with it's ability to get things done.
Admiration from your peers is always more desireable, but to disregard every one else's is quite arrogant. Don't you think?
Tina.
Sattinger's Law: It works better if you plug it in.
All the debate flying around! My my. Is coding art? Ask yourself... are you an artist when you code or are you an engineer (or both?) If the answer is yes, then your code is art... maybe not to anyone else but YOU... but since when does the feelings of the scads of faceless people mean anything to you personally? If ya wait for the masses to tell you if what you made is really good or not...that means you never asked yourself...
--de m0ng00se
Is madness a syptom of genius or vice-versa?
"art \Art\ ([aum]rt), 4. The application of skill to the production of the beautiful by imitation or design, or an occupation in which skill is so employed, as in painting and sculpture; one of the fine arts; as, he prefers art to literature." .... "The fine arts are those which have primarily to do with imagination and taste, and are applied to the production of what is beautiful. They include poetry, music, painting, engraving, sculpture, and architecture; but the term is often confined to painting, sculpture, and architecture."
In so far as this little blurb from www.dictionary.com, and I do assume here that everyone is trying to ask if coding is a "fine art" rather than the more general application meaning learned skill (ie academia).
I'd have a hard time being convinced programming is an 'art'. A builder can make a beautiful bridge, using ingenious methods, to form an athetically pleasing, safe way to cross a river, but we rarely refer to the process of designing it as 'art'. I'm not sure why coding would be any different. Granted, I accept the fact that one can find a piece of code 'beautiful', but more often than not, the primary purpose of coding is to implement functionality and practicality, where as in art, the asthetics are generally more important than the functionality of said art piece (although, as with everything, there are walways exceptions).
"Old man yells at systemd"
There is nothing quite like a good satirical smack on the hindquarters! All things considered, the salient point that we have taken ourselves (the individual elements of the design model) way too seriously should be a wake up call.. I can't help thinking that if we were to sit down with (nay, chain down) the most rabid members of the Gospel of Linus and force them to understand, even in the weakest way, how the Initio SCSI driver works, they would not be so predisposed to 'flame on' at the smallest slight. We would endow them with enlightenment of the fact It is just code! Nothing added to, nothing taken away!
.sig: Now legally binding!
Any time a system takes on some shade of elegance there is a temptation to make it an aesthetic affair. Humans appreciate alot of things that don't ask to be appreciated. And like this article almost says, every time we gaze on something and get all gooey, we simultaneously expose the innocence/ignorance that makes the appreciation possible.
There is a relationship between Science and Art. Some would term this relationship as inverse, or antagonistic. Others would say they are both part of a progressive maturity toward a truly synthetic model of a phenomena. Anyone heard of E.O. Wilson? HE is the one who should be talking about open source as an ANT FARM!
then wright's architecture is not art since it serves some purpose...
wrong!
...sie sind nicht grün
From the essay: "In my opinion if you can't write good code you can't appreciate good code."
Do you really believe this? Haven't you never read someone else's code and learned something from it? Or is it that you did, but didn't appreciate it?
Art or not? Only the person looking at it can answer that question. Those who see the beauty are enriched and those who can't see it deny it's even there, possibly even rant about the people who do see it in extreme circumstances...
numb
Hey! I thought it was really related to Ant Farms! Back to my little home. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Most would argue (and several have said or implied on this thread) that the purpose of code is to control a computer.
I disagree. IMO, the primary purpose of code is to -communicate with other programmers-. Controlling a machine is usually also important (but not always, think of example code), but this should never be allowed to unduly interfere with the primary purpose.
If code is a communicative medium for humans, then surely it is possible for it to be art...I just don't think that's very important. I'd rather see a much higher percentage of well-"craft"-ed code.
90% or more of production code in use today is utter crap. And not because it doesn't instruct the machine - it does (albeit usually poorly). No, it's utter crap because it does a terrible job of communicating to -humans-, thereby making the code much less reliable and maintainable in practice. We as an industry should be ashamed.