I was musing about the author's description of programming (like painting) being split into Commercial Art (bad) and High Art (good). Such a split is hundreds of years old, of course, predating code writing by quite a bit.
I noticed the author drew the demarking line by intended usage or whether the creator got paid for the work. Commercial Art was strictly to persuade the masses to part with their cash. "High" art was for its own sake. Kind of an existential view of art, don't you think? Also seemed a bit of artist-elitism or snobbery. Like having a practical use denigrates something. To be "art" it has to NOT have a practical use.
Historically, the lines weren't all that well drawn, as you know. What we consider High Art now was very often done 'for hire'. Michaelangelo did not paint the ceiling of his own bedroom, just for fun, in his spare time. He was a paid professional, hired to perform his craft in accordance to the wishes of his employer. Could Michaelangelo have put dragons and monsters on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel if he wanted to? Of course not. He was hired to put a picture of God giving the divine 'spark' to Adam up there.
Seems to me, what separates "Art" from mere decoration or mundane craft, in history, is not whether the artist got paid or had to follow an employer's directions, but rather, it was the skill or "gift" of the artist. I mean, you can imagine that some poor sot could sit in his basement studio painting all the really awful paintings he wanted (maybe dragons and monsters), following his own inner voice (existentialisim can't provide any value assessment here), but his product still wouldn't qualify as "Art". His having not gotten paid for his bad paintings won't elevate them to "art". They're still bad.
Staying in the visual arts analogy awhile, it also seemed the author was quietly presuming that one of the features of "art" was that it was NOT intended to do some job. Done for its own sake and not to satisfy some 'customers' or a market. Again, existentialism leaks out. Elitism too. But think about it. Does visual art (like a painting) really serve NO purpose? Did Matisse or Van Gogh, or Beethoven or Goethe, for that matter, really create their works of art for NO purpose? Of course not. Part of the definition of good or successful or recognized art is how well that creation fulfills its purpose. In many cases, that purpose was to communicate some message. Maybe the message was deeply personal, but the "art" was intended as a means to communicate that message. There had to be an intended "customer", someone who would receive the message and understand it. (hopefully)
Back in the world of programmers, I can see where there is a commercial priority to produce a product that will satisfy some market need and thus provide income for the programmer and his employers. Like hired farm hands. They're there to help bring in the crops. The farm family benefits and pays the laborer's wage. (sorry. slipped into another analogy) If the farmer wants his beets dug up, that's what the laborer does. It isn't elegant, but it was the work to be done. The laborer doesn't have to like beets, or like digging. His preferences aren't in the equation. Most programmers, I figure, are like the farm laborer. Their bosses have some work they want done. It might not be elegant, but they're willing to pay the guy to do it. No big deal. Beets gotta get dug.
Something that seems at play with painters or programmers, is that there are some guys (or gals) who are just plain good at their craft, be it painting or composing, or writing code, or digging beets. In any craft, there are a few gifted souls who excel at the work. Then, there will be people (maybe most) who are good enough to stay alive and below them, a body of hacks who dabble or struggle at it, but really aren't good enough for anyone to value their work. Such "artists" can be loners, developing software on their own, of course (Some composers in the 1700s and 1800s were wealthy aristocrats who could afford to dabble, not worrying about bills or food, but they happened to have been good at the "art" too). Some "artists" can be employed to do someone else's work for them. (Mozart was hired to write several concerti for flute which have stood the test of time as "art" -- but Mozart hated the flute and did not enjoy writing for it) Still, a true artist can create art, even if 'for hire'. Middle-of-the-road artisans (note that I avoided the use of the Artist label) can still perform work worthy of pay even if the result is heralded as "art".
I think the author hit upon one of the keys, though. He referred to programmers who had a passion for their project. Even hired-gun programmers could do great work, he said, as long as they were "really into" their project. Such passionate involvement CAN produce better results. Someone who really cares about the project is just more apt to put in the personal investment to achieve quality. A person who really couldn't care less just isn't going to go that extra mile. And, with Mozart as a proof text, the truly great ones can create great stuff even when their heart ISN'T in it.
In that we are told to "do all things as unto the Lord." It seems we are expected to MAKE ourselves passionate enough about the task -- whatever it is -- to do a quality job. God didn't make us all Mozarts, however, so expecting passion alone to produce "art" will be disappointed. Still, as a programmer with some skill, one can still see ways the task at hand could be done better, more simply, or more 'elegantly'. To intentionally avoid taking these steps may be a directive from one's employer..."Don't spend any more time on that". To intentionally do a feeble job when you could have done better (and were actually being paid to do better) would be the irresponsibility that the Bible cautions us against.
To sum up, (bet you were wondering if I ever would, eh?:-) ) the author's assertion that free software is inherently of better quality than paid-for software, seems flawed. Good software, as he also notes, comes from passion or commitment. Same with anything else created by men's hands. Whether the guy got paid or charged for his product, doesn't seem a vital (or even salient) part of the equation.
Slashdot Mirror
being split into Commercial Art (bad) and High Art (good). Such a split is
hundreds of years old, of course, predating code writing by quite a bit.
I noticed the author drew the demarking line by intended usage or whether
the creator got paid for the work. Commercial Art was strictly to persuade
the masses to part with their cash. "High" art was for its own sake. Kind
of an existential view of art, don't you think? Also seemed a bit of
artist-elitism or snobbery. Like having a practical use denigrates
something. To be "art" it has to NOT have a practical use.
Historically, the lines weren't all that well drawn, as you know. What we
consider High Art now was very often done 'for hire'. Michaelangelo did not
paint the ceiling of his own bedroom, just for fun, in his spare time. He
was a paid professional, hired to perform his craft in accordance to the
wishes of his employer. Could Michaelangelo have put dragons and monsters
on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel if he wanted to? Of course not. He was
hired to put a picture of God giving the divine 'spark' to Adam up there.
Seems to me, what separates "Art" from mere decoration or mundane craft, in
history, is not whether the artist got paid or had to follow an employer's
directions, but rather, it was the skill or "gift" of the artist. I mean,
you can imagine that some poor sot could sit in his basement studio
painting all the really awful paintings he wanted (maybe dragons and
monsters), following his own inner voice (existentialisim can't provide any
value assessment here), but his product still wouldn't qualify as "Art".
His having not gotten paid for his bad paintings won't elevate them to
"art". They're still bad.
Staying in the visual arts analogy awhile, it also seemed the author was
quietly presuming that one of the features of "art" was that it was NOT
intended to do some job. Done for its own sake and not to satisfy some
'customers' or a market. Again, existentialism leaks out. Elitism too.
But think about it. Does visual art (like a painting) really serve NO
purpose? Did Matisse or Van Gogh, or Beethoven or Goethe, for that matter,
really create their works of art for NO purpose? Of course not. Part of
the definition of good or successful or recognized art is how well that
creation fulfills its purpose. In many cases, that purpose was to
communicate some message. Maybe the message was deeply personal, but the
"art" was intended as a means to communicate that message. There had to be
an intended "customer", someone who would receive the message and
understand it. (hopefully)
Back in the world of programmers, I can see where there is a commercial
priority to produce a product that will satisfy some market need and thus
provide income for the programmer and his employers. Like hired farm
hands. They're there to help bring in the crops. The farm family benefits
and pays the laborer's wage. (sorry. slipped into another analogy) If the
farmer wants his beets dug up, that's what the laborer does. It isn't
elegant, but it was the work to be done. The laborer doesn't have to like
beets, or like digging. His preferences aren't in the equation. Most
programmers, I figure, are like the farm laborer. Their bosses have some
work they want done. It might not be elegant, but they're willing to pay
the guy to do it. No big deal. Beets gotta get dug.
Something that seems at play with painters or programmers, is that there
are some guys (or gals) who are just plain good at their craft, be it
painting or composing, or writing code, or digging beets. In any craft,
there are a few gifted souls who excel at the work. Then, there will be
people (maybe most) who are good enough to stay alive and below them, a
body of hacks who dabble or struggle at it, but really aren't good enough
for anyone to value their work. Such "artists" can be loners, developing
software on their own, of course (Some composers in the 1700s and 1800s
were wealthy aristocrats who could afford to dabble, not worrying about
bills or food, but they happened to have been good at the "art" too). Some
"artists" can be employed to do someone else's work for them. (Mozart was
hired to write several concerti for flute which have stood the test of time
as "art" -- but Mozart hated the flute and did not enjoy writing for it)
Still, a true artist can create art, even if 'for hire'. Middle-of-the-road
artisans (note that I avoided the use of the Artist label) can still
perform work worthy of pay even if the result is heralded as "art".
I think the author hit upon one of the keys, though. He referred to
programmers who had a passion for their project. Even hired-gun programmers
could do great work, he said, as long as they were "really into" their
project. Such passionate involvement CAN produce better results. Someone
who really cares about the project is just more apt to put in the personal
investment to achieve quality. A person who really couldn't care less just
isn't going to go that extra mile. And, with Mozart as a proof text, the
truly great ones can create great stuff even when their heart ISN'T in it.
In that we are told to "do all things as unto the Lord." It seems we are
expected to MAKE ourselves passionate enough about the task -- whatever it
is -- to do a quality job. God didn't make us all Mozarts, however, so
expecting passion alone to produce "art" will be disappointed. Still, as a
programmer with some skill, one can still see ways the task at hand could
be done better, more simply, or more 'elegantly'. To intentionally avoid
taking these steps may be a directive from one's employer..."Don't spend
any more time on that". To intentionally do a feeble job when you could
have done better (and were actually being paid to do better) would be the
irresponsibility that the Bible cautions us against.
To sum up, (bet you were wondering if I ever would, eh?
assertion that free software is inherently of better quality than paid-for
software, seems flawed. Good software, as he also notes, comes from passion
or commitment. Same with anything else created by men's hands. Whether the
guy got paid or charged for his product, doesn't seem a vital (or even
salient) part of the equation.