Well, the point of my argument was to counter the poster who claimed that it was simply not possible for software coding to be "art".
Understood -- I ought to have made clear, I recognized that your comment was directed not to me but to other "code is not art" posters.
If someone considers themself an artist, part of the "requirements" include ability to accept criticism.
The ability to accept criticism is an admirable trait, one which distinguishes the wise man from the self-absorbed fool. Not all artists can accept criticism ("Don't touch my art with your words")... indeed, some artists can't even accept praise, so closely do they guard their work.
One big "test", I think, would be asking "Is the creator of a given work doing it because it gives him/her pleasure to create it, or not?" It's tough to claim you're creating "art" if you're working on something you'd rather not be doing at all, and only half-heartedly plug along as it because you're being paid for the result.
Your test makes sense: does the creator take pleasure in the creation, or not? (I'm speaking of "pleasure", here, in a very broad sense.) Speaking for myself, I know that I like the feeling of pleasure which I get from a job well done.
Which brings me back to my core argument. I demand the right to decide for myself what pleases me and what does not. Therefore, who am I to say of another man, "He takes pleasure in his creation"...? What of the man who is so different from myself that I cannot recognize his pleasure, or mistake it for something else? True, I do sometimes feel that I know another man's soul -- we have the capacity for empathy -- but I've come to believe that I can be entirely wrong about my perceptions of the soul. Better to believe that all men are artists, than to wrongly judge that some man is not.
I think all of your examples *can* be art, but aren't necessarily so (or even "typically" or "usually" so). Limiting art to only encompassing paintings, movies, music or sculpture is pretty restrictive.
You've touched the heart of what has shaped my opinions: restrictive definitions of art.
... take your "music" example... Is all music automatically "art"?
I understand your argument. I've been there, I've made similar arguments. But I keep coming back to this belief -- that I do a man wrong when I tell him he is not an artist, that his work is not art. I do not wish to be such a man, because I do not wish to be so treated myself.
Better that I have the courage to say: We are all artists, and I don't like your art, it's bad art, evil art, commercial radio pablum elevator Muzak art, whatever.
... if you're inspired by the challenges and restrictions imposed upon you by a device, and create your own game or application that pushes the limits of device (quite possibly through using very creative tricks you came up with yourself) - why isn't that "art"?
Coding is art, no question. And if it's inspired, as you suggested, then it's... inspired art, which I admire.
But there are many artists, widely recognized as such, whose works I do not admire. One man's inspired is another man's insipid. We speak here of opinions, which we all have (or ought to have, and are entitled to).
We must each of us judge inspiration for ourselves... to do which, we need the continuum of art, the common medium of exchange: it's all art, all men are artists. Everything we do, matters: let us do the best we can to express the motives of our souls.
You flatter me, sir or madam; but I'm as un-immune to that as the next man or woman, respectively.
I don't run a proper newsletter, but I do from time to time blurt out a bulk rant or somesuch. To subscribe, send me an email -- karl AT karljones.com -- and I'll sign you up. (Yes, I know this is primitive; and me, a coder, dammit. But then, they say that the carpenter's roof is always leaking....)
Apart from bulk ranting, I've also been known to conduct conversations by email, although these tend to be sketchy during cycles when my incoming email runs high, which is most of the time.
If you happen to be a Half-Life developer, you may recognize me as the Handy Vandal. I send out a Handy Vandal mailing from time to time, send an email to subscribe.
I also don't run a proper blog (the carpenter's roof...) but I do irregularly post my musings:
According to your definition, almost all activities of man are art. By diluting a word to apply to everything, you make the word worthless.
Yes, my definition explicitly covers almost -- all? -- activities of man as art. That's my intent, that's how I like it.
Dilute the meaning of the word? Yes, but for a good cause -- in the same way that "love" is diluted word, meaning anything and nothing, which we use because it fulfills our needs. As need be, we can always speak of "young love", "new love", "unrequited love", "foolish love", etc., crafting endless nuances from adjectives. For substance, though, we endlessly re-use the same short sweet powerful noun, love.
I demand not only that all of man's works -- including administration of government -- be treated as art; I further demand that all men see themselves, and each other, as artists.
Why? To meet my final demand: that all men learn to judge for themselves whether this art is good, this art is bad, that art is useful, and so on, until we are able to judge: is this man good or evil? will that course of action cause great good or great suffering?
A variety of sources like we had 20 years ago seems best. We have a great deal of "popular art" being funded by corporate America (popular music, television, movies...). We have a "prestige art" being funded by the American Aristocracy and government (museums, opera houses, PBS) which emulates classic funding. We had mid range art being sold to middle class households.
Well said; I agree.
But that was the twentieth century -- America's Century. The twenty-first... it's way too soon to assess whose Century this is, although we surely live in an age of hyperbolic change.
Time to say goodbye to some old expectations, get on with the business of the future, maybe find ways to make art via PayPal or whatever....
The NEA as an institution-- along with Public Television, etc.-- made powerful enemies.
Didn't have to be that way, but there's always a prick with an agenda in any crowd.
Good point. I didn't mean to praise the NEA, nor defend NEA shortcomings -- I'm not plugged into their politics, don't follow their issues. (I certainly don't want anything to do with crucifixes-in-urine, nor with campaigns against crucifixes-in-urine -- my God, that rates down there with OJ and Schiavo, in terms of loathsome media spectacles.)
What I meant to express was my skepticism for the idea of state-sponsored institutions getting much done.
I guess if you do a good job crimping your own network cable, that's art too? Ugh.
Yes, crimping cables well is art. So is crimping cables badly, although I might call it bad art.
My definition of art:
When a man acts with intent -- when the motives of his soul are brought into the world through the actions of his body -- that is art.
I'll spare you the details of how I arrived at this thesis, other than to ask:
Q: Who is to say, This painting is Art, but that painting is Not Art? This chair is Art, but not that? This architectural blueprint, but not that? This poem but not that? This song, not that? This... intentional pattern of bytes, not that? Who is to say: You over here are an Artist, but You over there are not... ?
A: Not you, brother; nor me either. Alternately: all of us. In any case, It's All Art.
I'll be the judge of what I consider good art and bad art. You do the same. It's all art -- including rhetoric, the art of expressing ourselves.
We live in a continuum of creation which informs the ways our souls express themselves, much as unified field theory informs time and space. "Turtles all the way down".... artful, those turtles.
And thus we give artists money though various organizations and offer them jobs that do not distract them that much.
Ideal in theory; but in practice, I'm guessing (I don't know this for a fact) that only a small percentage of artists get any funding. I'm thinking here of the United States, where the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts is less than the budget for US military brass bands. (Literally -- figure from Harper's Index.) Moreover the NEA as an institution -- along with Public Television, etc. -- have powerful enemies.
But everybody needs to get paid. If the artist can't live off his work, he has to waste his time and energy on a day job -- not good for art.
This is the eternal dilemma.
Some lucky few artists find patrons, or markets for their work.
Most don't. Of these, some struggle on as best they can, some go without art altogether, some go mad with art or the lack of it.
I believe that the public at large, if polled, would agree: art is good for us, it enriches our souls, teaches us about ourselves.
But who should pay for this art -- the State?
True, 1920s poster art of the Soviet Union is spectacularly beautiful.
And some of the WPA works of 1930's America are breathtaking.
Let's be honest, Nazi graphic designers knew what they were doing; and among film-makers, Leni Riefenstahl towers alone as a immmortal genius of light and shadow.
I could go on, but my examples have reached their climax: for every work of art that someone admires, someone else burns with hatred for artist and artwork alike.
Who then shall fund the artist -- Corporations? All hail the Fedex Logo and the Michelin Man!
What's left? Do it yourself, any way you can -- or do without -- same as artists have always done. This may, possibly, be easier to do in the age of the internet... but let's leave that speculation for another thread.
Most of them. Some artists do actually starve for their art, although this is perhaps a romanticized minority. Nonetheless, the general principle holds true: people driven to create art have less time for day jobs -- or if they're confined to day jobs, their souls suffer for want of art.
Thus with some coders, who give it away: they are driven to create the art of open source.
Just a quick heads up: it's customary here to explain matters of sex by making analogies to computers, not the other way around. Other than that, welcome to slashdot!
All good and fine -- when the article in question pertains to sex, which on SlashDot happens approximately never.
A week after word leaked out that Microsoft was negotiating an acquisition deal with Claria (See recent/. coverage), spyware researchers have noticed that the Windows antispyware application has downgraded Claria's Gator detections and changed the recommended action from 'quarantine' to 'ignore.'
A week after I start dating some totally hot babe, event though she's a nagging idiot, I've downgraded my idiot detections and changed my recommended action from "quarantine" to "ignore".
"Data stored in a fingernail can be used with biometrics, such as fingerprint authentication and intravenous authentication of the finger."
- from the article
What the hell is "intravenous authentication of the finger" -- ?!
Sherman McCoy, hapless protagonist of Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities, suffers a similar fate.
He's brokering a multi-million dollar deal involving French gold bonds... while juggling his mistress, his wife, and a host of other crises.
In the middle of the all-important deal-closing phone call, he loses track of what's what, offers a buying price an order of magnitude too low -- the deal is done, and it's a multi-million loss for his firm.
-kgj
Re:Mod Parent +Hallucinatory, or something ...
on
The Neuron Drive
·
· Score: 1
He ain't for real anymore.
Thanks, that's cool.
By any chance can you make him not real retroactively?
-kgj
Mod Parent +Hallucinatory, or something ...
on
The Neuron Drive
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I liken the fans to Alzheimers or other neurocentric deficiencies of the mind. They are insanity and confusion, a spiraling of the thought process out of control.
Your intriguing comments deserve a new mod category... partaking of both +Funny and +Insightful, yet different from either... I'm not sure what to call it, perhaps +Dreamtime or +Neal-Stephenson-Metaphoric....
Why not simply make sure nobody gets physical access to your HDD?
Maybe I'm served with a subpoena requiring me to give the drive to the FBI or whoever. Or maybe it's my data, but the drive is sitting in a colocation slot -- Federal Marshalls swoop down on the ISP, seize the drive.
I thought you were going to say:
"But it's not always right. And where it's not right, my assertion is."
Now THAT would be great;) At least, we would always know the truth:P
What's the big deal with learning Windows? You're too "good" for it? You have a feeling of entitlement that you should be able to work on whatever you want? That exact attitude is why Indian system administrators will replace you.
You hit the nail on the head. Indian firms are hungry for work, many will work harder without complaint.
Same thing could happen at home -- some go-getter who's hungry for work, eager to do anything without complaint, ready to displace a less adaptable worker.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the point of my argument was to counter the poster who claimed that it was simply not possible for software coding to be "art".
... indeed, some artists can't even accept praise, so closely do they guard their work.
...? What of the man who is so different from myself that I cannot recognize his pleasure, or mistake it for something else? True, I do sometimes feel that I know another man's soul -- we have the capacity for empathy -- but I've come to believe that I can be entirely wrong about my perceptions of the soul. Better to believe that all men are artists, than to wrongly judge that some man is not.
Understood -- I ought to have made clear, I recognized that your comment was directed not to me but to other "code is not art" posters.
If someone considers themself an artist, part of the "requirements" include ability to accept criticism.
The ability to accept criticism is an admirable trait, one which distinguishes the wise man from the self-absorbed fool. Not all artists can accept criticism ("Don't touch my art with your words")
One big "test", I think, would be asking "Is the creator of a given work doing it because it gives him/her pleasure to create it, or not?" It's tough to claim you're creating "art" if you're working on something you'd rather not be doing at all, and only half-heartedly plug along as it because you're being paid for the result.
Your test makes sense: does the creator take pleasure in the creation, or not? (I'm speaking of "pleasure", here, in a very broad sense.) Speaking for myself, I know that I like the feeling of pleasure which I get from a job well done.
Which brings me back to my core argument. I demand the right to decide for myself what pleases me and what does not. Therefore, who am I to say of another man, "He takes pleasure in his creation"
-kgj
I think all of your examples *can* be art, but aren't necessarily so (or even "typically" or "usually" so). Limiting art to only encompassing paintings, movies, music or sculpture is pretty restrictive.
... take your "music" example... Is all music automatically "art"?
... if you're inspired by the challenges and restrictions imposed upon you by a device, and create your own game or application that pushes the limits of device (quite possibly through using very creative tricks you came up with yourself) - why isn't that "art"?
... inspired art, which I admire.
... to do which, we need the continuum of art, the common medium of exchange: it's all art, all men are artists. Everything we do, matters: let us do the best we can to express the motives of our souls.
You've touched the heart of what has shaped my opinions: restrictive definitions of art.
Yes, it is, per my definition of art.
I understand your argument. I've been there, I've made similar arguments. But I keep coming back to this belief -- that I do a man wrong when I tell him he is not an artist, that his work is not art. I do not wish to be such a man, because I do not wish to be so treated myself.
Better that I have the courage to say: We are all artists, and I don't like your art, it's bad art, evil art, commercial radio pablum elevator Muzak art, whatever.
Coding is art, no question. And if it's inspired, as you suggested, then it's
But there are many artists, widely recognized as such, whose works I do not admire. One man's inspired is another man's insipid. We speak here of opinions, which we all have (or ought to have, and are entitled to).
We must each of us judge inspiration for ourselves
-kgj
People choose art over money in the software world so they can do whatever they want with their projects.
Yes, this is congruent with my definition of art -- the soul of the artist wishes to do.
-kgj
Where do I sign up for your newsletter?
....)
...) but I do irregularly post my musings:
/. relationship settings -- that way my posts would tend to stand out; and, keep an eye on my post history.
You flatter me, sir or madam; but I'm as un-immune to that as the next man or woman, respectively.
I don't run a proper newsletter, but I do from time to time blurt out a bulk rant or somesuch. To subscribe, send me an email -- karl AT karljones.com -- and I'll sign you up. (Yes, I know this is primitive; and me, a coder, dammit. But then, they say that the carpenter's roof is always leaking
Apart from bulk ranting, I've also been known to conduct conversations by email, although these tend to be sketchy during cycles when my incoming email runs high, which is most of the time.
If you happen to be a Half-Life developer, you may recognize me as the Handy Vandal. I send out a Handy Vandal mailing from time to time, send an email to subscribe.
I also don't run a proper blog (the carpenter's roof
http://www.karljones.com/
Finally, you could make me a Friend in your
- Karl Gregory Jones
According to your definition, almost all activities of man are art. By diluting a word to apply to everything, you make the word worthless.
Yes, my definition explicitly covers almost -- all? -- activities of man as art. That's my intent, that's how I like it.
Dilute the meaning of the word? Yes, but for a good cause -- in the same way that "love" is diluted word, meaning anything and nothing, which we use because it fulfills our needs. As need be, we can always speak of "young love", "new love", "unrequited love", "foolish love", etc., crafting endless nuances from adjectives. For substance, though, we endlessly re-use the same short sweet powerful noun, love.
I demand not only that all of man's works -- including administration of government -- be treated as art; I further demand that all men see themselves, and each other, as artists.
Why? To meet my final demand: that all men learn to judge for themselves whether this art is good, this art is bad, that art is useful, and so on, until we are able to judge: is this man good or evil? will that course of action cause great good or great suffering?
-kgj
A variety of sources like we had 20 years ago seems best. We have a great deal of "popular art" being funded by corporate America (popular music, television, movies...). We have a "prestige art" being funded by the American Aristocracy and government (museums, opera houses, PBS) which emulates classic funding. We had mid range art being sold to middle class households.
... it's way too soon to assess whose Century this is, although we surely live in an age of hyperbolic change.
....
Well said; I agree.
But that was the twentieth century -- America's Century. The twenty-first
Time to say goodbye to some old expectations, get on with the business of the future, maybe find ways to make art via PayPal or whatever
-kgj
The NEA as an institution-- along with Public Television, etc.-- made powerful enemies. Didn't have to be that way, but there's always a prick with an agenda in any crowd.
Good point. I didn't mean to praise the NEA, nor defend NEA shortcomings -- I'm not plugged into their politics, don't follow their issues. (I certainly don't want anything to do with crucifixes-in-urine, nor with campaigns against crucifixes-in-urine -- my God, that rates down there with OJ and Schiavo, in terms of loathsome media spectacles.)
What I meant to express was my skepticism for the idea of state-sponsored institutions getting much done.
-kgj
I guess if you do a good job crimping your own network cable, that's art too? Ugh.
... intentional pattern of bytes, not that? Who is to say: You over here are an Artist, but You over there are not ... ?
.... artful, those turtles.
Yes, crimping cables well is art. So is crimping cables badly, although I might call it bad art.
My definition of art:
When a man acts with intent -- when the motives of his soul are brought into the world through the actions of his body -- that is art.
I'll spare you the details of how I arrived at this thesis, other than to ask:
Q: Who is to say, This painting is Art, but that painting is Not Art? This chair is Art, but not that? This architectural blueprint, but not that? This poem but not that? This song, not that? This
A: Not you, brother; nor me either. Alternately: all of us. In any case, It's All Art.
I'll be the judge of what I consider good art and bad art. You do the same. It's all art -- including rhetoric, the art of expressing ourselves.
We live in a continuum of creation which informs the ways our souls express themselves, much as unified field theory informs time and space. "Turtles all the way down"
-kgj
And thus we give artists money though various organizations and offer them jobs that do not distract them that much.
Ideal in theory; but in practice, I'm guessing (I don't know this for a fact) that only a small percentage of artists get any funding. I'm thinking here of the United States, where the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts is less than the budget for US military brass bands. (Literally -- figure from Harper's Index.) Moreover the NEA as an institution -- along with Public Television, etc. -- have powerful enemies.
-kgj
But everybody needs to get paid. If the artist can't live off his work, he has to waste his time and energy on a day job -- not good for art.
... but let's leave that speculation for another thread.
This is the eternal dilemma.
Some lucky few artists find patrons, or markets for their work.
Most don't. Of these, some struggle on as best they can, some go without art altogether, some go mad with art or the lack of it.
I believe that the public at large, if polled, would agree: art is good for us, it enriches our souls, teaches us about ourselves.
But who should pay for this art -- the State?
True, 1920s poster art of the Soviet Union is spectacularly beautiful.
And some of the WPA works of 1930's America are breathtaking.
Let's be honest, Nazi graphic designers knew what they were doing; and among film-makers, Leni Riefenstahl towers alone as a immmortal genius of light and shadow.
I could go on, but my examples have reached their climax: for every work of art that someone admires, someone else burns with hatred for artist and artwork alike.
Who then shall fund the artist -- Corporations? All hail the Fedex Logo and the Michelin Man!
What's left? Do it yourself, any way you can -- or do without -- same as artists have always done. This may, possibly, be easier to do in the age of the internet
-kgj
How many artists choose Art over Money?
Most of them. Some artists do actually starve for their art, although this is perhaps a romanticized minority. Nonetheless, the general principle holds true: people driven to create art have less time for day jobs -- or if they're confined to day jobs, their souls suffer for want of art.
Thus with some coders, who give it away: they are driven to create the art of open source.
-kgj
Just a quick heads up: it's customary here to explain matters of sex by making analogies to computers, not the other way around. Other than that, welcome to slashdot!
All good and fine -- when the article in question pertains to sex, which on SlashDot happens approximately never.
-kgj
A week after word leaked out that Microsoft was negotiating an acquisition deal with Claria (See recent /. coverage), spyware researchers have noticed that the Windows antispyware application has downgraded Claria's Gator detections and changed the recommended action from 'quarantine' to 'ignore.'
A week after I start dating some totally hot babe, event though she's a nagging idiot, I've downgraded my idiot detections and changed my recommended action from "quarantine" to "ignore".
-kgj
"Data stored in a fingernail can be used with biometrics, such as fingerprint authentication and intravenous authentication of the finger."
- from the article
What the hell is "intravenous authentication of the finger" -- ?!
Scary!
-kgj
personally, I don't really need it. I like to have my hands free when talking, so I'll stick to my good ol' headset. ;)
....
Depends on the nature of the call -- in some cases, I only need one free hand
-kgj
You will all burn in hell for this! Pi is equal to 3. It's in the Bible. Really, Kings something or other.
It's in Numbers something or other, not Kings.
-kgj
Sherman McCoy, hapless protagonist of Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities , suffers a similar fate.
... while juggling his mistress, his wife, and a host of other crises.
He's brokering a multi-million dollar deal involving French gold bonds
In the middle of the all-important deal-closing phone call, he loses track of what's what, offers a buying price an order of magnitude too low -- the deal is done, and it's a multi-million loss for his firm.
-kgj
He ain't for real anymore.
Thanks, that's cool.
By any chance can you make him not real retroactively?
-kgj
I liken the fans to Alzheimers or other neurocentric deficiencies of the mind. They are insanity and confusion, a spiraling of the thought process out of control.
... partaking of both +Funny and +Insightful, yet different from either ... I'm not sure what to call it, perhaps +Dreamtime or +Neal-Stephenson-Metaphoric ....
Your intriguing comments deserve a new mod category
-kgj
What? And you DON'T have a backup?
... more self-destructing hard drives.
Okay, for the sake of argument, I've got a backup or two
-kgj
Why not simply make sure nobody gets physical access to your HDD?
....
Maybe I'm served with a subpoena requiring me to give the drive to the FBI or whoever. Or maybe it's my data, but the drive is sitting in a colocation slot -- Federal Marshalls swoop down on the ISP, seize the drive.
Might be handy if the drive self-destructed
-kgj
I thought you were going to say: ;) At least, we would always know the truth :P
... see Nine-Foot-Long Outhouse Ladle.)
"But it's not always right. And where it's not right, my assertion is."
Now THAT would be great
Alas, we don't get to always know the truth.
Alternately, it's one of those "beware what you ask for" deals
-kgj
ever heard of Occam' Razor?
Yes. It says the exact opposite of my assertion -- and it's usually right.
But it's not always right. And where it's not right, that's where the interesting stuff happens.
In any case, the intent of my original post was irony, not epistemology.
-kgj
What's the big deal with learning Windows? You're too "good" for it? You have a feeling of entitlement that you should be able to work on whatever you want? That exact attitude is why Indian system administrators will replace you.
You hit the nail on the head. Indian firms are hungry for work, many will work harder without complaint.
Same thing could happen at home -- some go-getter who's hungry for work, eager to do anything without complaint, ready to displace a less adaptable worker.
-kgj
The logical conclusion obviously is that the moon *is* bigger when it's closer to the horizon. :)
... making it more likely to be right.
No, that's the illogical conclusion
-kgj
"Logic is a bouquet of pretty flowers that smell bad."
- Spock