Becoming an 'artist'

[fjrabon]

As support to qleak.
Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.

Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development. It's actually quite a bit like music. There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results. Good, elegant code is actually fun to read. Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over. When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation. Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.

And this relates to "artists" as well. I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions. The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.

Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics). But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it. I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.

I don't really understand what you're saying makes code not art? Or equations not art? Because they have other uses? Can an automobile not be, in and of itself an artwork, even though its primary purpose is to drive other people around? Is a portrait not a work of art if its primary purpose is simply to record what the person looks like?

Art is totally subjective. Equations either work or they dont. code either works or it doesn't. Art doesn't have to work to be art. (hence some bad art lol) It comes into existence, and just is. Totally subjective with no solution necessary. I understand the preference, for those that love math to want to consider it a art. I actually consider math more a language, or a tool. Yes, i have no doubt it can be beautiful to some. But if we are lowering the bar that far, then i love gardening, it must be a art. I love cooking, it must be a art, i love .......etc.etc.etc.
Because you love something, and it does have creative tendency, does that make it art? That would mean EVERYTHING is art. For me personally, i much prefer to consider math a tool, closer to a language, with some creative or somewhat beautiful to some tendency. But because it has a objective, a solution perhaps, it is used as a tool, and it isn't subjective (either it is right or it isnt) then i have trouble making that leap toward considering it a art. I will concur math is used in art, is closely related to art, is a tool for such purpose amongst many more and is a language, or similar. Calling it (or code) art is a large leap through my perception of it. And making that leap means everything is art. As you could make a similar argument for most anything.

There's actually mathematical proofs that math (and code) actually don't always either work or not work.

 

[bribrius]

As support to qleak.
Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.

Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development. It's actually quite a bit like music. There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results. Good, elegant code is actually fun to read. Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over. When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation. Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.

And this relates to "artists" as well. I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions. The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.

Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics). But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it. I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.

I don't really understand what you're saying makes code not art? Or equations not art? Because they have other uses? Can an automobile not be, in and of itself an artwork, even though its primary purpose is to drive other people around? Is a portrait not a work of art if its primary purpose is simply to record what the person looks like?

Art is totally subjective. Equations either work or they dont. code either works or it doesn't. Art doesn't have to work to be art. (hence some bad art lol) It comes into existence, and just is. Totally subjective with no solution necessary. I understand the preference, for those that love math to want to consider it a art. I actually consider math more a language, or a tool. Yes, i have no doubt it can be beautiful to some. But if we are lowering the bar that far, then i love gardening, it must be a art. I love cooking, it must be a art, i love .......etc.etc.etc.
Because you love something, and it does have creative tendency, does that make it art? That would mean EVERYTHING is art. For me personally, i much prefer to consider math a tool, closer to a language, with some creative or somewhat beautiful to some tendency. But because it has a objective, a solution perhaps, it is used as a tool, and it isn't subjective (either it is right or it isnt) then i have trouble making that leap toward considering it a art. I will concur math is used in art, is closely related to art, is a tool for such purpose amongst many more and is a language, or similar. Calling it (or code) art is a large leap through my perception of it. And making that leap means everything is art. As you could make a similar argument for most anything.

There's actually mathematical proofs that math (and code) actually don't always either work or not work.

you mean like language, a tool? In general i think most artists applied math TOO their art. They didn't consider it the art. Not to discourage you from believing whatever you want to believe. For me it sounds like a very slippery slope to be on. Not so much lowering the bar for what is art, but making the word itself defunct as everything can be art. You made other statements with regards to the car, different levels of art or something. You are opening a door here. In with anything that has a creative tendency or aesthetic appeal can be considered art.

 

[Jamesaz]

"Art is anything you can get away with"---Frank Zappa


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[fjrabon]

As support to qleak.
Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.

Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development. It's actually quite a bit like music. There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results. Good, elegant code is actually fun to read. Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over. When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation. Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.

And this relates to "artists" as well. I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions. The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.

Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics). But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it. I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.

I don't really understand what you're saying makes code not art? Or equations not art? Because they have other uses? Can an automobile not be, in and of itself an artwork, even though its primary purpose is to drive other people around? Is a portrait not a work of art if its primary purpose is simply to record what the person looks like?

Art is totally subjective. Equations either work or they dont. code either works or it doesn't. Art doesn't have to work to be art. (hence some bad art lol) It comes into existence, and just is. Totally subjective with no solution necessary. I understand the preference, for those that love math to want to consider it a art. I actually consider math more a language, or a tool. Yes, i have no doubt it can be beautiful to some. But if we are lowering the bar that far, then i love gardening, it must be a art. I love cooking, it must be a art, i love .......etc.etc.etc.
Because you love something, and it does have creative tendency, does that make it art? That would mean EVERYTHING is art. For me personally, i much prefer to consider math a tool, closer to a language, with some creative or somewhat beautiful to some tendency. But because it has a objective, a solution perhaps, it is used as a tool, and it isn't subjective (either it is right or it isnt) then i have trouble making that leap toward considering it a art. I will concur math is used in art, is closely related to art, is a tool for such purpose amongst many more and is a language, or similar. Calling it (or code) art is a large leap through my perception of it. And making that leap means everything is art. As you could make a similar argument for most anything.

There's actually mathematical proofs that math (and code) actually don't always either work or not work.

you mean like language, a tool? In general i think most artists applied math TOO their art. They didn't consider it the art. Not to discourage you from believing whatever you want to believe. For me it sounds like a very slippery slope to be on. Not so much lowering the bar for what is art, but making the word itself defunct as everything can be art. You made other statements with regards to the car, different levels of art or something. You are opening a door here. In with anything that has a creative tendency or aesthetic appeal can be considered art.

Sure, but I think the other alternative is making completely arbitrary distinctions about what is or isn't art based simply on where you can draw hard lines.

Slippery slope arguments are generally bad arguments. But they're especially bad when the slope leads to something that isn't a negative. If we are more inclusive about what art is, so what? Why is that something we need to avoid.

If you're so concerned about not expanding the definition of art, what is the definition of art you're using?

 

[sashbar]

I made a huge step towards an artistic status recently. Purchased a real leather wrist strap with an all-important red wrap. Total waste of a fiver. Soo stiff and awkward to use. Put back my old 0.70 p nylon strap.
My career as an artist lasted about five minutes and ended without a single shot. These artistic stripes do not work, proven. Will try to grow a beard.
Here I even bothered to attach it again for illustration.

 

[Designer]

That's a very good photograph, sashbar.

There are many qualifiers for design. Design that ultimately does not fulfill its promise is poor design. The designer of the strap failed to use appropriate materials for his product. It did, however, sell, so the strap was successful in one way.

 

[sashbar]

That's a very good photograph, sashbar.

There are many qualifiers for design. Design that ultimately does not fulfill its promise is poor design. The designer of the strap failed to use appropriate materials for his product. It did, however, sell, so the strap was successful in one way.

You gave me an idea: I think this strap will help when I decide to flog this camera on eBay... which leads to another question: why do I need this camera if I can pull a decent shot without it?

 

[bribrius]

Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development. It's actually quite a bit like music. There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results. Good, elegant code is actually fun to read. Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over. When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation. Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.

And this relates to "artists" as well. I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions. The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.

Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics). But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it. I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.

I don't really understand what you're saying makes code not art? Or equations not art? Because they have other uses? Can an automobile not be, in and of itself an artwork, even though its primary purpose is to drive other people around? Is a portrait not a work of art if its primary purpose is simply to record what the person looks like?

Art is totally subjective. Equations either work or they dont. code either works or it doesn't. Art doesn't have to work to be art. (hence some bad art lol) It comes into existence, and just is. Totally subjective with no solution necessary. I understand the preference, for those that love math to want to consider it a art. I actually consider math more a language, or a tool. Yes, i have no doubt it can be beautiful to some. But if we are lowering the bar that far, then i love gardening, it must be a art. I love cooking, it must be a art, i love .......etc.etc.etc.
Because you love something, and it does have creative tendency, does that make it art? That would mean EVERYTHING is art. For me personally, i much prefer to consider math a tool, closer to a language, with some creative or somewhat beautiful to some tendency. But because it has a objective, a solution perhaps, it is used as a tool, and it isn't subjective (either it is right or it isnt) then i have trouble making that leap toward considering it a art. I will concur math is used in art, is closely related to art, is a tool for such purpose amongst many more and is a language, or similar. Calling it (or code) art is a large leap through my perception of it. And making that leap means everything is art. As you could make a similar argument for most anything.

There's actually mathematical proofs that math (and code) actually don't always either work or not work.

you mean like language, a tool? In general i think most artists applied math TOO their art. They didn't consider it the art. Not to discourage you from believing whatever you want to believe. For me it sounds like a very slippery slope to be on. Not so much lowering the bar for what is art, but making the word itself defunct as everything can be art. You made other statements with regards to the car, different levels of art or something. You are opening a door here. In with anything that has a creative tendency or aesthetic appeal can be considered art.

Sure, but I think the other alternative is making completely arbitrary distinctions about what is or isn't art based simply on where you can draw hard lines.

Slippery slope arguments are generally bad arguments. But they're especially bad when the slope leads to something that isn't a negative. If we are more inclusive about what art is, so what? Why is that something we need to avoid.

If you're so concerned about not expanding the definition of art, what is the definition of art you're using?

It is subjective. I stick with the more stringent traditional sense of the word. Painting, sculpture, drawings, certain aspects of architecture, and to a extent i separate the art from the craft. I have seen photography that i may consider art but those photos are few and far between. That is because the nature of the medium leans strongly toward craft and technical skills. A brick layer can be both a tradesman and a craftsman. Laying the bricks doesn't make it art, but the final design and finished product might be art. Limr mentioned this above comparing literature. just like slapping paint on a canvas doesn't necessarily make it art. Totally subjective.

 

[pixmedic]

labels man...
I don't get it.
why do so many people insist on being labeled something?
we insist on being labeled a race, or color, or religion, or nationality....
we pit ourselves against each another. natural light -vs- flash,
lifestyle -vs- formal posing, artist -vs- craftsman...as if all of these things were somehow mutually exclusive.
we willingly segregate ourselves, and then complain that we aren't unified.

just....be. and do. be who you are, and do what you love.
and at the end, when time has made moot the labels choke hold on your soul, and its noose around your neck lifted...Your works and deeds laid bare for history to judge...let those who come after label you, at a time when that label holds no power, no sway over you. and you can be free.

 

[limr]

Y'know what? I don't mind

labels man...
I don't get it.
why do so many people insist on being labeled something?
we insist on being labeled a race, or color, or religion, or nationality....
we pit ourselves against each another. natural light -vs- flash,
lifestyle -vs- formal posing, artist -vs- craftsman...as if all of these things were somehow mutually exclusive.
we willingly segregate ourselves, and then complain that we aren't unified.

just....be. and do. be who you are, and do what you love.
and at the end, when time has made moot the labels choke hold on your soul, and its noose around your neck lifted...Your works and deeds laid bare for history to judge...let those who come after label you, at a time when that label holds no power, no sway over you. and you can be free.

^^^^THIS^^^^ALL OF THIS^^^^^

Testify!

 

[sashbar]

It is subjective. I stick with the more stringent traditional sense of the word. Painting, sculpture, drawings, certain aspects of architecture, and to a extent i separate the art from the craft. I have seen photography that i may consider art but those photos are few and far between. That is because the nature of the medium leans strongly toward craft and technical skills. A brick layer can be both a tradesman and a craftsman. Laying the bricks doesn't make it art, but the final design and finished product might be art. Limr mentioned this above comparing literature. just like slapping paint on a canvas doesn't necessarily make it art. Totally subjective.

I tend to agree with bribrius, even more so, craft and art are in my view two completely different propositions, regardless of medium. It might be a painting or a brick wall, it does not really matter to me.

Call me a snob, but there is a clear line between a craftsman and an artist. A craftsman can be trained, an artist can not.
A craftsman makes beautiful things - pots, vases, paintings, sculptures or photographs. Sometimes very beautiful, amazing things. They are great objects of craftsmanship, but there is nothing beyond it.
An artist makes same things only to use them as a medium to share his ideas, views, feelings, philosophy and vision that have a more or less universal appeal.

In other words to make it very simple - a craftsman is somebody who can pronounce sounds and words perfectly well and clear, or who is able to write letters and words beautifully. And he knows grammar as well, unlike me.

An artist uses these words and sounds and letters to give us poems and prose, that have meaning and are able to change us. You can stare at an alphabet and it will never change you ( unless Ella sings it). You can read "Master and Margarita" and it will change you forever***. See the difference?

That is essentially a difference. One can learn to write and to speak. But to make the next step, to be an artist you have to have something inside to say or to write. Something that is worth saying. That is where 99% stumble, be it fine art or photography. One can be an undisputed master of photography, but he may never become an artist.

Sometimes I see a very "American" attitude towards art: anyone can be an artist. Anyone has something to say. Everyone is beautiful deep down inside. Nope. Sorry. Only selected few have got it, sadly. Because otherwise there is only one step to "Everything is art", which is of course only half a step from "There is no art".

PS ***Of course, you can read (a proverbial) "Master and Margarita" (put any title here instead), and it will not change you at all. Well, then it is your problem, because in your world there is probably no difference between art and craft.

 

[limr]

PS ***Of course, you can read (a proverbial) "Master and Margarita" (put any title here instead), and it will not change you at all. Well, then it is your problem, because in your world there is probably no difference between art and craft.

This last paragraph bothers me. Well, the last line, specifically. It suggests that if a piece of art doesn't speak to me, it's because I don't get it. And apparently, it's not just the piece that I don't get; I'm also too obtuse to even recognize it as 'art.' It ignores the idea that I wasn't changed because the piece of art failed to communicate, or because it communicated in a way I didn't like, or a message I didn't like, or that I DO recognize it as art but am just not particularly impressed.

I've read Faulkner and I don't like his work. I recognized his skill and his contribution, but it didn't change me. This isn't my "problem" - it's my subjective evaluation of his work and my conclusion that it doesn't communicate to me because I didn't like either his message or his method of delivery.

Quite frankly, this kind of creates an even fuzzier line between craftsmanship and art. Perhaps a beautiful piece of furniture, or building, or vase WAS created to communicate something, but you just don't know how to listen to the message. (For the record, I do believe this.)

I'm not trying to say that your definition is wrong. I might not agree with that last part, but I'm not trying to get you to change your definition. We are always going to define something like 'art' for ourselves, and it makes no sense to force the same objective standards on something so personal, so changeable and subjective. It's interesting to me to see where people draw lines, but I'm not interested in trying to argue over those lines. I just don't want to be told that it's my "problem" if I don't react to something that others think is a masterpiece, or if I have a different definition of 'art.'

 

[bribrius]

PS ***Of course, you can read (a proverbial) "Master and Margarita" (put any title here instead), and it will not change you at all. Well, then it is your problem, because in your world there is probably no difference between art and craft.

This last paragraph bothers me. Well, the last line, specifically. It suggests that if a piece of art doesn't speak to me, it's because I don't get it. And apparently, it's not just the piece that I don't get; I'm also too obtuse to even recognize it as 'art.' It ignores the idea that I wasn't changed because the piece of art failed to communicate, or because it communicated in a way I didn't like, or a message I didn't like, or that I DO recognize it as art but am just not particularly impressed.

I've read Faulkner and I don't like his work. I recognized his skill and his contribution, but it didn't change me. This isn't my "problem" - it's my subjective evaluation of his work and my conclusion that it doesn't communicate to me because I didn't like either his message or his method of delivery.

Quite frankly, this kind of creates an even fuzzier line between craftsmanship and art. Perhaps a beautiful piece of furniture, or building, or vase WAS created to communicate something, but you just don't know how to listen to the message. (For the record, I do believe this.)

I'm not trying to say that your definition is wrong. I might not agree with that last part, but I'm not trying to get you to change your definition. We are always going to define something like 'art' for ourselves, and it makes no sense to force the same objective standards on something so personal, so changeable and subjective. It's interesting to me to see where people draw lines, but I'm not interested in trying to argue over those lines. I just don't want to be told that it's my "problem" if I don't react to something that others think is a masterpiece, or if I have a different definition of 'art.'

But. But. He won a nobel prize! sinner!
Select Sermons - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[KenC]

labels man...
I don't get it.
why do so many people insist on being labeled something?
we insist on being labeled a race, or color, or religion, or nationality....
we pit ourselves against each another. natural light -vs- flash,
lifestyle -vs- formal posing, artist -vs- craftsman...as if all of these things were somehow mutually exclusive.
we willingly segregate ourselves, and then complain that we aren't unified.

just....be. and do. be who you are, and do what you love.
and at the end, when time has made moot the labels choke hold on your soul, and its noose around your neck lifted...Your works and deeds laid bare for history to judge...let those who come after label you, at a time when that label holds no power, no sway over you. and you can be free.

You forgot the labels of "labeler" and "non-labeler". I'm with you in the non-labelers. {what's the emoticon for "irony"?}

 

[bribrius]

i hate to be labeled but love to label. It is like the Dewey Decimal System