Quote from Gyohdon

Oh dude that reminds me of that awesome discussion we had about whether programming is art

Quote from Cronos

That was a good discussion indeed.

Quote from Zed

Who was on which side?

Quote from Gyohdon

He argued it was I argued it wasn't. In the end he turned me lol

I was looking at programming as more of a mathematical and structural thing so I thought "that ain't no art", but because of the discussion I saw the error of my foolish ways

Quote from Cronos

It comes down to what you personally define as art. So I am neither right or wrong.

I ask only that we criticize our own definitions of what the word 'art' entails.

Quote from Zed

Programming is clearly a science. Given a language and a set of axioms it is an objective fact whether or not a program does what it is intended to do, and there is an objective fact as to whether or not it does so in the fewest possible number of steps. There is a goal and there are measurable degrees of success. Neither of those are found in an art.

Quote from Exilement

You could describe music in a very similar way. It's a language of notes, and music theory provides a framework for virtually any arrangement of them. Notes are arranged into chords, which relate to each other depending on the key you're using. If your goal is to create a sense of resolution at the end of a song, it only takes a minimal familiarity of music theory to know a V-I chord sequence will create the resolution you're looking for (assuming the song is in a major key). If you use inverted V and I chords, the sense of resolution will be diminished, and if resolution is your goal, you'll achieve varying degrees of success depending on how you arrange the notes according to their theoretical framework.

They're not "rules" in the same sense as programming, but music is still the end-result of a very organized system that, at its simplest level, involves individual notes, which are just waveforms with pre-determined wavelengths. None of this seems to affect its established status as "art". What's the difference between music and programming that makes the latter inherently non-artistic?

Quote from Hewitt

Neither. Programming is a medium in which it could either be made as an instrument of science or art. We've seen art pieces before that utilize mathematical shit like the Golden Mean and the Fibbonacci Sequence. We've also seen art pieces that rely on creativity and an alternate perspective. Programming can be done both ways; you can sloppily code something without structure, or you can do everything neatly in arrays and loops and both methods will produce the same result.

Quote from Cronos

Write me a program without expressing yourself in one way or another. You're looking at the underlying tools, which are based on science (or more specifically, the result of abstraction layer upon abstraction layer, beginning with basic boolean logic) and telling me that they are purely scientific. Which they are. They exist because they are logically coherent. When we apply these rules, we can expect predictable outcomes.

Yet these are just tools. These are just tools much the same way in which paintbrushes are just tools. Tools of expression. It's up to you to define the difference in expressing yourself through the tools of conventional art (brushes, canvases, pencils, clay, acting, singing, music... ect) and the tools presented to you via the basic foundations of programming.

Why is using your vocal chords to create pressure waves an art, while using abstracted boolean logic to create programs is a science. They are both possible because of science. Yet it's how we use these tools that matters.

Directly address this paragraph.

Quote from Zed

Proof 1 and proof 2 both achieve the objective, but proof 1 is objectively the better (best, I think) proof, because it gets there in fewer steps. Proof 3 is objectively wrong (step 3 doesn't follow). Programming is exactly the same.

Quote from Cronos

You're trying to simplify programming to the point where there's a single goal that must be achieved. As if it's an obvious, rigid, unambiguous goal.

With enough complexity, it's impossible to discern the most efficient way to reach your goal. The possibilities are infinite. Just as it's impossible for an artist to hand pick the most efficient way to express his/herself through his/her medium in order to reach their goals (whether that be accurately expressing an idea, pleasing people, making money ect).

Painting a picture is just as scientific as making a program. You're just not aware of just how much work your brain is doing behind the scenes in order to abstract the underlying information and present it to you in a meaningful efficient way. You're still following rules. Also, for example listening to music... As Exilement said; music sounds like music because it makes mathematical sense to your brain. Because it's following a set of rules, whether that be the higher level rules of music theory, or simply the complementing frequencies of the notes being played. Music is very much based on rules, yet you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would dare say it isn't an example of art.

It's all about using tools that complement your skills (whatever those tools may be) in order to achieve a goal. Just because the tool itself is rigid, mathematical and logical, doesn't mean the way you apply that tool will also be rigid and mathematical.

Also, quick read:

http://www.futurechips.org/thoughts-for-researchers/computer-engineering-art-science.html

Quote from Zed

There are two different aspects of programming at work in your post, and I'm not sure they're both really programming. On the one hand you have the code itself and the number of steps taken to achieve the objective. On the other hand you have whether or not anyone can read your code afterwards. I'd compare this latter part to a scientist remembering to properly label his beakers. You'd certainly expect any experienced scientist to label everything properly, but the labelling isn't a part of the science itself, and a scientist who does his labelling in beautiful handwriting isn't turning his science into an art. In the same way, having code which is readable, and which you can come back to six months later without having to remember every variable, isn't really part of the programming.



Even without knowing whether your program is the best program possible, it is still possible to strictly rank a given set of programs from good to bad. Likewise with the artist, if his goal is making money it is possible to judge how successful he has been in his goal and we can say objectively whether something else would have achieved his goal better. Making money is not art. Programming is not art.



The reason that music and painting are regarded as art is that different people appreciate different music to differing degrees. Sure, there are measurable aspects of each of these things, and in those respects art can be surprisingly scientific (note that this doesn't translate to science being surprisingly arty). The difference is that the measurable aspects are not the whole story. In spite of all the mathematical rules which go into interpreting a painting, different people will have different preferences. This is simply not the case with programming. Given any two programs you can judge which one is better and no one can disagree with you. Given two pieces of art it is possible to have opinions.

Quote from Zed

There are two different aspects of programming at work in your post, and I'm not sure they're both really programming. On the one hand you have the code itself and the number of steps taken to achieve the objective. On the other hand you have whether or not anyone can read your code afterwards. I'd compare this latter part to a scientist remembering to properly label his beakers. You'd certainly expect any experienced scientist to label everything properly, but the labelling isn't a part of the science itself, and a scientist who does his labelling in beautiful handwriting isn't turning his science into an art. In the same way, having code which is readable, and which you can come back to six months later without having to remember every variable, isn't really part of the programming.

Quote from Zed

Even without knowing whether your program is the best program possible, it is still possible to strictly rank a given set of programs from good to bad. Likewise with the artist, if his goal is making money it is possible to judge how successful he has been in his goal and we can say objectively whether something else would have achieved his goal better. Making money is not art. Programming is not art.

Quote from Zed

Even without knowing whether your program is the best program possible, it is still possible to strictly rank a given set of programs from good to bad. Likewise with the artist, if his goal is making money it is possible to judge how successful he has been in his goal and we can say objectively whether something else would have achieved his goal better. Making money is not art. Programming is not art.

Quote from Envoy

You see you are focusing on the product rather then the process. The artistic aspect of programming exists during the construction of the program while the person is trying to figure out a way to create it using what they have learnt. Therefore the program is a product of art; of ones creativity. Sure you can argue that the program is not art, but you can't deny that the act of programming did not involve some level of creativity and personal touch.

Quote from Envoy

Labelling the flasks is important for organisation but it would not a compulsory part of the experiment in order to obtain the desired result. It serves no purpose in the reaction (if you are talking about chemistry). In programming, each line has its own function; I would compare them to the reactants. Saying that each step is equivalent to ink on glass undermines their importance.

So to change your comparison if I may, it would be like a scientist using unnecessary precursors to obtain the end product. It is still science in that the scientist must understand the relationship between the chemical reactions. Likewise, with a programmer he/she must understand how one line of code influences the next. To identify the most efficient way to obtain a result, the scientist would have to utilize his knowledge of chemicals and a deal of creativity to figure out what combinations would be best. Similarly, a programmer must draw on his knowledge of the language, Boolean algebra, etc along with the same creativity like the scientist, to find out the best arrangement.

Efficiency is important, as I have mentioned, but it is not the only factor. At times, programmers work within a group and one piece of code will be passed from one person to the next. So the criteria for what is the best program will change from what is the most efficient, to what is the most understandable; hence subjectivity now becomes an influencing factor.

Like what Cronos has said, programming is complex. The language is vast. You may be able to achieve the same level of efficiency (or close to) as the other in an entirely different way. If one were to write an essay debating a certain point, and another person sharing the same position argued using different points, how would you know which one is better?

You see you are focusing on the product rather then the process. The artistic aspect of programming exists during the construction of the program while the person is trying to figure out a way to create it using what they have learnt. Therefore the program is a product of art; of ones creativity. Sure you can argue that the program is not art, but you can't deny that the act of programming did not involve some level of creativity and personal touch.

import flash.display.MovieClip;

import fl.motion.Color;

import flash.geom.ColorTransform;

import flash.events.Event;

import flash.events.TimerEvent;

import flash.utils.Timer;





//EXAMPLE 1

var moveSpeed:Number = 2;

var speedX:Number = 0;

var speedY:Number = 0;

var i:int = -1; 

var circle_mc:MovieClip = new MovieClip(); 

circle_mc.graphics.beginFill(0x000000);

circle_mc.graphics.drawCircle(0,0,40)

circle_mc.graphics.endFill();

circle_mc.x = (stage.stageWidth / 2);

circle_mc.y = (stage.stageHeight / 2)

addChild(circle_mc);



function randomizeDirection(totalSpeed:Number):void{

	speedX = Math.random()*totalSpeed;

	speedY = Math.sqrt(totalSpeed^2 - speedX^2);



	var negative = Math.round(Math.random())*2; 

	speedX *=(-1 + negative)

	negative = Math.round(Math.random())*2;

	speedY *= (-1 + negative);

}



function moveObject(object:MovieClip):void{ 

		object.x += speedX;

		object.y += speedY;

}



function randomTint(object:MovieClip):void{ 

	var color:Color = new Color();

	color.setTint((Math.random() * 0xFFFFFF), 1); 

	object.transform.colorTransform = color;

}



function moveCircle(e:Event):void{ 

	if(i >= 0){

		i--;

	} else if(i < 0){

		i = stage.frameRate;

		randomizeDirection(moveSpeed); 

		randomTint(circle_mc);

	}

	moveObject(circle_mc);

}



addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, moveCircle); 

//END EXAMPLE 1













//EXAMPLE 2

var mvDir:Number = Math.random()*Math.PI*2;

var col:Color = new Color();

var circ:MovieClip = new MovieClip(); 

circ.graphics.beginFill((Math.random() * 0xFFFFFF));

circ.graphics.drawCircle(0,0,40)

circ.graphics.endFill();

circ.x = (stage.stageWidth / 2);

circ.y = (stage.stageHeight / 2)

addChild(circ);

var timer:Timer = new Timer(1000);

timer.addEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER, changeDir);

timer.start();

addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, mvCirc);

function mvCirc(e:Event):void{

	circ.x += Math.cos(mvDir) * 2;

	circ.y += Math.sin(mvDir) * 2;

}

function changeDir (e:TimerEvent):void{

	mvDir = Math.random()*Math.PI*2;

	col.setTint((Math.random() * 0xFFFFFF), 1);

	circ.transform.colorTransform = col;

}

//END EXAMPLE 2