3 ms·

I think you got it on the nose. I think folks who engage in more “traditional” arts (painting, music making, ...) really develop a distinction between these oft

I think you got it on the nose. I think folks who engage in more “traditional” arts (painting, music making, ...) really develop a distinction between these often interacting concepts. When playing an instrument, you distinguish between creative interpretation (art), musicality & sonic control (aural craft, imho), and manual or corporeal dexterity (technique). Of course, one’s ability to communicate a musical interpretation is propped up by the (In very rare circumstances I might consider a program to be art, like the original metacircular Lisp evaluator, even if the author’s express intent wasn’t to appeal to somebody’s emotions.)

mpalmer 6y ago
If it's possible to have "bad art", then it doesn't really follow that only beautiful or conceptually interesting programs qualify as art. Either it's all art - the beautiful and the interesting with the boring and ugly - or none of it is. Maybe you'd agree 'artfully constructed' covers what you mean? I think art is contextual. Some art comes with that context built into the mind of the observer, like paintings or music, or something that tells a story - and there are many, many ways to tell a story. Other art has its context declared for the observer, like Duchamp's 'ready-made' sculptures.