4 ms·

I would wager that's how it goes for most people that are both good artists and good programmers -- they were artists first, then learned to program. It takes a

I would wager that's how it goes for most people that are both good artists and good programmers -- they were artists first, then learned to program. It takes a lot longer to become a reasonably good artist than it does to become a reasonably good programmer. I suspect that might be why the article opens the way it does.

spankibalt 11mo ago
> "It takes a lot longer to become a reasonably good artist than it does to become a reasonably good programmer." Such overgeneralizations are not helpful. People gravitate stronger towards certain creative disciplines, or a selection of them; how long it exactly takes to develop-out "reasonable" skills is dependent on a litany of factors, some of which cannot be controlled (e. g. force majeure). Both programming and pixel art requires unwavering commitment and exercise´; there is no way to "wing it" if you are intellectually honest and take your craft seriously.
- engeljohnb 11mo ago
  I think it is helpful for certain purposes, and I think you'll be hard pressed to find exceptions to the general rule. Art is all about repetition. Even if you've done it successfully many times, you still need to keep doing it until it's second nature. Programming is more like solving puzzles. Once you've solved it once, you can pull the solution out of your head as many times as you need, as long as you still remember it. With art, it doesn't matter if you remember how to do it, it still takes practice to get reproducible results. Of course it takes longer.
  - spankibalt 11mo ago
    > "Art is all about repetition. [...] Programming is more like solving puzzles. Once you've solved it once, you can pull the solution out of your head as many times as you need, as long as you still remember it. With art, it doesn't matter if you remember how to do it, it still takes practice to get reproducible results. Of course it takes longer." First and foremost, contrary to you it seems, I see art as a measure of quality, not as a simple descriptor of manifestations of human personal, and therefore cultural, expression (albeit using a, naturally technically imprecise, colloquialism such as "pixel art" to describe a school of aesthetics, or style). See also: The Art of Programming. Et cetera. And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems, rationally or intuitively; in both it takes practice to get reproducible results, in both you need to keep doing it until it becomes "second nature". This refers to the process itself, the process to hone one's craft.
    - engeljohnb 11mo ago
      >I see art as a measure of quality. I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean to say the worth of an artwork for you is tied to how well it executes technque? "Art" is a word so nebulous that it's hard to pin down a definition, but I think the millions of people that prefer a punk rock song over an academic figure drawing study would disagree with this. >And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems Well, I'm both an artist and a programmer, and I can tell you I engage in neither to solve problems. I do both because the process of doing them is enjoyable. If they stop being fun, I'll stop doing them, and there wouldn't be any lingering problem in my life to go unsolved. If you say you picked up art faster than programming I'll believe you, because I only meant it as a general observation. Art is like playing Dark Souls -- maybe you beat the hardest boss once, but that doesn't mean you won't die ten more times before beating them again. Programming is like Zelda. Once you know the solutions to the puzzles, you're basically going through the motions. This isn't me guessing based on philosophy -- this is my lived experience as both an artist and a programmer.
      - spankibalt 11mo ago
        > "I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean to say the worth of an artwork for you is tied to how well it executes technque?" Art, to me, is a marker of excellence in the already mentioned confines. Technique is just a part of it. > "Art" is a word so nebulous that it's hard to pin down a definition, [...]" On that we agree; hence me informing you about mine, otherwise we just run circles around each other. > "[...] but I think the millions of people that prefer a punk rock song over an academic figure drawing study would disagree with this." As you probably can deduce by now, I see both examples as having the potential of being art. The rest of your rather labored example is an appeal to preference based on form or expression; such a thing is neither static (e. g. it change change with one's moods, a. s. o.) nor does it have to be a false dichotomy (i. e. I can enjoy both manifestations, even at the same time, and, more importantly, recognize both as artful). But this is also all very basic stuff and in itself tedious, and, especially for the reason you stated, also often useless to engage in online. > Art is like playing Dark Souls -- maybe you beat the hardest boss once, but that doesn't mean you won't die tent more times before beating them again. Programming is like Zelda. Once you know the solutions to the puzzles, you're basically going through the motions. Such comparisons, as relatable as they might sound to someone who is familiar with these titles, are often useless as well (I am aware of these games and their game mechanics, but have never played them nor care to do so). Furthermore, for the reason outlined in the posts you responded to, they're a misfire anyway as art, to me, is first and foremost about the result, and not the way towards the result (as long as certain conditions have been met) as well as life itself being much more complicated... with significant implications for the process of making art and the development of an artist in one or more disciplines.

spankibalt 11mo ago

> "It takes a lot longer to become a reasonably good artist than it does to become a reasonably good programmer." Such overgeneralizations are not helpful. People gravitate stronger towards certain creative disciplines, or a selection of them; how long it exactly takes to develop-out "reasonable" skills is dependent on a litany of factors, some of which cannot be controlled (e. g. force majeure). Both programming and pixel art requires unwavering commitment and exercise´; there is no way to "wing it" if you are intellectually honest and take your craft seriously.

engeljohnb 11mo ago
I think it is helpful for certain purposes, and I think you'll be hard pressed to find exceptions to the general rule. Art is all about repetition. Even if you've done it successfully many times, you still need to keep doing it until it's second nature. Programming is more like solving puzzles. Once you've solved it once, you can pull the solution out of your head as many times as you need, as long as you still remember it. With art, it doesn't matter if you remember how to do it, it still takes practice to get reproducible results. Of course it takes longer.
- spankibalt 11mo ago
  > "Art is all about repetition. [...] Programming is more like solving puzzles. Once you've solved it once, you can pull the solution out of your head as many times as you need, as long as you still remember it. With art, it doesn't matter if you remember how to do it, it still takes practice to get reproducible results. Of course it takes longer." First and foremost, contrary to you it seems, I see art as a measure of quality, not as a simple descriptor of manifestations of human personal, and therefore cultural, expression (albeit using a, naturally technically imprecise, colloquialism such as "pixel art" to describe a school of aesthetics, or style). See also: The Art of Programming. Et cetera. And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems, rationally or intuitively; in both it takes practice to get reproducible results, in both you need to keep doing it until it becomes "second nature". This refers to the process itself, the process to hone one's craft.
  - engeljohnb 11mo ago
    >I see art as a measure of quality. I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean to say the worth of an artwork for you is tied to how well it executes technque? "Art" is a word so nebulous that it's hard to pin down a definition, but I think the millions of people that prefer a punk rock song over an academic figure drawing study would disagree with this. >And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems Well, I'm both an artist and a programmer, and I can tell you I engage in neither to solve problems. I do both because the process of doing them is enjoyable. If they stop being fun, I'll stop doing them, and there wouldn't be any lingering problem in my life to go unsolved. If you say you picked up art faster than programming I'll believe you, because I only meant it as a general observation. Art is like playing Dark Souls -- maybe you beat the hardest boss once, but that doesn't mean you won't die ten more times before beating them again. Programming is like Zelda. Once you know the solutions to the puzzles, you're basically going through the motions. This isn't me guessing based on philosophy -- this is my lived experience as both an artist and a programmer.
    - spankibalt 11mo ago
      > "I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean to say the worth of an artwork for you is tied to how well it executes technque?" Art, to me, is a marker of excellence in the already mentioned confines. Technique is just a part of it. > "Art" is a word so nebulous that it's hard to pin down a definition, [...]" On that we agree; hence me informing you about mine, otherwise we just run circles around each other. > "[...] but I think the millions of people that prefer a punk rock song over an academic figure drawing study would disagree with this." As you probably can deduce by now, I see both examples as having the potential of being art. The rest of your rather labored example is an appeal to preference based on form or expression; such a thing is neither static (e. g. it change change with one's moods, a. s. o.) nor does it have to be a false dichotomy (i. e. I can enjoy both manifestations, even at the same time, and, more importantly, recognize both as artful). But this is also all very basic stuff and in itself tedious, and, especially for the reason you stated, also often useless to engage in online. > Art is like playing Dark Souls -- maybe you beat the hardest boss once, but that doesn't mean you won't die tent more times before beating them again. Programming is like Zelda. Once you know the solutions to the puzzles, you're basically going through the motions. Such comparisons, as relatable as they might sound to someone who is familiar with these titles, are often useless as well (I am aware of these games and their game mechanics, but have never played them nor care to do so). Furthermore, for the reason outlined in the posts you responded to, they're a misfire anyway as art, to me, is first and foremost about the result, and not the way towards the result (as long as certain conditions have been met) as well as life itself being much more complicated... with significant implications for the process of making art and the development of an artist in one or more disciplines.