4 ms·

I expect a discussion here as fruitful as one composed of fine arts majors talking about programming languages.

by nether 12y ago

QuantumChaos 12y ago
fine arts majors talking about user interface design would be a better comparison. The programming language used to create a program does not directly affect the user. The skill of an artist does does directly affect the viewer of art.
- lstamour 12y ago
  Programming languages, like art, or concepts, don't spring out of nowhere. Both end up specializing to better solve the problems they're oriented to, and the biases of the person employing or creating techniques for them. That said, there's a counter to this "everything matters" argument -- that nothing matters, perhaps especially in art. I mean, while artists may invest personally in their works, end users or viewers will make up their own minds. The same can be true of software works (software works of art?). And yeah, sadly, I had two artists for parents; plenty of crazy to go around there, and theories at University didn't help any. ;-)
pessimizer 12y ago
Thanks for announcing that, in case it ever had a chance of going a different way. Anyway, how could fine arts majors ever become programmers, or CS majors ever become fine artists? That's just crazypants.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - antinescience 12y ago
    @yellow_and_grey, I had the same reaction, relatively sure it was all wrapped in a sarcasm tag.
raverbashing 12y ago
Unfortunately I agree The variance in field of competences in commenters is tiny here, and to add injury to it, there's a strong sentiment of "STEM == Good, all the rest is crap"
- tekromancr 12y ago
  You know, I have only ever seen that sentiment described. I've never actually seen anyone say that STEM is the only viable pursuit.
  - lstamour 12y ago
    I think it all comes down to "what gets measured gets managed" of unknown origins[1] where if we have English and Math tests for middle and high school, we in turn value it more. Particularly during budget discussions. The opposite is true in university, though once you specialize, it's easy to see the other specializations as "not as useful" as your own, an entirely different bias perhaps. [1] http://athinkingperson.com/2012/12/02/who-said-what-gets-measured-gets-managed/ http://athinkingperson.com/2012/12/02/who-said-what-gets-mea...
- lstamour 12y ago
  The irony though, is that thanks to both selection bias and HN's strong cultural norms, we've actually had very interesting posts and discussions, this being one of the few self-fulfilling exceptions.
lmm 12y ago
I've known compsci majors who produced beautiful art as a hobby/sideline. Though not the reverse.
antinescience 12y ago
I can't tell if this is snark or serious, so I'm going to reply as if it's serious. I was a music composition major (and a religion minor, aka traditionally seen as unemployable). My focus in college was mostly romantic and neo-romantic choral and piano + voice works. I never pursued it as a career, and a few years after college, I fell into (and in love with) programming. The very, very first thing I noticed as I was learning various paradigms was the unbelievable similarity between writing code and composition. I'm not going to belabour that point because I feel that it's been expounded upon enough (code is a creative art, etc.), but what astounded me further was then having code discussions with music colleagues of mine that have minimal exposure to any sort of programming / computer skills whatsoever, and having them keep up and contribute as if it were just another division of the arts. I guess what I'm trying to say is that intelligent people with creative, inquisitive minds can totally hold their own in conversations about topics they may not have a background in because when it comes down to it, there's a whole lot of similarity between art and code. Don't write folks off just because of their collegiate foci.
afafsd 12y ago
I disagree. The conversation here isn't analogous to a bunch of fine arts majors talking about programming languages, it's analogous to a bunch of fine arts majors talking about (say) iPhone vs Android user experience. Their opinions on that are valuable because they're talking in their role as customers, just as our opinions on art are valuable in our customers. If we started talking about the relative merits of different types of paintbrush then it might be more analogous to fine arts majors talking about compilers. That's a discussion for producers, not customers, but the quality of art on the market is a question for customers, not producers. Art that can only be "appreciated" by other artists is a bit of a wank, and I guess the analogy is programs that only a programmer can appreciate [1], like an Ook compiler written in Brainfuck or the Obfuscated C contest. It's okay for the occasional kick, but if you spend your entire career making stuff that has no utility and no appeal outside your immediate in group then you're wasting your time and might as well be making lolcats. It should be noted that the vast majority of visual artists working today aren't producing wanky stuff that gets exhibits in galleries and never finds actual paying customers. They're out there producing pleasant-looking landscapes and things that people pay good money to hang on their walls. Or else they're graphic designers or working in the advertising industry, making good money doing something useful to somebody. Sticking a dead horse on the floor of a gallery gets you more headlines than flogging off a load of $200 watercolours of beaches, but the latter is the majority of the actual art industry. [1] Note: not the same thing as a program that only a programmer finds useful, just something useless that amuses other programmers.

I expect a discussion here as fruitful as one composed of fine arts majors talking about programming languages.

by nether 12y ago

I expect a discussion here as fruitful as one composed of fine arts majors talking about programming languages.

fine arts majors talking about user interface design would be a better comparison. The programming language used to create a program does not directly affect the user. The skill of an artist does does directly affect the viewer of art.

lstamour 12y ago
Programming languages, like art, or concepts, don't spring out of nowhere. Both end up specializing to better solve the problems they're oriented to, and the biases of the person employing or creating techniques for them. That said, there's a counter to this "everything matters" argument -- that nothing matters, perhaps especially in art. I mean, while artists may invest personally in their works, end users or viewers will make up their own minds. The same can be true of software works (software works of art?). And yeah, sadly, I had two artists for parents; plenty of crazy to go around there, and theories at University didn't help any. ;-)

pessimizer 12y ago

Thanks for announcing that, in case it ever had a chance of going a different way. Anyway, how could fine arts majors ever become programmers, or CS majors ever become fine artists? That's just crazypants.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- antinescience 12y ago
  @yellow_and_grey, I had the same reaction, relatively sure it was all wrapped in a sarcasm tag.

raverbashing 12y ago

Unfortunately I agree The variance in field of competences in commenters is tiny here, and to add injury to it, there's a strong sentiment of "STEM == Good, all the rest is crap"

tekromancr 12y ago
You know, I have only ever seen that sentiment described. I've never actually seen anyone say that STEM is the only viable pursuit.
- lstamour 12y ago
  I think it all comes down to "what gets measured gets managed" of unknown origins[1] where if we have English and Math tests for middle and high school, we in turn value it more. Particularly during budget discussions. The opposite is true in university, though once you specialize, it's easy to see the other specializations as "not as useful" as your own, an entirely different bias perhaps. [1] http://athinkingperson.com/2012/12/02/who-said-what-gets-measured-gets-managed/ http://athinkingperson.com/2012/12/02/who-said-what-gets-mea...
lstamour 12y ago
The irony though, is that thanks to both selection bias and HN's strong cultural norms, we've actually had very interesting posts and discussions, this being one of the few self-fulfilling exceptions.

lmm 12y ago

I've known compsci majors who produced beautiful art as a hobby/sideline. Though not the reverse.

antinescience 12y ago

I can't tell if this is snark or serious, so I'm going to reply as if it's serious. I was a music composition major (and a religion minor, aka traditionally seen as unemployable). My focus in college was mostly romantic and neo-romantic choral and piano + voice works. I never pursued it as a career, and a few years after college, I fell into (and in love with) programming. The very, very first thing I noticed as I was learning various paradigms was the unbelievable similarity between writing code and composition. I'm not going to belabour that point because I feel that it's been expounded upon enough (code is a creative art, etc.), but what astounded me further was then having code discussions with music colleagues of mine that have minimal exposure to any sort of programming / computer skills whatsoever, and having them keep up and contribute as if it were just another division of the arts. I guess what I'm trying to say is that intelligent people with creative, inquisitive minds can totally hold their own in conversations about topics they may not have a background in because when it comes down to it, there's a whole lot of similarity between art and code. Don't write folks off just because of their collegiate foci.

afafsd 12y ago

I disagree. The conversation here isn't analogous to a bunch of fine arts majors talking about programming languages, it's analogous to a bunch of fine arts majors talking about (say) iPhone vs Android user experience. Their opinions on that are valuable because they're talking in their role as customers, just as our opinions on art are valuable in our customers. If we started talking about the relative merits of different types of paintbrush then it might be more analogous to fine arts majors talking about compilers. That's a discussion for producers, not customers, but the quality of art on the market is a question for customers, not producers. Art that can only be "appreciated" by other artists is a bit of a wank, and I guess the analogy is programs that only a programmer can appreciate [1], like an Ook compiler written in Brainfuck or the Obfuscated C contest. It's okay for the occasional kick, but if you spend your entire career making stuff that has no utility and no appeal outside your immediate in group then you're wasting your time and might as well be making lolcats. It should be noted that the vast majority of visual artists working today aren't producing wanky stuff that gets exhibits in galleries and never finds actual paying customers. They're out there producing pleasant-looking landscapes and things that people pay good money to hang on their walls. Or else they're graphic designers or working in the advertising industry, making good money doing something useful to somebody. Sticking a dead horse on the floor of a gallery gets you more headlines than flogging off a load of $200 watercolours of beaches, but the latter is the majority of the actual art industry. [1] Note: not the same thing as a program that only a programmer finds useful, just something useless that amuses other programmers.