Hacker News Reader

'Being a non-creator, the quote at the end of the article has hit me so hard, I cannot get it off my head for hours now: "When you don’t create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. Your tastes only narrow and exclude people. so create."'

How so? How do "you become defined by your tastes rather than ability"? And why do [y]our tastes only narrow and exclude people"?

This sounds like one of those pop-psych quotes that have little intrinsic content but ill-defined assertions into which people read what they want to believe.

I know many people who are not "creators" by most definitions, yet I don't see them as defined by their tastes, but by their everyday words and actions. And when they do express their tastes I don't see that as narrow or excluding people. Their tastes often allow me to see associations among things, and value in places I hadn't expected.

If you want to then turn it around and claim, well, these people, through their words, actions, and expressions of taste are therefor in some way creating something, then I'm lost as to what "create" is supposed to mean, other than perhaps something too amazingly broad to bother with.

(I've also known creative people who are also narrow and exclusive and petty, so these qualities seem to be pretty orthogonal.)

James, I don't think the two qualities have two be orthogonal, you can be a creative person with great taste in a lot of matters or not. The quote does have a touch of "pop-psych" (or, perhaps, "pop-HN" :-), but that's what makes it memorable.

Let me paraphrase what the quote says yo me: There are three types of people: the source (creator), the sink (end consumer), and the filter (the critic). Now, when I say that, I mean people for which these characteristics are dominant, of course, we all have a mixture of both. Also, we may assume different roles for different fields. And some gifted individuals can do more than once at once; John Updike comes to mind, as a top notch writer and both an literary and art critic.

The non-creator types (end consumer and critic) are defined by their tastes, which range from voting with their wallets to the up buttons in HN and links in their blogs. We are the link creators, the judges, the filters of content. However, where does all this content, code, the good stuff come from, who makes these? These are the people who make the quantum jump to creation. Just like the fact that there's a huge difference between a product that is free vs that's priced (even 10 cents), there's the gap between the consumer and the creator.

Ooops, this already became a long comment, so I don't have a chance to touch on what the part about "excluding people" parts say to me. Let me finish by pointing out a wonderful book called The Mirror and the Lamp, referring to the roles of the critic and the creator. I cannot think of a better analogy. Currently I'm all mirror and I want to change that! People like _why are a huge inspiration.

I've never read much of _why's work so I don't have much to add to the thread, except that: I did read that quote by _why some months ago and it hasn't gotten off my head since then.

It's like a mantra, and for me it alternates between being inspiring and depressing.

Perhaps I disagree with you. I think programming is a craft, but that's different from art. In any case, though every time we write some code we're creating something, I don't consider the code I write for my day job to be "meaningful" creation (if that was the case every act of labour would be creation and the quote would be meaningless). That's why the quote is depressing sometimes.

The entire concept of art is relatively recent (from the Renaissance on), the ancient Greeks considered a sculptor to be a craftsman just like a smith or carpenter.

And the Renaissance artists had to make a living somehow, much of their art we know today was made to order for Church, State or rich merchants.

We may consider "pure art" to be "form without function" and "pure utility" to be "function without form". But fields like industrial design, architecture and engineering (ex. bridges) has room for both: Aesthetically pleasing form that merges well with their function.

If programming is art, it's the form+function sort of art. And just like with bridge building, the form part is optional - if the program works and the bridge does not collapse they are doing their job.

I don't consider the code for my day job to be art either. But I still think art can arise under such conditions, generally because someone with the power to do so goes beyond the call of duty and decides to make their bridge or code not only functional but beautiful as well.

There are plenty of constraints that can stop considerations of form dead in their tracks; like whether the client is willing to pay extra or wait longer for a more aesthetically pleasing result, or how much control you have over the final result - there are limits to how creative you can be if you are a subcontractor for a bridge pillar, or if you are designing an ad that needs to fit within the company's design guidelines and an existing ad series.

Still, I think art can arise in the most unexpected places, it's mostly a matter of spotting the opportunities and deciding that it is worth the bother.

"And just like with bridge building, the form part is optional"

Sometimes function is optional as well!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Obfuscated_C_Code...

Your being paid for your craft, so someone (shareholders) finds your creation "meaningful".

Amazing quotation.

Like you say, art vs. science is a false dichotomy. Programming seems like both because it is about design -- the intentional and intense, the passionate blending of art and science.

programming is neither art nor science, it's engineering.

But engineering is an art that makes extensive use of science.

Sounds like you're using the "anything done well is an art" definition of art which is... uhh... bull. it just dilutes the term. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art. "programming" doesn't even make it as a "disputed category". sorry.

And to be really clear, programming can be art. You can make art out of anything: paint, metal, plumbing, and yes code. But that doesn't mean that programming in general is art, like a beautifully coded sort function.

Rather, it should strive to be "art" by means of elegance, purpose, originality and in general an aesthetic which speaks of form and function joined appropriately. Anything less is merely "kitsch code" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch. Most of us spend our days programming the equivalent of replicated garden gnomes each with a slightly different expression and perhaps a different hat.

Actually, if you want my personal definition of art in one word it is this: art is life. Whether it is done "well" doesn't really come into it. In fact if there is an objective way of determining if something is done "well", it's probably not art.

I'm prepared to agree to disagree on this, but I'm not prepared to agree that Wikipedia has the last word on the subject. Sorry.

Spoken like Humpty Dumpty.

Fair enough. But you haven't given us your definition of engineering yet. According to your wiki page:

Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".

You evidently subscribe to this Romantic definition of art, but claim that engineering is neither art nor science. So that makes it... religion?

Why even have a word for it? I understand the emotional idea that programming can be an art, but it doesn't change the generally understood definition of art.

I could just as well be melodramatic like that kid in American Beauty and go on about how a plastic bag being blown about by the wind is the most beautiful thing ever. I could suggest the same about the way some skillful janitor moves his mop about the floor. Just because I get emotional about it doesn't change the definition of art.

Art is anything that's not done for survival or sex.

For me is the opposite, Art is the group of the most elaborated things we do for sex.

Evolutionary psichology 101.

You're not familiar with Why's work, are you?