Ask HN: Why isn't computer programming a major part of the arts? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why isn't computer programming a major part of the arts?

52 pointsamichail84 comments

One can create almost anything using computer programming. This is not true with any other artistic tool.

If by "anything" you mean "anything on a screen or coming through speakers"- sure, but that's an exceptionally limited subsection of potential artistic engagement. So much visual art is just raw visceral awe, which is just not possible with a screen. The memorable amazing/sublime/unique auditory experiences I have had have been in the presence of the artist. Even the best speakers are a poor shadow. Can't do smell with technology at all. Touch and physical engagement is possible but still extremely limited. And technology usually completely obviates the going-to/work/energy expediture to experience something, also a negative.

The really unique artistic opportunities (speaking personally) enabled by software are those based on human interactions that heretofore were impossible. A lot of these have been automatically commoditized and commercialized as games or social network apps but there still is plenty of vein to mine.

I thought Wordle was a great example of interactive-for-the-joy-of-it-social-art-in-the-small uniquely enabled by technology, and its charm for me was completely lost when it was sold (for which I of course don't begrudge the author at all).

I would think that translation services are a potentially interesting enabling function for social art that have been underexplored.

> So much visual art is just raw visceral awe, which is just not possible with a screen.

Do the Pandora ride at Disneyworld. It is raw visceral awe. Yes there’s movement but the scenery alone is stunning.

There’s also generative arts. I’d put Tyler Hobbs on that list. His work is beautiful

Sure, thanks for the pointers.

I'd also put some video game art in this category. Translating art from the real world to the screen loses the awe, but art created for a digital environment can easily awe.

There is plenty of 3D printed art created by programs as well, but it more of an emergent complexity via fractals kind of thing.

> If by "anything" you mean "anything on a screen or coming through speakers"

Computers have more potential output peripherals than speakers and screens, and computer programming can also be used for interactive art that leverages input peripherals, as well.

> So much visual art is just raw visceral awe, which is just not possible with a screen.

I think a lot of people who have experienced cinema, perhaps especially large-format cinema, would disagree about visceral awe being impossible with a screen.

One can create almost anything using computer programming. This is not true with any other artistic tool.

I think I suffered from this same fallacy >20 years ago... I would say it's a "mathematician's view of art", i.e. that generality is better.

I was really into music and audio, and I remember talking to another computer person about how it would be cool to make our own DAW (digital audio workstation), and then presumably make some kind of musical masterpiece because we could create anything!

Aside from the fact that this is a ridiculously large project that was never finished, generality isn't better if you care about good art. Constraints breed creativity, etc.

Spending time around successful artists will cure you of this notion. e.g. I worked with technical artists in video games -- they are using a computer, but they think VERY differently than programmers and mathematicians. I also knew some pretty successful musicians.

Summary: plenty of art is created with computers, but without programming. Teaching programming to artists is probably a good idea in some circumstances, but not obviously better than teaching photography or even say public speaking. That doesn't mean programming is invalid, but it's one tool and it's not especially likely to lead to good artistic results. The balance may change in the future but I suspect it will always be somewhat true, probably just because of the way brains work (both the creator's and audience's)

"One can create almost anything using computer programming. This is not true with any other artistic tool."

Well, with computer programming you can generally only create stuff that is displayed on a 2D surface (unless you bring other tools). The same holds for a pen, or a paint-brush.

Why? Most things we think of as computers have a screen, for sure, but they also have some way of producing audio output.

Yes, and you can attach a 3d-printer and create sculptures.

But ... the essence is the computer+screen because that is what you need to learn computer programming.

While a screen is commonly used these days, it's not the only way to learn programming.

(eg see Logo, which included a Physical robot called a "turtle" at one point)

Also, I suppose some sequencer/tracker work done by musicians ends up looking like programming at some point.

Definitely the entire MOD scene from the 1990's

if you'd like to relive that:

* https://www.stef.be/bassoontracker/

Some of this gets very close to outright programming (this particular mod does a bunch of stuff that seems like it should be impossible in mods at first glance)

* https://www.stef.be/bassoontracker/?file=demomods%2Fhoffman_...

none-2D surface things:

* 1D: MIDI (music)

* 3D: CNC mill/ 3D Printer

* 4D: VR (animated)

* outright Non-Euclidian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztsi0CLxmjw

A lot of art-making is about constraints. These are generally imposed by the medium (What can I make with bits of dried colored goo on a rectangular surface? Or with just a pencil and paper?) or by some arbitrary-but-effective rule set (e.g., the sonnet form in poetry, the fugue in music).

Great art embraces and somehow transcends the constraints of the chosen form. Consider how great paintings, constrained as they are in their static, rectangular form, almost leap from the canvas into your eyes. They are magical because skill of the artist and the constraints exist and work together.

The best computer art will work not because computers can be used to "create almost anything," but because the constraints inherent in computing (or some chosen set of constraints therein) stimulate artists to make great things inside those constraints.

We do already have some good constraints we can choose to work within. I like text games, roguelikes, etc. because they stimulate my imagination more than immersive graphics do, and because such games have been a part of computing almost since the beginning[1]. As computers become ever more ubiquitous and powerful, we may have to apply our own constraints, and find which ones give rise to the most interesting art.

[1] A great history is at https://if50.substack.com/, frequently mentioned on HN

What seems to be missed in the comments thus far, is that rather than use programming to generate art, it seems to me that programming itself is an artistic media.

Think of that kind of old school hacker spirit of doing things like making koans or incredibly short but capable programs, or using and abusing some deep hardware or compiler details to turn a bug into something useful. Some of those things are mind-blowingly clever made by virtuosos of code. In those cases, the program itself is the art. It'd be cool to see an exhibit of such things.

Yeah, +1, though tech is so parochial l, so much of this would require SO much context to communicate problem and solution domain clearly and concisely.

But I always thought a great example for an exhibit would be Duff's Device- specifically Tom's email was a masterwork.

The demo scene falls into this description.

come to dwitter.net

Programming is a creative process but as opposed to art it’s goal is not to fuel emotions but to convey solutions to problems as clear as possible.

There are many programs and programming languages designed primarily to elicit an emotional response, particularly from other programmers. I don't think this invalidates the thesis that programs themselves can be works of art.

> This is not true with any other artistic tool.

It is also true for a gun. With a gun, you can make someone write code for you.

Jokes aside, I find it condescending to claim that computers are better for arts than other tools. While a physical paintbrush might be not Turning-complete, it is physical. Restricting all parts of artistic expression to virtual media is, well, restrictive.

I would say a physical paintbrush is Turning Complete and, doesn’t the fact that you can write anything with it (therefore any code) make it Turing Complete too in some way?

The combination of your brain, your arm, the paintbrush, the paint, and an infinite supply of paper is Turing-complete, because it can simulate a Turing machine.

Your question is too vague to start a meaningful discussion.

But first and foremost "says who?".

Processing, Openframeworks, MaxMSP, PureData, VVV and many other tools are used by artists all the time.

1. It is, and has been for as long as computers have been available. My mum used an arts grant to buy a computer in like, 93', and taught herself programming. That's a pretty normal story for that generation. Earlier, many artists would use institutional access to computers (e.g Manfred Mohr).

2. One can create almost anything with almost anything. The question is, what are the relevant skills, and why is the medium compelling?

Programming is not the norm amongst artists these days, but it's also not unusual to meet somebody who programs, and most people use computers at some point in their process.

Unless your mother got the computer in order to code json parsers or similar, how is this related to the questions? Nobody doubts that computers can be used to make art, the question was if programming was an art.

I don't think you're reading the question correctly: an 'art' can be any kind of creative activity, so obviously, programming is an art independently of whether anybody ever makes 'art' with it.

The question is not about "art" as in τέχνη, then you might consider it an art.

The question was about "the arts", and that means something else, it's the same "art" as in "artistic". Painting, writing etc.

I guess 'art' and 'techne' have had a great deal of semantic drift in the last few centuries. I think many contemporary artists live in a post-Beuys world where art is what artists do, and everybody is an artist. In this setup, there is basically no distinction.

Painters often have a different opinion.

Yes but this question was specifically about “the arts”, which is pretty unambiguous.

Professor here. They are intersecting at the rate of retirements, as technology has reached the point where we can sit in a class and make good things together.

My field is production and scenic design, but this semester I'm teaching Film making in Blender: https://youtu.be/KKiQAXjeru4

I am in entertainment engineering and the computer and programming are present in all aspects - generative art, etc.

I was an early supporter of Blender when Ton was taking donations to buy it out from NaN in 2002-ish. I think I had tried it in the late 90s, but then it disappeared. I gave $50 to the fund-raising efforts.

I weaned myself off of Animation Master from my Amiga days!

I used Blender in 2003-4 along with the Python API to turn photos into bas-relief carvings in maple planks on my 4' x 8' CNC router table (www.thewoodenimage.com at the time, a domain I let go).

I did paintings conservation for several years in the mid- to late-90s.

As much as I love making things and art with my computer with programming or as the tool (CAD, simulation, for engineering design), I still crack out my Dr. Ph. Martens inks and brushes for me and my younger kids to play and create. My older kids grew up with less digital apparatus. There is something that happens in doing it this way that just doesn't happen on the computers or tablets, or in programming art. That and the more direct line to reality.

I will forever be torn with doing stuff in the physical world and being immersed in the digital.

Me too. My paints and brushes are laid out and ready to go. I think a future is coming where digital art making can be as granular and intimate as real life, I hope I live to see it. Imagine being able to really paint with watercolor, with the power of Photoshop layers, all in 3D space. It's just out of reach right now.

I have an HTC Vive Cosmos and I play with Tilt Brush, and while it at first blew me away, and I still use it, I love to not have a headset on and tons of wires when I just sit down and feel, play with water, pigment, brushes, and paper. Especially with my six-year old!

I definitely agree that computer programming is an art (as does Knuth and many others), and I believe that the emotions we feel when producing particularly clever bits of code are comparable to the emotions that a poet feels when writing particularly meaningful verses.

However, in order for programming to have the same footing as a "fine art" (on par with poetry or visual arts), it needs to have the same _relatability_ in non-programmers as it does with programmers. That is, it would need to evoke the same visceral emotion in a nontechnical observer, which is kind of a stretch at this moment. Nevertheless, I'm fine with programming remaining a true art only within a self-selected inner circle. Many other things are the same way.

I'm sure there is a future out there where basic programming concepts are taught universally, which would rather broaden the appeal of art programs. Surely literature couldn't thrive in a society that was substantially illiterate. That doesn't mean it wasn't always a true art form.

If you think this is because the skill sets (or, perhaps more importantly, the mindsets) of the two have no overlap (an outlook I used to have, too), I suggest you read pg’s classic essay “Hackers and Painters”: http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html

https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm

In art we use various kinds of media. These have overlapping or unique qualities, and we can choose to use them accordingly, or not. The idea that there is one medium to satisfy all the needs is rather short sighted. If you actually pick up a piece of clay (just an example) and start to shape and model it, you will learn about its specific qualities. Then pick up plaster and learn about the amount of plaster you have to sieve into the bucket of water that will give you the plasticity you want. Dig your hand in the soft mass, feel it squirt through your fingers when you clench your first.. Or use oil pastels and draw, then change to pencils in various hardnesses....

What I want to point out is that

1. The interface is so bad on a computer compared to the raw materials we have

2. Ideas are formed in the making of an artwork. Often you develop new ideas while working with the material (that's true for working on a program too). You usually have several stages from pencil sketch to the final piece, or its just the pencil drawing.

3. We don't need a universal medium. Ist great we have so many.

4. I often wonder how broad the English term "art" is. Art as in "fine/contemporary art" is very different to art as in "arts and crafts" or "latte art".

I'm an artist who studied art. I make media art experimental improvised music. I use computers and programming languages for my art, and I'm happy that I can use these tools, but I also enjoy working with physical media, that I can touch and shape.

Check out Vi Hart, mathemusician with both a youtube channel and a gitlab

* https://www.youtube.com/user/Vihart

* https://github.com/vihart

Music example:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4niz8TfY794 (12 tones)

Software example: I thought her 50 fizzbuzzes were fun, and at least one of them is even vaguely musical? Clearly she should be hired ;-)

* https://github.com/vihart/fiftyfizzbuzzes

(you can run it here, might be slow to start up: https://hub.mybinder.turing.ac.uk/user/quasiben-fiftyfizzbuz... )

This is, because computer programming is lacking the immediate, emotional triggers that are hardcoded into our human ROMs (aka DNA) and that strongly react to music, colors, visual experience or the satisfaction of needs like food and sex.

I am a computer programmer and I am emotionally reacting to some code that I get to see, but this is a very intellectual and weak emotion compared to the ones mentioned above.

I really spent endless hours thinking about, if computer programming could ever be executed on a stage and attract many people. Found nothing yet. I believe, maybe, computer programming can only be used indirectly, by producing music and other art that triggers emotions on many people, but not by itself.

This theory of course is based on my personal assumption, that arts are defined by their ability of triggering strong emotions on the art consumer.

Some of us enjoy watching livestreams or videos where code is being created. I think this can be sort of stage performance in some sense.

Yes. But the enjoyment is the result of your own programming education (otherwise you wouldn't even be able to recognize the art in it). It does not apply to everyone, it is not built into the human kernel.

I definitely believe that computer programming can be art!!

But it might not make it into an all-accepted major art form. The audience for this art as well as the emotional impact are too small.

The reason is imho mainly due to how institutions evolve (slowly). Computing and the arts is currently experiencing a primal boom, which you can see in a number of departments, festivals and prizes dedicated to that are popping up everywhere. It won't take long before most places offer this kind of pathway. Also, for various reasons, I feel like having a CS background and coming to the arts has been an easier route than the other way around, which might have had consequences on which departments started offering this kind of training, and how computational arts have been received in the broader arts community.

A few examples:

https://www.media.mit.edu/

http://dma.ucla.edu/

https://tisch.nyu.edu/itp

https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-computational-arts/

https://www.arts.ac.uk/creative-computing-institute

https://sfpc.io/

https://cadaf.art/

https://www.lumenprize.com/

I am personally interested in the writing/literature side of all this, and indeed haven't yet come across a department of creative writing that would have a focus on computation (SFPC might be the only place that at least nominally places poetry at the core of their endeavours, even if the activities of students and teachers, so far as I know, are really exploring all art forms).

CMU has an entire degree for this (Bachelor of CS & Art), although it ends up being 150% of the work to learn both art and CS. Much more effective are intro programming classes focusing on generative art as a way to motivate creative people to learn programming.

> although it ends up being 150% of the work to learn both art and CS.

I'd be fine with that. People forget, art is hard. An artist is the genius of his society, it requires devotion to produce that art, a masterpiece is the work of a master of his art.

I thought I would be too, but I ended up going to a Art with CS minor. I felt like I had to compromise actually making good artwork (vs tech demos/one dimensional projects) to sit in CS theory classes when I already had all the technical knowledge they were going to teach, and you can get the minor just from the technical classes.

That's a good compromise.

Paul Graham did a lot of both art and CS. The book Hackers and Painters is on that subject. He even retired from both Yahoo and Y Combinator at a moment when they were doing amazing, leaving crazy money on the table, in order to do some painting.

In addition, it took me a long time to track this detail down, but "ANSI Common Lisp" does not include any information about the cover art, what its name is, the artist credit, nothing. It also has no signature. Turns out the author painted it.

> One can create almost anything using computer programming.

First, there are many things you cannot do with computer programming at all. Second, even if you can, it isn't always the best tool for the job. That being said, computer programming is used a lot in certain art forms, like computer music, generative art, interactive installations, etc. Also, look up “creative coding“.

Reminds me of a disagreement with a friend when I was 12. I was learning machine code because eh? programming is the future?? He disagreed completely. He said you want to be using software not writing it. Writing it is like making tools. Tools are things you use. A tool maker solves a very limited problem set and is always under instructions from those who need the tool.

My counter argument was that I was making my own tools and modifying existing ones (which was normal/expected at the time) I make tools but I'm the user of my tools! He corrected predicted that each of those applications would have winning good-enough versions that everyone would use.

He went on into technical drawing. Oddly the problem scope programmers run into seems much more diverse and we make lots of things just for fun while technical drawers are mostly tools marrying product designers to industries.

Its because of sniffiness.

I am called an engineer, even though I don't have any professional qualifications. I studied a 50% art/science degree aimed at media production.

In the same way that politics and economics are not arts, they are supposedly sciences, even though they don't have any concept of reproducibility.

It _is_ a major part of the arts. Arguably a majority of art is created through products of computer programming. Not to mention the many genres of art that are explicitly programmatic (demoscene, generative, interactive, etc).

I think it is, though maybe not in the way you're thinking?

- Video games

- The MIT Media Lab: https://www.media.mit.edu/graduate-program/about-media-arts-...

- The NFT stuff running amok nowadays

- Fractals

- Demo scene

- etc.

There are a bunch of different art forms leveraging programming. I was at the Whitney Museum in New York a couple years ago, and they had a really good exhibit about various programming art: https://whitney.org/exhibitions/programmed

Yep, this. Artists who code are definitely a thing, and are highly in demand at game companies. That said, it’s always going to be way faster to create something with a tool (instead of code) if the right tool exists.

It will be. 'Art' has been going on for, arguably, 20,000+ years. Computers in art, for somewhat less time.

Fortunately or not, depending on your perspective, integration of computers into art isn't linear.

Why also aren’t inventors of technological breakthroughs and gadgets a major part of the arts? A humble stab at this question goes as follows.

The reason is that the arts are about creativity within the context of aesthetics dominated by concepts of beauty, physical dimension, and expression of abstract visualizations. Computer programming, while it is creative at times, consists of instructions that are being conveyed to a machine. Computer programming is more like someone that is translating ideas and possibly even arts to be re-created by a machine.

I think part of the matter is that people who can program have much better alternative career options. Making money from art is much harder than working for an established company.

Video games and animations are essentially computer art, but their wild appeal has paradoxically made them mundane. Kind of like AI; any AI that goes mainstream will become just software.

Finally, creating non-abstract art with programming is extremely difficult, and people don’t like abstract art much. Even when they do, a big part of the appeal is contextual, not coming from the standalone work.

>One can create almost anything using computer programming. This is not true with any other artistic tool.

Well when you do the math, there are probably also more chances to fail to create almost anything as well :\

Just to clarify, you mean why isn't the skill of computer programming a major part of art school education, taught alongside other basic techniques, like sketching, that can be used to create art? I think that's a reasonable question, but I first interpreted your question as more like "why isn't programming appreciated as an art form, with particular examples of code treated as works of art".

There is a lot of friction with programming. Picking a programming language, picking an IDE, learning concepts and syntax, googling the errors, etc.

Think of how a painter probably got introduced to painting. Parents or teachers gave them a paintbrush and paint and off they went. Immediate feedback and gratification.

Stuff like Swift Playground makes it easier to get into programming so progress is being made.

Computers are best as (extremely useful) tools alongside other processes, contexts and humans in the world.

I've been using computers for (mostly sound) art for a couple decades, and I completely understand this mentality.

It's a nice thing to try to step outside of it though: I think you'll find computers get a lot more exciting when you don't try to live inside them.

Q: Why aren't mechanic skills a major part of the arts? One can create almost anything using mechanic skills?

A: Because that's a trade.

My university's fine arts college has a Creative Computation program. There's a lot of programming involved to create the art installations that they make.

https://www.smu.edu/Meadows/AreasofStudy/CreativeComputation

Programming on a Z80 was art. Domain OS was art. It seems that the only way to create art is with constraints. Now there are no constraints. Processors are fast, memory and storage space are unlimited. Now the only art left is creating programs that do not use half of system's libraries and are usable.

> Why isn't computer programming a major part of the arts?

Are you trying to prove a negative? That sounds futile.

In what respect and what contexts do you find this true?

I only ask because it hasn't been my experience. I've been tuned into (for decades) the programmatic art scene. (I have a Fine Art Bachelor's degree IN Computer Art back from 1998)

Rich Hickey has a great bit about this one: when you turn a computer programmer loose on the arts, what you tend to get is: the choosaphone! It can make any sound you want, you just have to wire it right!

Most artists are far more productive with a cello than with a choosaphone.

To me programming is closer to engineering. A program starts to fall apart as it gets bigger if not carefully designed. It doesn't matter if the program is for artistic purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art

Do you want the real answer? It's because computer programmers don't fit, culturally, among artists.

Probably because skillset for artists and skillset for developers have almost empty intersection.

Every programmer I know is also keenly interested in making art. Perhaps what society views as an artist has yet to change: do you need to be a full time dedicated art practitioner to be considered as an artist?

Creative thinking

Dedication to learning the craft

Ability to innovate

Self learning, forward thinking

Stubborn

Invests many, many hours

Is this the skill set of the artist or the programmer?

If N==1 you can make any conclusion. Percentage of programmers I know that are at the same time interested in making art is around 2%. Percentage of artists I know that are interested in software development is even less.

Math, physics, late night debugging sessions, repairing electronics/cars, overall hacking... Is this the skillset of an artist or a programmer?

Painting, playing instruments, creative writing, pottery... Is this the skillset of an artist or a programmer?

>Math, physics, late night debugging sessions, repairing electronics/cars, overall hacking... Is this the skillset of an artist or a programmer?

Yes.

>Painting, playing instruments, creative writing, pottery... Is this the skillset of an artist or a programmer?

And yes.

To meet their goal they're each going to carry out a 1000 step process where everything builds on what went before (many many thousands of steps) and (regardless) too many false steps you are out.

A musician may have a piece memorized or may be using sheet music. They may have composed the piece or even be improvising as they go along. But one false step and people may say hey what a sour note.

Some notes more sour than others.

A programmer may implement a familar algorithm from memory or may be copying & pasting. They might have an appropriate one of their own or come up with something excellent as they go along. But one false step and people could say hey you've got a serious bug there.

Some bugs more offensive than others.

Depending on your gear at the time, different steps may or may not be automated or manually carried out.

There's not much room for error in a 1000 step process.

Obviously most people aren't cut out for it anyway.

It's clear we aren't acquaintances then

I couldn't care any less about making art, and I program for a living and for fun.

"Art" (in the traditional sense of a painting or whatever) leaves me entirely cold.

> do you need to be a full time dedicated art practitioner to be considered as an artist?

If you define “artist” as not a profession, but more of a generic philosophy of working, then this statement:

> Is this the skill set of the artist or the programmer?

… is a complete apples-to-oranges comparison.

The skills you’ve written down are not tied to any profession and would apply to both “chess players”, “baristas”, “board game geeks”, and whatnot.

I think you've answered the question whether art can be practiced in any profession.

When you've got the rare individual who's overflowing with the consensus features:

>Creative thinking

>Dedication to learning the craft

>Ability to innovate

>Self learning, forward thinking

>Stubborn

>Invests many, many hours

And they're in action as:

>“chess players”, “baristas”, “board game geeks”,

musicians, computer programmers, etc.

These are the ones you notice are doing it like an artist regardless of how you don't see this kind of thing more often.

Can confirm. Am SWE/writer/screenwriter/actor/director.

That sounds like a rather strong assertion.

I would have supposed rather the opposite.

Computer programing is art in the same way as architecture is art, ie. it almost never is

Some schools are using the acronym of STEAM rather than STEM. The A being Arts.

Who says computer programming isn't a major part of the arts?

Because it's probably the least artistic endevour you can imagine. You're 100% governed by rules. Programmers and artists are polar opposites on the temperament scale.

Disagree, as somebody who is both. (Albeit not AMAZING at either).

Lots of art forms/media involve rules or creative restrictions. Off the top of my head at 10:30 in the morning, I can think of:

- Sonnets/villanelles/other form restricted written art, particularly once we get down into things like syllabic stress and rhyming restrictions; - Music is full of rules and math that musicians learn before they can break them. Tempo, meter, octaves, etc. - In the visual arts, you have medium restrictions. You can only sculpt marble once; you had best make sure you know what you're doing. When working in watercolor, you need to have your shadows/highlights/entire composition planned out because you need to avoid/layer properly. There's also color theory, composition rules, etc.

The best artists often make these invisible, just like the best programs (from a user perspective) 'just work' and users have no idea what restraints/rules went into them.

It's just that instead of getting an error message, writing a shitty musical composition hurts your ears. Also we see more of the shitty art than the shitty code.

I'm not saying there aren't rules in literature, poetry, painting or whatever. But can you imagine any temperaments more different than that of the typical programmer, and that of the typical artist?

I started out as a mathematician and always felt mathematicians to be painfully square and rigid, but they are veritable poets compared to the typical programmer

Reply on news.ycombinator.com