I say it depends in what part of the industry you work: 1) concept artists, plot writers, etc all fit under artists 2) graphics designers, quality ensuring etc fit halfway through 3)business dealers, bosses, agents, bargainers etc hell nah! they profit under the art
I'll say no. In software engineering/development, a team is always involved. there's the concept artist, 3D designer, and the game developer. I mean, I might able to say "Yes" if it's only concept arts, but software engineering especially game development where you write codes is called technology.
Art always expresses something. If it doesn't express anything, it's not art. Undertale is art. Digital painting is art. Poetry and Fanfiction are art. Even freaking MLP is art! If your code is designed to express or show something, then it is most definitely art.
Depends on what kind of software engineering you're referring to.
For example writing backends doesn't quite qualify as art imo, but when you've got UI design in the mix and/or a massive codebase for a huge program or game, definitely art.
It's a different kind of art though, and it only becomes art when you try to program your software to perfection right from the start. Games are obviously art, so are movies, they're a mixture of many many forms of art. But when you have pure software I'd say you have to pass a certain threshold to be able to call it art. For example, if you make a hammer, something raw made purely for a specific function, would you call it art? It's certainly a craft, but that doesn't make it art, it's not a sculpture, it's not made for beauty, it's made for function.
I made a program that asks me to input hours and minutes until I want the computer to shut down, the program doesn't even have a user interface (it uses CLI/Command Prompt instead) is that art? No, it's just a tool, I crafted it but it's not art. UI design is clearly an art though, an art not many are good at, so all software with it has an artwork embedded in it, like a website, a website wouldn't be called a work of art (usually...) but it's UI design certainly can be. I think deviantart is a terrible shitty website but it's certainly got a good UI design, and while UI is in some programs purely for function, once you start adding things to make it look better (like color schemes and drop-down menus and icons and stuff) it becomes art. The windows task manager is a marvelous tool, but as beautifully crafted as it is I wouldn't call any part of it art. Windows media player on the other hand, is a rather poorly crafted but still fairly decent piece of software, that one I would call a work of art just for it's pretty and user friendly UI design.
However the art isn't just in the UI for some programs. Microsoft windows is a work of art, and while the UI may be considered a fair part of that (although a quite disappointing one when it comes to win 8 and win 10) the core piece of it all, the Windows Kernel, that is a code that has become so massive that despite how disgusting and sleazy Microsoft are, the Windows kernel is a beautiful work of art, it's what makes windows be windows, what makes windows actually work, all the things under the hood. When a tool has been made so well, so thoroughly and so detailed, it becomes a work of art a project that would be impossible for a human to complete without passion.Game Engines? also works of art, usually not very good, but art all the same.
In a real life comparison, you might not call a car engine or a car's gas tank a work of art. You may or may not call a car's hull a work of art. But you most definitely would call a complete car a work of art because that is what it is, where the car's components are placed is a design of it's own, how they are interconnected is another, when you put it all together it becomes beautiful and elegant (well... for some cars) but separately or broken down to their bare parts? They're mundane objects.
It's sort of like this for games. You can program the UI (car hull) and sometimes it will be a work of art, other times it'll be made purely for basic function without any soul in it (i.e. it doesn't really have a design as much as it's just there because it needs to be). and you can program the main/core functions of the program (engine) which if complex and big enough, it becomes a work of art, but at it's most basic form, it's just a tool. But in the end, if you find all the right tools and utilities, the right parts, and put them to gather the right way, you have definitely made art.
Is any of it comparable to painting? No. But it is comparable to sculpting. A sculptor may make a statue of some kind, but he might also make a plain bowl. Would you call your kitchenware works of art? Usually not software is often like that, like the kitchenware. It was art when it was a novelty, but then it became mundane due to it's simplicity and how it exists only because we need it, not because we want to look at it. A washing machine could easily have been considered a work of art once, but after all these years, does anyone consider it that way anymore?
Hmm, someone with a similar opinion. I believe designing an algorithm requires certain inspiration from the environment. Which is much like how an artist starts up his job. Then, implementing them on IDE requires the imagination to recreate the design as true as possible. I also fell quantum mechanics and data structure are like modern art you cannot explain them with any classical model you need to open you imaginative eye to believe what seems so much unreal.
Yeah sounds about right... except for comparing quantum mechanics to modern art, how dare you shame quantum mechanics like that? (I know your comparison makes sense but... modern art? really? that shit isn't art anymore than a pile of dirty clothes on your floor!)
I compared them from my perspective. Like how modern art is to me, it seems absurd to me but it definately an art which is sold at pretty high prices. Since, deviant art is all about art. I assumed audiance here would not have deep understanding of quantum mechanics. To relate to them I compared something non science and artist will feel absurd if they read about it for first time with something I who is not an artist feel is kind of absurd.
Only an expert of modern art can explain the painting and sometime even they will fail to do so. I still definiately cannot comprehend it. Same thing happens with quantum mechanics, only someone expert in mathematics can feel the quantum mechanics from just having a look at equations. I remember once while explaining quantum computers to my 10 years old nephew, he asked something so deep about quantum mechanics which could only be explained/proved using equations.
At that moment I though about something I read about Einstein. He once said, if you cannot explain something to 5 years old then you don't know it yourself as well. I don't know if explaining calculus and stuff to explain quantum mechanics to 10 year old would have made sense back then.
But the point is that is exactly how I feel about modern art, no matter how much an artist tell me about modern art I cannot comprehend it(similar to how general people cannot comprehend quantum mechanics). I simply cannot make sense of such high price (similar to why quantum mechanics is so important). That is simply beyond me (similar to how calculus is beyong my nephew's grade).
I hope I made some sense. I just used some old school relativity in my previous comment to put my point.
Not really offended haha (brotip: don't be so apologetic when you were just saying your piece, if someone got so easily offended by your opinions or views, it'd be their problem, not yours. I mean for some people it's enough to say 'I like Trump' and they'll go all they're just not right in the head.)
Anyhow we are talking about the same modern art right? The one where you can put shoe in a box and call it art? This www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ez-g… ? You know the level of putting a toilet seat on your wall and calling it art. I personally think it's offensive for all real artists who ever lived that this would be called 'art'. An expert on modern art? If you look at anything, any object for long enough you can make up a story about it, (this even includes paintings) and your story is pretty much never gonna match up with that of the author of it, be it the guy who designed your car or what the blazes Da Vinci was thinking when he painted Mona Lisa.
Modern art is basically following the logic that you can get away with calling literally anything art and nobody can say it isn't, to it's highest extreme. The point where you would be able to point at your sheets after you get out of bed and say 'I made art' or your poop after it lands in the toilet and say 'It's art!' and after you wipe your ass, you can point at the toilet paper in the toilet and say 'It's abstract!'.
I can think quite deeply about things, but that doesn't mean I call them art, back to the 'tool' analogy, the patterns on your bedsheets are indeed art, they're just not 'your art' they're the art of the person who designed the pattern for whatever nefarious reasons, the bedsheets themselves fall into the 'tool' category, poo falls into a different category of serving no purpose (almost, I mean you can use it as fertilizer) it's waste, not art. You can turn poop into art, sure, you can paint with poop and call it art, and it indeed will be art... Nobody will want it, but until you paint with that poop, it's not art. If you put your poop on the floor instead of in the toilet, it's not art either just because it's in a place where it's not supposed to be (or you could call my cat a natural artist, just kidding, this one doesn't poop on the floor, that's why I don't have a dog!).
In the video I linked there is a sculpture of a giant turd, now sure it's hand crafted sculpture, yeah, it's art. It's just very bad art, but if you call it 'modern art' suddenly it's supposed to be good? Hell no man. It's about as silly as calling a printer your secretary. Just because it writes shit down on paper for you doesn't make it a robotic secretary. It's a printer, and if you think otherwise, you're thinking it too far, because the fact is that our world doesn't make all that much sense when we dig deep enough, nothing in it in fact, you can spin almost anything into almost any story if you just keep thinking about it (guess this is on subject with quantum mechanics after all huh?) but just because I put the printer on my floor instead of on my desk doesn't make it art, or a secretary, the design of the printer sure enough qualifies as art, but it is not MY art, it's the art of the person who designed the printer's exterior to be like that for whatever reason (practicality probably being the #1 reason, but hey, it has a sleek curved black design so it's kinda neat looking after all so there was some art in there after all!) so you're free to your opinion of course, but my opinion is that modern art isn't art, it's people putting things where it feels 'weird to them' or doing things in 'weird ways' or making things that might look 'slightly weird' but in at least 90% of cases, modern art is not art, it's misplaced things.
Then again, in the beginning, abstract art wasn't art, but now, now it definitely is, it's become the art world's equivalent to math rock now (glorious stuff btw, here's some entry level math rock if you never heard of it www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgArsB… it sounds weird at first until you start to understand the rhythm, it's basically just uniquely complex composition as far as music goes. Dillinger Escape Plan is the most popular math rock band I know right now if you want more; this is the song that made me really get into it www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM4o-s… starts off simple, then starts throwing in a bit more chaos progressively), or well, for those who know what they're doing with it anyways. The problem with it however is that nobody will notice whether or not you're actually a good abstract artist because all a good abstract artist does is play on the viewers subconsciousness to make it tell them that 'this actually looks kinda good'. (aka, it's all about composition now, but it wasn't at first) so maybe one day modern art will become... art. But today it's not there yet. Unless you make 95 million dollars from it from a bunch of seriously dumb rich people.
I will let math rock settle for a week then will reply how I feel about it (The Dillinger Escape Plan - Widower feels good. It's like subtle linear progression or like harmonics I cannot pinpoint it, I will let it settle). I have heard something similar in case you are interested
Machine learning is not quite at the quantum level yet. They use so called neural networks, in essence it's just complex branching programming algorithms (I don't know too much about it tho) but otherwise yeah, I think I can nod in agreement with that (Below) comment hehe.
As for musics, I can't really listen to the first one since I can't stand rap in any way shape or form... but for the second one, the only thing it has in common is that it's a progressive, and... it is linear whereas widower was indeed not linear (that's where the complexity, aka math, comes in, the math rock name stems from bands using mathematical compositions rather than just going along with traditional things) progressive music is very common actually, the song you linked (#2) it progresses from soft to a little harder and then back to soft. Progressive music is very common, and easily confused with math... but trust me when I say math rock is not the same as progressive.
I don't honestly know that much about music, I'm no expert, but what symbolizes math rock is chaotic yet finely structured composition, this ranges from the designs of rhythms to their placements in the tunes, their gaps, what's between them. This song is: slow(rhythm 1)-fast(rhythm 2)-fast(rhythm 3)-fast(2)-fast(3)-very fast(rhythm? 4)-relatively fast and soft (rhythm? 5)- slow (1)
so you can see it go... 1-2-3-2-3-4-5-1 or if you order by tempos i think something like 1-2-3-2-3-5-4-1. In other words, it doesn't follow an obvious pattern like most songs do. And to add oil to the flames, all the rhythms are very differently designed, 1 is slow and casual, 2 is faster and less casual but more erratic, 3 is even faster and even more erratic, then 4 is super erratic and after all that chaos (erratic=chaotic), in comes 5 which is very fast but also very evenly structured, if I were to put it in a word I'd call it "Decisive" and then it slows back down straight to 1 and eases you out of the song.
These are entry level math songs tho.
Here's an avant-garde band with some seemingly strong math rock influences (the way they juggle chaos and structure) i love it, it's unlike anything I've heard but it's a bit niche. www.youtube.com/watch?v=46U2y-… And here's another Dillinger Escape Plan song which is a bit more all-in on math www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p4tQU… (ohh new song, I haven't heard this one, but yeah definitely math)
This shit basically reminds me of art composition, if you put everything too evenly it gets boring, if you make everything too chaotic it's crap (basically unstructured abstract art, it's shit). But as long as you can find the right rhythm, it doesn't matter how much chaos and stability you mix into a painting, as long as you balance them the right way... It's not just about what you draw, it's also about where you put it. Put two trees centered side by side on even ground, it's a super boring picture, paint one tree behind the other and shift them slightly off towards any corner and you have something that looks better. Put two more trees in the opposite corner and it turns to shit again... Put only one, and it might work.
Sorry for super late reply. I was in remote for work then I got sick and stuck there. I will add them to my playlist and will respond back I feel about them. Though, I am not sure I am qualified enough to get into details but I guess my senses are plausible enough to make some difference. I will let you know ASAP.
I feel we are pondering over the same feeling with the different expression . Like you said modern art will someday be art and abstract art was once not so much of art. This is something I feel whenever I discuss quantum computer vs embedded computer.
Quantum Computer uses quantum mechanics which a decade ago was no more than series of research paper something just like you explain shoe in a box and call it an art. It was similar to a series of equations on board and scientist claiming it to be the future, then came CERN's projects and then came D-WAVE (and machine learning). While I agree modern art is not art right now but someday it might me. That's something the previous generation felt about quantum computer and quantum mechanics in general.
Now abstract art, it was not art at some point so was embedded computer. Now it's something too deep, so is the smartphone we all are carrying (IOT).
From your expression, I understand modern art is no way near to the quantum mechanics current state. Maybe I was off a decade or two in terms of modern art (I am not an art enthusiast like you, so, not that updated). Quantum Mechanics is very close to becoming a huge piece of art or IMHO it has become a masterpiece where science and art are superpositioned that it has become impossible to point them together as one entity. One can either find art or science in it but not both, IMHO but this is something which makes it beautiful.
Oh fucking yes (bye bye new year resolution). Everything that depends of creation is art. Fuck, the McDonald's people are artists. The dude who created YouTube? Artist. Okay, maybe not that last one. But yes. "Your mother vagina was the paper and your father dick was the pencil. Boom, you're art"- James Franco. God, shittiest comment ever, ciao.
Well, having done some programming and also having a understanding graphic design, I would have to say yes. Art is all about solving a problem creatively and in a compelling manner, whether it's from the purely visual nature or a program. Making a video game from all code has been done before, but a lot of programmers sometimes miss the point of being creative in that endeavor which may be why some people don't look at it in that manner.
I'm programmer and engineer and don't feel coding as an art. Designing Graphic User Interfaces could be an artistic part, I think, but coding by itself seems to me more like solving a logical puzzle. About software engineering, I wouldn't consider it an art, but a process to fit software to clients' or enterprises' needs, or design parameters, through studies, trials, statistics and a lot of coding, debugging and of course a lot more of coding.
My personal definition of art is any instance of expressing a concept and/or entertaining another through an outlet that is both creative and imaginative.
I think you MIGHT be able to make the case that simply typing in code to achieve a specific effect that's been dictated to you by another doesn't make you an artist, but the game itself is definitely art and if you have ANY part in the creative process then, yeah, you're an artist after all :-p <3.
Others have made a proper distinction. The results can be.
The code itself? Probably not.
Althought thinking about it, given that appreciating such code, much like high society high art can be fully appreciated by few people, and can take years of training, is used very much for commercial work, but sometimes occurs for love of the project/idea....
I suddenly realise that in some senses, it IS 'Art' in the full sense.
Even if you don't consider computer programming, in general, to be an art (or to be a science, instead), it cannot be denied that art has been created with the use of it. Unless you don't think video games are art - in which case, I'd disagree with you.
I think so, but I think it can depend on the approach taken, some people write just to write, some people write to inspire, create emotion, convey their ideas... I dont think writing most classified ads in a newspaper is art for example, so same thing for code maybe ^0^
Yup exactly, just like writing a classified ad, some code can just be there following a script, even copying other people's code and pasting it in But there's a difference between doing things that way and doing it in a way that creates something beautiful ^0^ So code can definitely be art too!
I asked myself exactly the same thing some weeks ago... You know - I'm a Software-Developer, ye know and... Actually I'm damn unsure whether I should post my progressions to dA or whether it's okay to stream coding... Thingies on picarto or something xD
I think you should! I'm very intrigued by the world of code this is actually why I asked this question, I have a lot of coder friends for some reason xD ... I don't know why... I think because I am a overly logical thinker... I was going to study code but I decided not to ^^ Maybe sometime later in life I will revisit
Humh... Guess I've only 2 or 3 coder-friends xD Well however - I should really study it sometime, too. But... At the moment it's just a hobby to me 'cause coding for a company sucks since of insane goals and dead-lines customers set :') Learned it completely by googling and practicing x3
For me the definition of art includes everything that is created or made, but not only for practical use and with the intent to express something. So a game certainly is art in my point of view.
Now to the coding: Usually if we think about art, we think of paintings, music, literature... etc and we tend to overlook the brush strokes of famous paintings, the single notes of a musical piece or specific words from a novelle. But they are what make the product.
So, yes, seeing games as complex creations, I would consider coding as a form of art. Like rough outlines in the earlier stage of a painting.
I agree, I think, if all I could do was code, and I wanted to create a thing of art... then the coding itself must be a part of the art, I created something that instilled emotion and thoughts from code - years ago I didn't think coders could possibly be artist but I think very differently now ^^
I think it can barely described as art, because most people don't treat it as art. Bluntly writing down a code, following orders without any second thought or intention. But it surely is possible to be an engineer and an artist at the same time (by writing a code). I don't think that the term "art" is limited to the tools you've used. Everything could be art.
I'll start studying Digital Media soon, and I hope I'll be able to combine art and Engineering
I agree, but I think it's the same with many professions ^^ There are the "rockstars" the people with ideas, the innovators, the creative forces and then there are the "workerbees" the people who just go through things like a task list, it's not a bad thing to work like that, it is just the kind of work type people are comfortable with, many companies probably would value the "workerbee" since they already came up with all the innovative "rockstar" ideas and just want people to execute now Actually, that's the difference right there, I have a good friend, very senior coder who did say "my job is to execute, it's not to come up with crazy innovations" He transitioned to a server engineer but really, those guys can be artistic too about how they approach their solutions, it's just no one really "sees" it so it can go unappreciated ^^ There is a bit of art to all of it I think if done with the right approach
For me..I'd have to say no as far as the actual writing the code part, BUT if you were to use code in a way that is specifically for a visual appeal or design then yeah. I suppose it could be. I think a perfect example of using code as art in a game would be Dwarf Fortress. The creator did everything in code and it's actually rather appealing to me.
If you're just writing code to get a certain function to work, then to me it's more of an acute science. Art is such a broad term in itself so who knows! Art can be considered an act of creating something from nothing. So perhaps it's relative to the person.