[NetBehaviour] Is programming an art or a science? Part II.

[Geert Dekkers]

Hi Marc

This question resembles the "is art useless" thread that is sort of  
current on rhizome. And before I start, there is nothing wrong with  
going on about such fundamentals. The only thing is that one  
shouldn't expect much headway to be made. (I always seem to expect  
that anyway, but I know myself to be quite unrealistic)

So -- first of all, define "art". Then define "science". Then define  
"programming". Then do the equation. But of course this is very  
difficult and very time-consuming. And here again, I'd like to have  
enough time and be smart enough to do that, but I lack on both counts  
at the moment..

You say intention matters -- you might mean that there is a  
difference between programming in order to make a work of art, and  
programming in order to make a work of science. Or you might mean  
that programming as an artist is different in some way from  
programming as a scientist.

Just putting these into opposition helps. Because in the both  
oppositions, the second node doesn't seem to fit the bill. Most  
programming is equipmental. A scientist would employ a programmer to  
deliver a piece of equipment with which to realize a project of  
science. So the question then becomes: how is programming a piece of  
equipment conceptually related to the science project? Any concrete  
example of a project could clarify this.

Another quick look using an analogy. Painting is an art (arguably)  
and also a craft, if not a science. As a craft, it is - again -  
equipmental. (As for the notion of "equipment" - I'm reading  
Heidegger at the moment) In our culture, art and craft have grown  
apart in a huge way. Working within the trade of house-painting  
implies working within a very different conceptual framework than  
working within the framework of the arts. There are crossovers to be  
imagined, and of course a large amount of influential post-war  
american artists used industrial processes in their painting.  To put  
painting as an art and as a craft into opposition one would need to  
oppose a worker in the framework of house-painting against a similar  
role in the framework of the arts. Perhaps then the differences might  
become more apparent.


Geert Dekkers---------------------------
http://nznl.com | http://nznl.net | http://nznl.org
---------------------------------------




On 4-mei-2007, at 12:34, marc wrote:

> HI Rob & all,
>
> In regards to the purity of the activity, one can understand the  
> 'programming is ust programming' notion, but it gets interesting  
> when intentions and what the speciifc programming is for, as why do  
> the programming in the first place. To be honest I find hard to  
> disagree with anyone, mainly because I think that means many  
> different things to most people...
>
> marc
>
>> Quoting Ken Turner <ken at sqallp.freeserve.co.uk>:
>>
>>> programming is - I agree just programming.
>>
>>
>> Historically it's mathematics or electrical engineering. I find   
>> "computer science" far too grand a name. It's just hacking. It's   
>> certainly not art, art is not functional and code cannot be faked.
>>
>> Societies see themselves in terms of their enabling technologies  
>> (see  Bolter's "Turing's Man"). Our enabling technology is  
>> computing  machinery. So artists will quite naturally wonder  
>> whether code is art  and art is code, and writers will get some  
>> mileage from this.
>>
>> - Rob.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20070504/943258f8/attachment.htm>