When I started programming, my whole day revolved around development. I’d wake up, write code, and go to sleep. And that’s how it was day in and day out. My entire social circle consisted of people who also wrote code. I studied frameworks, libraries, and various programming languages.
I honestly think trying to define programming as art is just an attempt to unnecessarily elevate it. Programming is utilitarian. It is meant for a specific practical purpose. It does not reveal a shared human experience the way a movie, book, or game does. I have no need to convince myself, a professional software engineer of this because I am perfectly happy accepting that what I do is useful and do not need to try to put myself in a category with artists.
All the author is saying is that people enjoy programming. I also enjoy eating. Is that an art? I even have my own “eating style” in that I like to eat food in specific order, combine two items into one bite, the way I build a bite, etc. But I’d never try to elevate it because I’m a normal person who doesn’t waste brainpower trying to make myself feel special.
If you’re defining programming as simply translating an algorithm. Into code as is, sure it isn’t art. However, designing abstractions and the structure which allows said algorithm to work with various parts of a program seamlessly and beautifully can be art.
Have you ever looked at code and thought “oh this is beautiful”? Or - even better - have had someone else look at your code and say it? Pure bliss.
I won’t begrudge anyone their definition of art, because it’s an extremely slippery concept.
But I do think it’s worth pointing out that there are clearly at least two rather different notions of art: one as a product with value that rich people like to buy and trade, and one as a behavior that all human beings perform. I don’t think the latter category has any inherent “elevation” to it, the way the former does.
And also that having a utilitarian specific practical purpose doesn’t automatically prohibit it from being art, in most popular conceptions of the term. Some of the earliest artifacts that are widely considered art were primarily utilitarian: cups, bowls, and other tools.
Also, a good excuse to share this excellent piece: Tomatoes, or How Not To Define “Art”