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

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.

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)

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.

> 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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

> 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

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.

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.