|
There's nothing inherently wrong in using libraries.
A photographer is using a camera instead of paint and a brush. But doesn't need to know how the camera works to be able to produce beautiful pictures.
But as with all things, a good camera doesn't make a good photographer.
|
|
|
|
|
Going out on that sidetrack  (You invited to it! And, I will stay within the creative realm).
Jörgen Andersson wrote: But doesn't need to know how the camera works to be able to produce beautiful pictures.
Doesn't have to, that is true. If you want to use motion blur as a creative effect, you should have a good understanding of shutter speeds, and in the silver days: The differences between a central shutter and a focal plane shutter. Also, when using a flash, the shutter mechanism is/was essential.
Understanding how the aperture affects depth of field is very useful if you want to use out-of-focus as a picture element.
In the silver days, understanding graining was essential if you wanted to use it creatively. In principle, we have the same todays, but the pixel resolution is regular, not random like the grains. So you can deliberately use low resolution (i.e. enlarging only a small part of the image) and use the 'staircase' effect creatively.
And so on. Like, you can become a composer without going to any music school, but some training in music theory sure helps! (You may be surprised by how many composers of even the simplest popular music tunes actually have a formal music education!)
But as with all things, a good camera doesn't make a good photographer. Most certainly true! Then: I've heard too many (amateur) photographers using shortcomings of their equipment as an excuse for their photos not being quite what they allegedly could have been, given better equipment. So I very early decided that the requirements for my equipment is that it should be so good that I could never blame the equipment for my poor pictures.
I have stuck to that since my late teenage years. I never blame my equipment.
A curious case:
My first digital camera didn't have a very sensitive sensor. In low level light (i.e. 'highest ISO setting', in modern terms) it created a lot of noise; the image was speckled with multicolored dots. In one of my favorite photos (it show an old man in a wheelchair in front of a grave, I guess it is the grave of his wife or children), the specks create an "impressionistic" character, like that of a few painters that created their pictures from thousands of small dots. This character adds a very special touch to my photo. Lots of my photo friends are eager to point out the 'noise', and I stop them in the track: That is exactly what I wanted for this picture. The veil of color specs create a 'dreamy' distance to the subject, carries it over from a concrete, material world over to a world of memories, thoughts and feelings. Once I explain this, most of the respond with an acknowledging nod.
This is an example of using the weaknesses and limitations of the camera in a creative way. To do that, you certainly should know something about how your equipment works.
As a youth spending a fortune of both time and money on my photo hobby, I came across a golden rule: 'A photo should never show something - it should be something'. I try to live by that. Modern auto-focus, super-sharp and super-sensitive cameras are very good at showing whatever you point it at, but to make images that are something. That takes a little more.
|
|
|
|
|
You totally conveyed the point in a very detailed way. It's ok to lean on others (libraries) but that's no excuse for knowing nothing about it. To bring it back to development, I can't begin to tell you how many frontend developers know nothing about CSS, color correction and spaces, etc. There's always some UI library to do the grunt work and they barely know how to use that and call themselves devs.
I suppose on one hand that would be ok, but don't call yourself a developer. These days everyone is an "engineer" because they learned how to bold text in a spreadsheet.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Doesn't have to, that is true. If you want to use motion blur as a creative effect
But that goes to intent.
An artist wants to create art.
But to my mind a photog taking real estate pictures should be striving for something different.
And a criminal forensic photog should definitely be striving for something different than artistic depictions.
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree. Don't re-invent the wheel. I reckon my peeve is with those who don't take the time to understand how to make what's in the library and/or comp sci principles. Like, I sure as heck wouldn't want to make OpenGL, but have a basic understanding of how it's made at the very least.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Does art need a user? How personal is a personal project?
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
If a painter paints a painting, does it only become art when it is displayed? I think not.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I agree ... but can the same be said for software if there is no one to use it (other than the author ... who in fact may have no "personal" need / use for it).
(I'm delighted when users find ways to use my software that I didn't consider; e.g. multiple sessions)
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Software might be an example of good artisanship even if it is never executed by anyone other than its writer. Naturally, there is a greater sense of accomplishment when others also find your work useful or beautiful.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
But if beauty is in the eye of the beholder - is it beautiful if no-one can see it? Is code beautiful if it never gets executed?
|
|
|
|
|
Any work of art (or program) has at least one beholder - its creator. I refer you to Genesis chapter 1, verse 31 - "And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Any work of art (or program) has at least one beholder - its creator. I refer you to Genesis chapter 1, verse 31 - "And God saw every
Doesn't that mean that the count is actually two?
|
|
|
|
|
First there was nothing
And then God created light
There was still nothing, but now you could see it. 
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Using that definition however then the words 'art' and 'artist' would no longer have any actual meaning.
After all is not a cake beautiful?
Is not a bridge?
What about a garden full of carefully laid out vegetable rows?
Or a field of corn?
What about a house which has just received a beautifully applied new coat of paint?
On 'This Old House' (TV show) when they replumb one of those old houses and then they display the plumbing in the basement with multiple pipes and cutoff valves to each part of the house that certainly looks beautiful to me.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I think by definition, art does not have function. Some of my programming falls into that category, but not intentionally 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Programming is like a bunch of people whose skills are questionable all painting on the same canvas over several years.
Eventually all you get a brown mud even if van Gogh was one of the first painters.
|
|
|
|
|
first definition in dictionary.com for "artist"
1. a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.
not quite a "fit" programming, but
a programmer's "art" could possibly be considered art in the eyes of other programmers.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty much the first criteria of any project I start, or code I write, is that it has to be aesthetic in its architecture and code. It's a goal and real life often enters in, but it is something I always have at the fore when writing code, API's, tests, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
I hear you.
Usually when I start any project, I pseudo code it for clarity and purpose.
That's my art slant. I don't view as such, but sometimes it is.
Similar to mathematics when one wants to simplify an equation.
There are also exceptions when a quick solution is needed and brevity counts. There is art in that sometimes, as well.
Large projects start in much the same way, but with more thought given to naming conventions, data structures, etc. I had one project where I used a lot of hash tables, n-ary trees, command line parsing, 3D computer graphics pseudo programming language with equations. Threw the kitchen sink of my computer science techniques at it. Got it functionally useful in several months, but a few years to cement it for the users. Not sure where the art lives, but I put my heart into it.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly no these days they are scribes trying not to make too many copying errors
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto,
The short answer to this heavy question, before I finish my first cup of morning coffee, is no.
Software programming is a creative work, but not all creative work is considered art. An engineer who designs a bulldozer isn't thought of as an artist. And few, if any people would look at the product and call it art. It may be called a work of art, or state of the art, but that's not the same use of the word. Likewise, writing is a creative art, but authors aren't called artists either.
Generally, art does not have a function beyond viewing or entertaining. That goes to the "work of art" usage, so a chair can be a work of art in terms of its design, but by itself is not art. Programming might possibly create a work of art, though it's fairly rare and something that is more likely to be said by someone within the industry; which is meant as a comment on creative skill.
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on your definition of “art”.
I like the definitions that say it is an art because it’s a creative process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
