If Programming Is An Art Have We All Sold Out

A few years ago (around 1998), I had a discussion with a friend (PipTigger?) about how programming could be construed as an art. (We both already agreed with each other on the premise of ProgrammingAsArt.) Computing was (and still is) a beautiful thing to both of us. These machines that we work with almost every day have amazing potential, and to release this potential, a great deal of creativity and skill is required. This required an artist's mindset, we thought. Furthermore, we felt obligated as programmers to take these machines as far as we could take them, because no one else would.

We were still beginners back then, and we still have a long way to go even now. Still, we believed that every little bit helped. We felt blessed to be in a field where we could be paid to do something we loved and also do something that could even help make the world a little (or a lot?) nicer to live in.

I then went on to lament the plight of other artists who have a much harder time (relatively speaking) making a living with their art. Musicians, Painters, Actors and Sculptors - their professions are not practical. Only the so-called best can be paid to do what they love, and the rest? - Well, they have to work McJobs to make ends meet, and they can only work part-time on their true love instead of full-time.

That is so tragic, I said, At least programmers don't have to sell out.

I don't know, said my friend, Maybe we __have__ sold out.

I had to stop and think about that. This possibility had never even occurred to me. IfProgrammingIsAnArtHaveWeAllSoldOut? The whole idea made me uncomfortable, and I thought about it for a long time.

Why don't you think about it, too? For instance, what the hell are you programming at work right now? Is it something that can make the world a little bit better or is it yet another futile project that only exists, because someone is trying to make a quick buck out of a few unsuspecting victims. And you cooperate with this asshole? You're wasting you're time.

Maybe... if you had no choice... I could understand. LifeIsHard?, and sometimes we have to do things we don't like to do in order to survive, and I can sympathize with that. But doesn't it suck?

-- JohnBeppu

2003-08-11: Slight reformatting of the text above. 2001-08-10: More ranting; some cleanup; 2001-07-24: First draft

So, if Van Gogh did interior decoration on the side to support his art, then that is bad? How so? We all 'sell out' or die. That's life :).

There is working commercially, and then there is letting your art be subverted by commercial popular causes. Interior decoration for money isn't selling out if interior decoration isn't your main stream of money. Giving Mona Lisa green hair because you are paid to when your vision says she shouldn't have green hair is selling out.

I reckon Leonardo would have said 'green hair, what a marvelous idea Excellency', then used the dosh to build some more clockwork toys. Work is work. It only becomes art by accident. Art done for yourself is always art for at least one person. If others agree and want to slap a big old Pepsi sign on the side of it, its okay, it belongs to you. Hold out for a million bucks :).

Work is work - that's not what artists will say if you ask them, though exactly how far you can go without selling out is an issue of considerable contention among them (my sister's magazine has an article on this). Many say you should compose for yourself, and if someone else likes it enough to pay for it, consider that a bonus. Others say it is ok to do work for someone else, so long as you are true to your own vision. But I think most of them would agree that the above would have significantly diminished Leo as an artist. -- JoshuaGrosse

I think this point explains the appeal (for many who think of programming as art) of the open source Way Of Doing Things--it's not so much that it's even available, free, open, etc. but that you do it in your spare time without constraints of practicality, customer demands, etc. -- LairdNelson

You have to have something to sell out first. Most programmers are not artists and very few are even professionals. There is very little selling out happening.

Well, maybe we should try to become artists and professionals.

It is perhaps fruitful to consider the relationship between "real" (visual) artists and commercial "graphic artists". I think most programmers relation to art is similar to the latter group.

Everything sells for a price. The market price. Especially considering that programming artifacts unlike art work loses its value at an accelerated pace. Of course, Van Gogh might have wanted to sell his works for the price of today, but the market conditions were just not favourable to him at the time. So in the best case the hypothesis that we all sold out is a pathetic whining.

If you want to influence the market rate of programming you can start a Programmers' Guild Association, but don't count on everyone to join :) -- CostinCozianu

Not everything runs according to kindergarten economic theory. In fact very little actually does.

SoftwareDevelopmentAsCraft: Software development is a craft. You're supposed to sell crafts. -- JeffGrigg

First up, Van Gogh never did interior decoration :) From the moment he discovered his interest in painting, his brother Theo supported him. He was depressed thru out his artistic life because of his struggle to improve his technique and his search for originality and general discouragement from contemporary artists who did realistic paintings. He did sell one painting towards the end of his life and also received a favourable review in a good art magazine. His mental illness and general depression (he felt he had nothing more to paint) made him take his own life. Please read "The Lust for Life" by Irving Stone for a moving account of his life. Van Gogh was definitely prolific. Personally, I consider software a creation - a work of art. If only I can be 0.001% Van Gogh of programming I would be pleased. Of course, minus the bullet into my chest :)

Feh. The StarvingArtist? myth (much like the AmateurAthlete? myth) - which holds that art done for the sake of commerce (or professional athletics) is somehow defiled--is a bunch of BS in my opinion. Most who advocate such are either:

Already wealthy artists (or athletes), and have no need for their art to provide them a living (in sport(s), "amateurism" was long used as a way of keeping sport an upper-class diversion) - and thus use the economic issue to provide separation between themselves and their peers (who must peddle their artwork to make a living).
Funded through various forms of patronage; the comments on the previous section apply here as well;
Opposed to commerce in general;
A consumer of art, and seeking to either a) drive down the price; or b) justify use of tax dollars (including those collected from non-patrons-of-the-arts) to fund the arts (again, driving down the price).

In the words of Trey Parker (of South Park fame) - "Our entire goal was to get to Hollywood and sell out as quickly as possible." . . . I don't know about the rest of you, but I got into programming because I thought it was interesting and I knew I could make it a career. It's like saying Burroughs was a sell-out for doing a Nike ad. . . Burroughs never pretended to be an idealistic visionary - that's just what others tried to label him as. My only regret is not selling out for more.

While I tend to agree with the SoftwareIsArt view vis-a-vis the need for creativity in the profession, one critical difference is that most software is art visible only to the practitioners - all the customer sees is the UI. It is as if painters all came to see the brushstrokes on the canvas while the plumbers/plutocrats/etc came to see the image. --PeteHardie

CategoryRant