The thing about that is that the definition of art is not absolute.
Sure, there’s something about art in the dictionary, but even then there are several definitions for it. Let’s look at one of Merriam-Webster’s definitions:
“The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects”
According to this, programming is, in fact, an art. It’s the use of skill and creative imagination — “especially in the production of aesthetic objects” means that it’s not exclusively in the production of such objects.
So, that said, I think that programming is an art :)
If you're going to cite the dictionary - not that I would at all trust M-W or really an American English dictionary (but never mind that) - then you have to also consider that that's not the only definition of art. First what you're getting at:
1 [mass noun] the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power: the art of the Renaissance | great art is concerned with moral imperfections | she studied art in Paris.
• works produced by human creative skill and imagination: his collection of modern art | [as modifier] : an art critic.
• creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture: she's good at art.
But more importantly:
4 a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice: the art of conversation.
Programming therefore most certainly is art. If you want to talk about aesthetics though art certainly is subjective. When I think of programming being an art I think of the latter definition because that's what naturally comes to mind.
I would go as far to say that programming satisfies the "aesthetic object" clause as well. I love looking through some really well crafted code and admiring how good it looks.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
The thing about that is that the definition of art is not absolute.
Sure, there’s something about art in the dictionary, but even then there are several definitions for it. Let’s look at one of Merriam-Webster’s definitions:
According to this, programming is, in fact, an art. It’s the use of skill and creative imagination — “especially in the production of aesthetic objects” means that it’s not exclusively in the production of such objects.
So, that said, I think that programming is an art :)
If you're going to cite the dictionary - not that I would at all trust M-W or really an American English dictionary (but never mind that) - then you have to also consider that that's not the only definition of art. First what you're getting at:
1 [mass noun] the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power: the art of the Renaissance | great art is concerned with moral imperfections | she studied art in Paris.
• works produced by human creative skill and imagination: his collection of modern art | [as modifier] : an art critic.
• creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture: she's good at art.
But more importantly:
4 a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice: the art of conversation.
Programming therefore most certainly is art. If you want to talk about aesthetics though art certainly is subjective. When I think of programming being an art I think of the latter definition because that's what naturally comes to mind.
I would go as far to say that programming satisfies the "aesthetic object" clause as well. I love looking through some really well crafted code and admiring how good it looks.