Some people say that writing is art. That may be true for the likes of Poe or Bradbury. My problem with calling it art by default is that it puts it on a pedestal. For me, writing is like carpentry. It's a skill that must be honed every day. Something that takes time and effort, sure enough, but is entirely within reach of anyone.
So give it a try.
Michelangelo didn't sculpt David the minute he decided to pick up a chisel. Beethoven had obviously been established in the music biz for a while before he was commissioned for his 1st Symphony, let alone his 9th. Or more relevant to the discussion, Victor Hugo didn't just immediately set to writing Notre Dame de Paris, let alone Les Miserables.
Writing is very much an art. Like any other form, it requires a great deal of practice and passion to master. Those who have mastered it absolutely deserve to have their works placed on a pedestal.
Even when writing an instructional blog post, those who excel find a way to keep the reader's attention. That may be achieved through humor. It's worth noting that nobody has managed to make me giggle like a schoolgirl quite like two of my favorite literary artists: Voltaire and Hunter S. Thompson. It may come from evoking strong emotions from the reader - I've yet to find someone as capable of tugging at the heartstrings like the aforementioned Hugo.
Why am I citing such examples? Because you can choose to settle for mediocrity, or you can aspire to create something great - and the great works if others can be a fantastic guide. What you write doesn't have to be The Brothers Karamozov, and that isn't the point. The point is that mediocrity is easy; something worthwhile (even as a blogger or a beat writer) takes practice, aspiration, and dedication.
I'm not sure what part of what I've written could be construed as advising that we settle for mediocrity. I don't believe that at all. I'm all for continual improvement. If you work every day on something, there is no way of not improving.
That being said, I think there is a difference between literature and technical writing. The former allows, and even calls for, a measure of poetry and evocativeness that would get in the latter's way. In technical writing, we want to produce a chair, a reliable chair people can lean on and support them when they go about their work.
I'm not qualified to tell if writing is an art or not, who am I to say? But, in my experience, calling it art tends to dissuade people from trying it (it did for me, at least for a long time). And it's a shame, because writing is thinking, and we should practice thinking as much as possible.
A chair can still be beautiful, even (and I'd argue especially) when form follows function. And sure, anybody can attempt to saw, lathe, and finish some wood into a chair, but you're going to need practice to make a good one - and nothing inspires practice (and innovation) like the desire to create something beautiful.
As for technical writing, you may not have the poetic license that I have writing songs, but there is still a need for some ingenuity to avoid being overly dry and to ensure conceptual understanding.
I could go on for hours about how our educational obsession with STEM outcomes (even in so-called STEAM programs) is killing the mixture of art and science (or if you prefer, craft) which is required to truly inspire rather than dissuade, but I hope this will suffice (otherwise, you're in trouble, because my verbosity is on par with Hugo's and Dostoevsky's, even if I haven't achieved the same poetic flourish in my prose).
A chair can still be beautiful, even (and I'd argue especially) when form follows function. And sure, anybody can attempt to saw, lathe, and finish some wood into a chair, but you're going to need practice to make a good one - and nothing inspires practice (and innovation) like the desire to create something beautiful.
That's what I'm saying. Don't worry about art, just write and keep writing. The rest comes on its own time.
I could go on for hours about how our educational obsession with STEM outcomes (even in so-called STEAM programs) is killing the mixture of art and science (or if you prefer, craft) which is required to truly inspire rather than dissuade, but I hope this will suffice (otherwise, you're in trouble, because my verbosity is on par with Hugo's and Dostoevsky's, even if I haven't achieved the same poetic flourish in my prose).
I really couldn't comment on that since I'm not familiar with the American education system.
I guess what I'm saying is this: Art is fuel for the soul. It shouldn't be thought of as a bad word, or something discouraging.
Done right, it gives us a vision of life as it can and ought to be (or conversely, rails in righteous indignation at life as it shouldn't and can't sustainably be). It takes abstract values and represents them in a recognizable, concrete form. We need it to envision a path forward. When we behold art which "speaks to us," the internal response is a life-affirming "yes."
That need can be seen across Dev in all the "What are you listening to while you code?" posts.
An example for the community at large: A common compliment to someone who writes software which is elegant, eloquent, and easy to read is "___'s code is poetry."
I think it's more discouraging to diminish writing as something more utilitarian than the art form it truly is.
You have strong opinions on the subject, and I respect that. It sounds to me that you would enjoy writing a post about this topic, I would definitely love to read it.
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.
Michelangelo didn't sculpt David the minute he decided to pick up a chisel. Beethoven had obviously been established in the music biz for a while before he was commissioned for his 1st Symphony, let alone his 9th. Or more relevant to the discussion, Victor Hugo didn't just immediately set to writing Notre Dame de Paris, let alone Les Miserables.
Writing is very much an art. Like any other form, it requires a great deal of practice and passion to master. Those who have mastered it absolutely deserve to have their works placed on a pedestal.
Even when writing an instructional blog post, those who excel find a way to keep the reader's attention. That may be achieved through humor. It's worth noting that nobody has managed to make me giggle like a schoolgirl quite like two of my favorite literary artists: Voltaire and Hunter S. Thompson. It may come from evoking strong emotions from the reader - I've yet to find someone as capable of tugging at the heartstrings like the aforementioned Hugo.
Why am I citing such examples? Because you can choose to settle for mediocrity, or you can aspire to create something great - and the great works if others can be a fantastic guide. What you write doesn't have to be The Brothers Karamozov, and that isn't the point. The point is that mediocrity is easy; something worthwhile (even as a blogger or a beat writer) takes practice, aspiration, and dedication.
Hi Mike.
I'm not sure what part of what I've written could be construed as advising that we settle for mediocrity. I don't believe that at all. I'm all for continual improvement. If you work every day on something, there is no way of not improving.
That being said, I think there is a difference between literature and technical writing. The former allows, and even calls for, a measure of poetry and evocativeness that would get in the latter's way. In technical writing, we want to produce a chair, a reliable chair people can lean on and support them when they go about their work.
I'm not qualified to tell if writing is an art or not, who am I to say? But, in my experience, calling it art tends to dissuade people from trying it (it did for me, at least for a long time). And it's a shame, because writing is thinking, and we should practice thinking as much as possible.
A chair can still be beautiful, even (and I'd argue especially) when form follows function. And sure, anybody can attempt to saw, lathe, and finish some wood into a chair, but you're going to need practice to make a good one - and nothing inspires practice (and innovation) like the desire to create something beautiful.
As for technical writing, you may not have the poetic license that I have writing songs, but there is still a need for some ingenuity to avoid being overly dry and to ensure conceptual understanding.
I could go on for hours about how our educational obsession with STEM outcomes (even in so-called STEAM programs) is killing the mixture of art and science (or if you prefer, craft) which is required to truly inspire rather than dissuade, but I hope this will suffice (otherwise, you're in trouble, because my verbosity is on par with Hugo's and Dostoevsky's, even if I haven't achieved the same poetic flourish in my prose).
That's what I'm saying. Don't worry about art, just write and keep writing. The rest comes on its own time.
I really couldn't comment on that since I'm not familiar with the American education system.
I guess what I'm saying is this: Art is fuel for the soul. It shouldn't be thought of as a bad word, or something discouraging.
Done right, it gives us a vision of life as it can and ought to be (or conversely, rails in righteous indignation at life as it shouldn't and can't sustainably be). It takes abstract values and represents them in a recognizable, concrete form. We need it to envision a path forward. When we behold art which "speaks to us," the internal response is a life-affirming "yes."
That need can be seen across Dev in all the "What are you listening to while you code?" posts.
An example for the community at large: A common compliment to someone who writes software which is elegant, eloquent, and easy to read is "___'s code is poetry."
I think it's more discouraging to diminish writing as something more utilitarian than the art form it truly is.
You have strong opinions on the subject, and I respect that. It sounds to me that you would enjoy writing a post about this topic, I would definitely love to read it.