Skip navigation

I’m a programmer, though I’m really only an amateur right now.   I’ve written programs in C++, C, and Pascal.   My first language was Pascal, Turbo Pascal specifically.    I love the act of programming, but when I attempt to explain what programming is like, I often find myself at a loss for words.   What does a person do when they code?   My best metaphor has always been that coding is like writing or creating music.   It’s an act of creation…an art.

What does that mean?   Art is often thought of as creation ex nihlo–creating out of whole cloth.   But that’s not true.   A writer uses a known language, with a known grammar.   When she writes, she writes with an eye towards her genre.   She might borrow from the generic conventions or go against them.   But few good writers ignore them.   A musician will tend to pick a certain key and a certain scale.   He doesn’t have to, but the alternative, composing in the chromatic scale (using all possible notes), is often less pleasing and more difficult to compose in.  He will also compose with the conventions of his genre in mind.  He could use, ignore, or even self-consciously twist the conventions in an attempt to make the statement he wants to with his music.   In each case the artist is remixing, for a lack of a better word, the conventions and limitations to express his or her own statement.   They are using a library of pre-built words, expressions, biases and beliefs to achieve their goal.   My question is, understanding all of that, how could you view coding as anything else but art?

When you code, you choose your limitations.  Your language decides what you are capable of expressing.   Coding in C++ is always different, and always causes a different result, from coding in Lisp, or even Assembly.    The language, like a scale, limits your options and, by doing so, enables the coder to accomplish certain things more easily.   It is interesting to consider that when you finally start to program, you will usually be programming for an application which has been implemented before.   Yet, your code, and your final product, will inevitably be different from them.   Or, to put it another way, it isn’t just a coincidence that programmers will write the same program or even the same functions in different ways, even if they use the same language.   When I code a program, I’m expressing my own personal beliefs and biases about how that program should work.  It might be better or worse than someone else’s implementation.   That doesn’t matter because unless I am attempting to mimic someone else’s coding style, I will always code how I believe a thing should be coded.   A more “zen like” way to think of the problem is this.  I can only code as I would code, or code as I think others would code.    I can never code as a different person codes because doing so would require me to be that person.

Thus coding is not only a form of art, but a form of personal expression.

I know that seems funny.  But even in the most staid task, the coder cannot escape the fact that HE is always coding and that the code will either reflect his beliefs or what he believes his boss’ beliefs are about the best way to implement the program.   In each case, (excluding the case where the programmer is essentially copying someone else’s code) the programmer is the filter through which the code is passed and the programmer is the “designer” or “creator” of the code.



  1. From what you described, I would rather say programming is something that reflects your personality, rather than a form of art.
    I don’t disagree with programming being a form of art, not at all, I’m just saying it’s not a form of art at any level.
    In any era, the representation of art has been limited by the tools used to create art. In our era, technology has allowed the existence of many forms of art, and on all it’s forms art has been abstracted to a level never seen before. So, how does somebody recognizes a form of art in our days? We can’t say IDM music is pleasant like Bach’s music was, or that a fractal painting looks as good as a Michelangelo, the only thing we can say is that it involved a creative and a cognitive process.
    So, writing a simple program or even a more complex program but which implements well known algorithms, doesn’t imply it being a form of art.
    But when you play around with the application or look through the source code and suddenly ask yourself “whoa, how did he do that?”, we may consider it a form of art because it resulted from a cognitive process and it involved the programmers creativity

  2. You’re right of course. Not all programming is art, just as not all drawings are art.

    You asked how we can recognize art, when it’s been abstracted so much. I think we ought to be able to recognize art better BECAUSE it’s been abstracted. Abstracting art is really equivalent, to me, to discovering the boundaries of what the art is. Testing the limits, if you will. But there’s always the problem of how do you define art as a general idea…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: