this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2026
32 points (83.3% liked)
Programming
28384 readers
309 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I honestly think trying to define programming as art is just an attempt to unnecessarily elevate it. Programming is utilitarian. It is meant for a specific practical purpose. It does not reveal a shared human experience the way a movie, book, or game does. I have no need to convince myself, a professional software engineer of this because I am perfectly happy accepting that what I do is useful and do not need to try to put myself in a category with artists.
All the author is saying is that people enjoy programming. I also enjoy eating. Is that an art? I even have my own "eating style" in that I like to eat food in specific order, combine two items into one bite, the way I build a bite, etc. But I'd never try to elevate it because I'm a normal person who doesn't waste brainpower trying to make myself feel special.
I won’t begrudge anyone their definition of art, because it’s an extremely slippery concept.
But I do think it’s worth pointing out that there are clearly at least two rather different notions of art: one as a product with value that rich people like to buy and trade, and one as a behavior that all human beings perform. I don’t think the latter category has any inherent “elevation” to it, the way the former does.
And also that having a utilitarian specific practical purpose doesn’t automatically prohibit it from being art, in most popular conceptions of the term. Some of the earliest artifacts that are widely considered art were primarily utilitarian: cups, bowls, and other tools.
Also, a good excuse to share this excellent piece: Tomatoes, or How Not To Define “Art”
Some people's code is art (just not mine or yours I guess)