Adam L. Beberg
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:16:27 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Elias Sinderson wrote:
> The simplicity of your analysis leaves me almost speechless... typeless?
> At any rate, I argue that tools can be art, provided that there is more
> than just function to them.
> For instance, a crude hammer can be made by lashing a rock to a stick -
> a tool yes? But when the person making that tool takes the time to carve
> nice little patterns into the handle, or inset little pretty pieces of
> other rocks, it becomes more than just a tool - it becomes art.
Yes, the patterns and little rocks are art, I agree completely, but the
"hammer" is still just a tool - a tool with art on it. As a whole it is then
a piece of art, on top of a hammer, which is a tool.
> The same argument could be said of code: The simple PERL hack may just
> be a tool, but when the author labors over the tool to increase it's
> aesthetic appeal it becomes more art.
Yes, PERL code app formatted to be a dolphin is art, but the FORMATTING is
the art, not the code, the code is still jsut a tool.
> any artistic movement.)
> There is a simple elegance to a well built tool
elegance != art, elegance = good engineering.
> P.S. - You've been meeting the *wrong* kind of women.
> > Tools are good, you just cant impress women with them, for that you need
> > art - thus code is definately not art and geeks aren't artists :)
Well I am living in California. Midwestern women are another species
- Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg