Nico Carver:
... I do believe that the act of programming can be the same thing as "doing art" if it is the intention of the artist to create art by writing a computer program. I don't really buy your separation of the program (the instructions) from the output (the sounds). This would be like saying conceptual artists don't create art, but rather art is simply a by-product of the instructions they wrote down. For me, it doesn't make sense; they are all inextricably linked together.
I think I may have misunderstood you. Let me recast your sentence by swapping terms and seeing if the logic holds:
"I do believe that the act of creating art can be the same thing as "programming" if it is the intention of the programmer to write a program by doing art. "
Where did I go wrong? Conceptual Art (shades of Marcel's urinals) is an interesting case. I actually don't believe it applies here because of our different definitions of 'art'...so I'm going to drop this point...suffice it to say that I agree with you that in this case they are linked together.
Nico Carver:
I would define art as 'creative expression.' You may then wonder why all creative acts are not art. Well, I think people are creating things all the time, but unless they made choices to express something (an idea, an emotion, a new way of making art, etc.) then it is not art. So in a nutshell, I think my definition relies on the intention and process of the artist more, and your definition relies on the observer's experience. My issue with tying the observer's experience in with the definition of what is and isn't art is that it makes the definition very hard to pin down and very subjective. My definition doesn't stop the observer from having an opinion on the art or having a unique experience with it. Whenever I try to follow your side of the argument to what I would consider its logical conclusion, I don't see the word 'artist' as being useful anymore. Instead it would seem people just make things, and then observers decide if what they made is or isn't art.
I don't define art in quite this way, and I do not value the observer in the way you think I do. Read on. I think we can agree that whatever art is, there's got to be an intentioned (and human?) creative component
in its creation. But art isn't just in its creation, otherwise it is only for the creator. Art is also in its (I hate this word) appreciation, and that means observer...And observer means the artist
and John Q Public. I am not resorting to subjectivism, but I do find it funny that artists tend to cast themselves in a different light from those who "appreciate" the art...but I digress... I am not resorting to subjectivism. Subjectivism is binary. It is me vs. the art. Art is so much more.
To me, art is a way of knowing; when done properly--a pragmatic understanding of experience. It is local, personal, unique (context sensitive). It is sensory, as well as (depending on your view) intellectual and emotional. It is more of a verb than a noun. The experience of art is, as I said earlier, about relationship. This relationship does not exclude or dismiss the artist. In fact, it embraces the artist completely. The artist is, in fact, the "first observer" in this mediated context.
As far as the word 'artist' goes, it is clearly still useful. But consider this. Who deserves the title 'artist'? Is it enough to say an artist is someone who creates with intention? Is a person who perfunctorily knocks out 100 cheap paintings a day, intentionally, but without caring or involvement, an artist? I don't think so. Real artists, to me, are exceedingly rare. They are the ones who manifest themselves in every work of art. They observe and are in relationship with their creations. And they give me the opportunity to know.
Now I'm setting up for deep sky for the rest of the night. A bit slow going with all the snow we got here in Boston, but nice to be out imaging again regardless.