[teeja]

I could argue that art consists of representing the world of human experience. That 'art' is right-brained, non-reasoning, 'intuitive'. There are many ways of representing the world, some of them 'better' at communicating one's intentions than others. E.g. Picasso beats Ricky 3rd-grader, Mozart beats Milli Vanilli.

Now I'd argue that a computer program is a representation of a world. It has logical aspects, yes (just as Norman Rockwell's 'art'.) But it also has aspects of quality, design (definitely non-logical), and, particularly important, how well it stands up to being battered by the input the world throws at it ... how well it represents a world.

Just like scientific theories, or mathematical conjectures, success may depend as much on beauty as on reasoning. Diamonds are judged just as much by cut as they are by weight. See Kuhn. See what happened to Eddington's 'Fundamental Theory'. And please respect Knuth's sense of the 'Art of Computer Programming'. Whether you understand what 'art' means yet or not.