[zaaakk]

This article is trash. His conception of what a painter is is just lifted from mysogynistic pop-culture stereotypes, and his argument essentially rests on his inability to compare the two arts on an abstract level (e.g thinking he's refuted graham just by pointing out that painting is done with materials and programming is done on a machine.)

[TheOtherHobbes]

The article isn't trash. The author knows damn well what painters do and don't do. The "misogyny" is satire aimed at people who don't.

He also specifically calls out Graham for making statements about art history and practice that are factually wrong.

Graham's article isn't just uninformed, it's an example of Developer Exceptionalism - the mistaken belief that knowing how to code qualifies some developers as expert opinionators and practitioners in domains where they've barely reached amateur/dilettante levels of competence.

Art, music, architecture, physics, maths, law, and the rest, all require years of professional dues and effort to reach knowledge and competence - just as coding does.

It's fine having an opinion about them. It's hubris to believe that knowing how to code makes that opinion any more valuable than the opinion of any other untrained non-professional.

[zaaakk]

OK, I actually do agree with the art history errors he points out–Graham's comment that "The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed," for example, is completely ridiculous. And I also totally agree that Developer Exceptionalism is a very irritating thing that Graham is guilty of.

I just don't agree that painting and programming are completely different, and I don't find any of the author's arguments very compelling. I've spent many hours both painting and programming (working towards a BFA in painting and a BA in CS)–the mental states that happen during the creative process, the types of thinking strategies employed, and the problem-solving techniques are actually very similar. They're just abstractly similar–which is why it doesn't really matter that painting takes place through materials and programming doesn't, or that you could substitute painting for any creative discipline that involves dealing with constraints. His arguments are bad, and I hope nobody walks away from that post agreeing that "hackers are nothing like painters."

[ktRolster]

"The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed," for example, is completely ridiculous

Somewhat offtopic, but we can talk about it anyway, since we are talking about art. (and let's extend the range beyond 1500 a little).

It is true, for example, that Raphael's colors, while beautiful, are surpassed by the incredible range we have today. And certainly, photoshop and modern art gives artists more options in composition, conception, and execution than ever before. However, in terms of raw skill, I don't think anyone surpasses Michaelangelo. Certainly not anyone today (although Rodin and Monet come close).