Is it Art? WAS:Re: How to talk like a programmer
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Ping Warren Simmons
Next: Outsourcing across national borders was Re: How to talk like a programmer
From: Pete Dashwood on 26 May 2010 23:24 Bill Gunshannon wrote: <snip> >> >> I do not see the IT business in the USA as being in any sort of >> different condition than any other business in the USA... but >> perhaps my vision is limited, aye. >> > > Sadly. I agree. But that doesn't decrease the cesspool that the IT > indistry is sinking into. And, as a real IT Professional I am more > concerned about my art than others. > A thought-provoking post, Bill. Is IT today an "art" or an "occupation", a "science" or something else entirely? There was a time when IT was a mysterious cult. The practioners were like wizards practising a dark art that the general public regarded with awe and suspicion. (Robert Townsend, in his 1970 classic, "Up the Organization" spoke of IT people as "Magicians" who cavorted in front of the mainframe casting spells and "building a mystique, a Priesthood, their own mumbo-jumbo ritual to keep you from knowing what they - and you - are doing." From what I remember of the time this was pretty accurate.) In 1965 only a very small percentage of the general public had any idea of how a computer worked or what was involved in programming it. Programming was an "art" inasmuch as it sought to optimise things (like space against time) in a way that could not be taught but relied on the intuition and imagination of the programmer. As the technology progressed these constraints were removed (processor speed increased thousands of times and memory space became so vast that the need to save a few bytes here and there disappeared). Standardised approaches and "best practises" were developed. In terms of "art" that would be like painting with numbers. With the advent of "personal" computers in the early 1980s and the subsequent explosion of their use throughout the 1990s and the first decade of this century, to the point where millions of people have a programmable "computer" in their pocket, ability to write software became available to anyone who had an interest in it. Today, millions of people write programs and scripts. A whole generation is growing up with computer technology and taking it for granted the way they do a TV, refrigerator or washing machine. Millions of people also draw, paint, sculpt, and throw pots, but whether the results are "art" or not is something to be argued over a beer. :-) (The bottom line is that "art" is very subjective, hence "I dunno much about art, but I knows what I likes...") Computer Science is taught as an adjunct to many University courses or as a specialised course of study in its own right. Note that they don't call it "Computer Art" (although that is also a specialised area of computer use). So is IT an Art? I believe it was once, but not any more. Today it can be taught and learned like any other branch of Science. So that leaves us with "Professional". Can you make a living entirely from IT knowledge? Possibly, but the field is shrinking. These days, technical knowhow simply isn't enough. You need understanding of the business and the whole picture (a bit like Professor Deming's "Profound Knowledge") to successfully design, build, and implement useful computer systems. So what exactly, in today's terms, is a "real IT Professional"? (are there "imaginary IT Professionals"? :-)) And if the whole industry is "descending into a cesspool", as you claim, how would you go about flushing it? Interested to hear your thoughts. I don't personally have a such a pessimistic view. I believe IT is being subsumed into other fields of endeavour and I don't think it is a bad thing. The pursuit of pure IT research is being left to Acadaemia. (In the old days we used to do our own experiments to find what was good and what was not...) The addition of computer technology has led to major breakthroughs in fields like Medicine (could you imagine cataloging the Human genome with filing cards, or even punched cards or paper tape?), Engineering (simulation of earthquake damage has led to better building design in many countires affected by eartuakes, including NZ), Communications (could we run the worlds networks without computers?), and many other fields of endeavour. (In fact, increasingly, just about EVERY field of endeavour.) Companies are increasingly moving to outsource their IT requirements, or divest themselves of the old IT Development Centre, largely because they don't need it any more. IT for many companies now consists of network maintenance and rollout of new software or packages (NOT written in-house). As understanding and expertise has proliferated away from the hands of the few and into the hands of the many, the "old school" form of IT Professional has become less relevant. Today we have "network specialists", "database specialists", "package specialists", "business specialists", "configuration specialists" who all consider themselves to be "IT Professionals". It isn't confined to Programmers and Analysts any more. (Maybe in companies whose business is software development, but not in general terms for most commercial organisations.) The world has changed and the IT world has gone with that change. Personally, I like it better now than I did 40 years ago. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Alistair Maclean on 27 May 2010 07:04 On May 27, 4:24 am, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > Millions of people also draw, paint, sculpt, and throw pots, but whether the > results are "art" or not is something to be argued over a beer. :-) > > (The bottom line is that "art" is very subjective, hence "I dunno much about > art, but I knows what I likes...") Art is not subjective. Art is Art if I say it is (paraphrasing Raoul Duffy and his "readymades"). > > > I believe it was once, but not any more. Today it can be taught and learned > like any other branch of Science. > I have encountered people who could not be taught (didn't want to/ can't be bothered) IT.
From: Pete Dashwood on 27 May 2010 08:19 Alistair Maclean wrote: > On May 27, 4:24 am, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >> Millions of people also draw, paint, sculpt, and throw pots, but >> whether the results are "art" or not is something to be argued over >> a beer. :-) >> >> (The bottom line is that "art" is very subjective, hence "I dunno >> much about art, but I knows what I likes...") > > Art is not subjective. Art is Art if I say it is (paraphrasing Raoul > Duffy and his "readymades"). :-) Not heard that before... > >> >> >> I believe it was once, but not any more. Today it can be taught and >> learned like any other branch of Science. >> > > I have encountered people who could not be taught (didn't want to/ > can't be bothered) IT. The fact that some people don't want to learn something does not mean the subject cannot be taught. Other people may take to it like ducks to water. I guess I was simply observing that in the early days IT was an art form, in the sense that there were things in it that couldn't be taught (like how to fit programs into the constraints imposed and balance things for the best result), and programming required imagination and creativity. I'm not suggesting for a moment that imagination and creativity aren't useful in today's IT world, but they are not fundamental requirements as they once were. It might be true of ANY technology when it first starts out, before standard practices and techniques are discovered, I don't know. It is also possible that when Bill referred to his "art" he wasn't using it in the same sense that I am. Pete. It may be -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 27 May 2010 08:54 In article <8666vqFdchU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >(The bottom line is that "art" is very subjective, hence "I dunno much about >art, but I knows what I likes...") Apophatically neglecting the title of Donand Knuth's well-known work... art is other than trivial is equally as subjective as mathematics, geometry, astronomy and more. Oh... did I negelect a definition or a qualifier there? No *wonder* folks got so confused! (note to the confused: research 'Quadrivium') [snip] >So is IT an Art? That depends on the definitions used, Mr Dashwood; as demonstrated above it seems to fit rather well with a definition of art that is over three thoursand years old. [snip] >Personally, I like it better now than I did 40 years ago. With programming, as with much Other Stuff: 'Life is Good... and It just keeps Getting Better.' DD
From: Anonymous on 27 May 2010 08:58
In article <640fe7c8-05e1-4964-bf80-dc27b604587a(a)y21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On May 27, 4:24?am, "Pete Dashwood" ><dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >> Millions of people also draw, paint, sculpt, and throw pots, but whether the >> results are "art" or not is something to be argued over a beer. :-) >> >> (The bottom line is that "art" is very subjective, hence "I dunno much about >> art, but I knows what I likes...") > >Art is not subjective. Art is Art if I say it is (paraphrasing Raoul >Duffy and his "readymades"). This is an apparent contradiction, Mr Maclean, and perhaps your logic needs a bit more practise. All can be considered 'subjective' if it is the action of a 'subject'... and last I looked those subordinate the Crown are, by definition, subjects. DD |