Rand Response, “Computers, Pencils, and Brushes”
I don’t agree with Rand’s response (that of which opposes Graham’s) that the computer is a tool and cannot be used to create true art (or that it forms a barrier) between the artist and what the artist wants to achieve. I believe that the computer is nothing more than a very advanced pencil or brush. Rand is correct in that with the advent of the computer, it is “easier” to create ideas, concepts, blueprints, design, but it is nothing more than that. Behind the computer still requires someone who has the experience to create beautiful work (art) that others will appreciate. The computer is a way to push art forward, into new boundaries, connecting the physical and digital worlds. I don’t think art is so strictly defined as Rand believes it to be.
Response to Graham’s “Hackers and Painters”
I found Paul Graham’s article and interesting read. He believes that hackers are similar to painters and considers hackers to be “makers” rather than pure scientists. He does not believe the terms “computer science” is the appropriate term, rather he considers hackers to be somewhat between an architect and an engineer. He writes that the end goal for all art (creative art in general) is to “make things for a human audience” furthermore, “to engage [that] audience.” Graham writes that “nearly all the greatest paintings are paintings of people, for example, because people are what people are interested in.” I both agree and disagree with his statements. I believe that although “hacking or creating software” mainly uses the computer as a medium for the creation and design, a lot of the software created has a deeply rooted mathematical and scientific basis behind it. I don’t believe painters and artists approach the creation of their art similar to those doing software engineering. That is not to say that software engineering cannot be interpreted as an art form but I don’t believe it is correct to consider engineers not as scientists.