If programming is an art, where are all the masterpieces?

A not-so-optimistic take on our so-called craft

There’s a considerable debate about whether software engineering is engineering. I tend to say “yes,” but many say it’s more of an art. But if it’s an art, where are the sublime works that capture the spirit of the times? Where are the pieces worthy of preserving in The Louvre? Why aren’t the artists who created them household names, like Leonardo da Vinci or William Shakespeare?

I know that art has different meanings. When they say it’s an art, maybe they mean it’s a technical craft. Even still, skilled craftspeople make stunning works worthy of reverence for generations. A bricklayer’s work can last hundreds of years. And there’s something admirable in a lovely brick wall. But what program from 50 years ago would you read, enjoy, and learn from today?

Donald Knuth’s Turing Award lecture “Computer Programming as Art” addresses this directly. In it, he writes, “My feeling is that when we prepare a program, it can be like composing poetry or music.” I agree! Ironically, reading the TeX source code (written by Knuth) is nothing like reading poetry or listening to music. Can something be an art if only the artist can appreciate it?

One problem that “code artists” face is that computers continue to get faster, and their RAM gets bigger. Fifty years ago, you had to optimize much more, and that optimization often made your code less aesthetic. Perhaps it is unfair to judge the artistic work. What’s the most appropriate metaphor? Is it like looking at cave paintings with their primitive tools? We can see the art if we try. Or is the art not in the source code? Perhaps it is like judging the messy smock of a painter when we should focus on the canvas. But again, if it’s an aesthetic art, are we creating new languages and tools that help us reach ever more sublime heights of aesthetic expression?

Perhaps Knuth hinted at an answer: “It is especially nice when the things we regard as beautiful are also regarded by other people as useful.” So perhaps only we, the creator, need to see the beauty, while the usefulness is for others to appreciate. For example, I’m sure bridge architects must solve all sorts of fun problems with aesthetic beauty, but that beauty is not visible to a layman looking at the bridge. Likewise, users of our app might appreciate how easy it is to use, and we, the programmers, might relish the beautiful algorithms we had to develop to make it possible.

Still, where are the masterpieces? Where are the museums? Where are the artists? I know this is a super negative take. I don’t think I believe it. I’m just trying to work out how the practice of programming, which I love, relates to art. I’m legitimately looking for perspectives here. If you have an idea, please hit reply.