[engeljohnb]

>I see art as a measure of quality.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean to say the worth of an artwork for you is tied to how well it executes technque? "Art" is a word so nebulous that it's hard to pin down a definition, but I think the millions of people that prefer a punk rock song over an academic figure drawing study would disagree with this.

>And furthermore, I see both disciplines as fields which humans engage in to solve specific identified problems

Well, I'm both an artist and a programmer, and I can tell you I engage in neither to solve problems. I do both because the process of doing them is enjoyable. If they stop being fun, I'll stop doing them, and there wouldn't be any lingering problem in my life to go unsolved.

If you say you picked up art faster than programming I'll believe you, because I only meant it as a general observation.

Art is like playing Dark Souls -- maybe you beat the hardest boss once, but that doesn't mean you won't die ten more times before beating them again.

Programming is like Zelda. Once you know the solutions to the puzzles, you're basically going through the motions.

This isn't me guessing based on philosophy -- this is my lived experience as both an artist and a programmer.

[spankibalt]

> "I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean to say the worth of an artwork for you is tied to how well it executes technque?"

Art, to me, is a marker of excellence in the already mentioned confines. Technique is just a part of it.

> "Art" is a word so nebulous that it's hard to pin down a definition, [...]"

On that we agree; hence me informing you about mine, otherwise we just run circles around each other.

> "[...] but I think the millions of people that prefer a punk rock song over an academic figure drawing study would disagree with this."

As you probably can deduce by now, I see both examples as having the potential of being art. The rest of your rather labored example is an appeal to preference based on form or expression; such a thing is neither static (e. g. it change change with one's moods, a. s. o.) nor does it have to be a false dichotomy (i. e. I can enjoy both manifestations, even at the same time, and, more importantly, recognize both as artful). But this is also all very basic stuff and in itself tedious, and, especially for the reason you stated, also often useless to engage in online.

> Art is like playing Dark Souls -- maybe you beat the hardest boss once, but that doesn't mean you won't die tent more times before beating them again. Programming is like Zelda. Once you know the solutions to the puzzles, you're basically going through the motions.

Such comparisons, as relatable as they might sound to someone who is familiar with these titles, are often useless as well (I am aware of these games and their game mechanics, but have never played them nor care to do so).

Furthermore, for the reason outlined in the posts you responded to, they're a misfire anyway as art, to me, is first and foremost about the result, and not the way towards the result (as long as certain conditions have been met) as well as life itself being much more complicated... with significant implications for the process of making art and the development of an artist in one or more disciplines.

[engeljohnb]

> As you probably can deduce by now, I see both examples as having the potential of being art

I suppose it was a mistake to get distracted by trying to find out what exactly you're trying to say -- it's now completely clear that it has nothing to do with whether art or programming takes longer to gain proficiency.

>labored [...] tedious

Saying my points are long-winded or redundant also doesn't support your point. You're doing a lot of philosophizing about what art is or whether my points are "useless," but you still haven't reasoned about why it's not true that art takes longer to learn than programming. Which is rich since you've spent more words on this matter than me.

>Such comparisons, as relatable as they might sound to someone who is familiar with these titles, are often useless as well (I am aware of these games and their game mechanics, but have never played them nor care to do so).

So, you haven't played the games, therefore you have no insight into the analogy, so you're not really in a position to say whether the comparison is useless.

You've also used the word "useless" a handful of times here, all without any follow-up as to why exactly. What "use" are you referring to here?

In the context of a programmer wanting to know how learning to draw compares to learning to program (something I've only been asked once, but even once is enough to prove it's useful), to say "expect drawing proficiency to take longer, because it requires more repetition" is useful.

Once again, this isn't deduction or hypothesis. It's my own experience with both crafts.