HTML: Is it Art?

joeljones writes "The New York Times (registration, yeah, yeah, yeah) has an interesting story about two artists who use HTML, Javascript, and other web technologies as their medium. Could be an interesting set of test cases for anyone writing a browser." While we're on the subject of artsy sites, I submit Zombo.com for your perusal. I believe it to be the only web site that claims the infinite is possible.

computer code as art..

[Unominous Coward]

I guess anything, including code can be artistic if it blends something technical with an art in a subtle way.

That's the whole idea behind poetry, at least. And computer code can be poetic [perlmonks.org].

Art/medium?

[six809]

Well canvas isn't considered 'art', nor is paint. HTML is just the tool used by the artists. What they come up with can easily be considered art. Examples [bbc.co.uk].

Re:oh my

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there are people living outside the US. Actually, the majority of people living on this planet do not live there.

gimmie a break

[automag_6]

Sure, I'll say it's art, in the same way I'll nod my head and agree when someone tries to convince me that it's a programming language. In my experience, if a person doesn't understand why HTML isn't a programming language, it's not worth my while to explain it, I'll just play along and know the truth. I recon if people start saying it's art, I'll adopt the same aproach. I'm sure there are people who'll flame me for this, but that's thier 2 cents, this, on the other hand, is mine. Mod me as a troll if you like, I just can't sell HTML as a programming language or art.

HTML: Is it Art?

[zonix]

No. Is a pen or a pencil art? No.

HTML is a Hypertext Markup Language. :-)

z

Re:HTML: Is it Art?

[mirko]

You could also consider consider the Magritte approach, by putting a page like :
<H1>this is not ART</H1>

I personally like the pragmatic logic approach :
art is always composed of both an ethical and an esthetical aspect.
Should one be missing, the result would not be art.
Exemples :

• Constructivism : 100% esthetic, 0% ethics
  
• Abstract art : 0% esthetic (Have you seen Joseph Beuys piles of fat, in the Stuttgart modern art museum ?) 100% ethics.
  

art = comms | got links?

[jago25_98]

to me art = communication,

just often experimental and two-way in what's usually seen one-way; i.e. painting. (because the viewer acts, sometime with WTF?! which is perfectly fine, artist may not care what message is seen as anyway)

got any impressive links for me?

ARRGH! Wrong Link!

[Michael's a Jerk!]

Sorry, I meant This Site [webpagesthatsuck.com] instead. The first link contains alot of crap.

'Webpages that suck' Shows that webpages CAN be art - bad art.

Re:oh my

[Radiantal]

I waited 5 minutes to see t-shirts with Zombo.com logos and sh*t? Oh I need a life.... or rather someone else does too...

HTML is just a medium

[jolyonr]

Just in the same way that you can take a piece of paper and paint a masterpiece onto it, or you can print a pizza leaflet onto it. The existence of pizza leaflets doesn't mean that paper can never be used for art. Jolyon

I don't get it

[pubjames]

Is this a joke? I just get some flashing blobs and nothing happens. Am I missing something?

Re:gimmie a break

[Max Romantschuk]

In my experience, if a person doesn't understand why HTML isn't a programming language, it's not worth my while to explain it, I'll just play along and know the truth.

Programming languages are instructions to be interpreted by a compiler of some sort, eventually resulting into machine code which can be executed.

HTML surely isn't a Turing complete programming language, but I would say one does program HTML in a sense. Not that I consider HTML a programming language as I do the around ten procedural and object oriented languages I know, but surely HTML is interpreted and indirectly turned into machine code just as Pyhton, Perl, Java, C, Assembler? Not that the result is a stand-program, but the result is your browser generating the machine code to display the page. Much like what a Java virtual machine does with an applet...

I guess it's like the term hacker. I don't see cracking as being equal to hacking, but I do recognize the fact that for many people that distinction simply doesn't exist. Why be so absolute?

Re:Art/medium?

[khakipuce]

It's strange that the "is it art" question really only ever comes up with visual arts. If someone gets up on stage and plays music from Stockhausen to Madonna, Bach to Kylie, no one asks "is it music", we might comment on it being good or bad, but no quesitons what it is.

One of the few distinguishing fetures of Visual arts is that they have no utility. Anything that has utility is craft, not art.

So if this has no utility and is put up by it's creators as art then yes, it is art. BUT the real question is IS IT GOOD ART?

the question isn't "is it art?", it's "do I care?"

[Vellmont]

I honestly don't understand why people assign so much value to calling something art. It's as if calling something art assigns it to a higher plane where it can't be questioned.

I guess I wasn't all that impressed by the sites mentioned in the NYT article. IMO superbad.com is far more cool than the jodi sites. Futhermore superbad has been around for years, so I don't see how these people have created anything all that original or special. For those of you who don't know, superbad is a... surrealistic website where you don't really feel in control of the website since it's never really very apparent just how each page works. I'm sure there's many other people that've created strange websites like this as well.

As far as the "you're not in control of your computer" theme goes, there's lots of sites (mostly porn) that have all kinds of annoying javascript tricks to open up new windows when you try to kill the old window. Seems like that's the same idea as this. Sure, I guess the sites the NYT talks about are "art", but so is the tracing of my hand I did when I was 5. I think the NYT has missed the boat on this one, and perhaps should have done a bit more homework on what other people have done in this field.

Re:Art/medium?

[TGK]

I'll submit a few examples to the contrary.

• Japanese and Chinese Writing
• Japanese Swords
• Advertisements
• Fabrigee Eggs (many of which had utility
• Pretty much anything by Frank Lloyd Wright

Art and utilitarianism are not necessarily mutualy exclusive. One might argue, instead, that art that actualy does something useful is more deserving of the word than much of what traditional is attached to the word.

'Art' is a subjective term...

[TrollBridge]

Art cannot be defined for people, art (just like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.

If someone can call the Virgin Mary covered in elephant shit 'art', I don't see any reason why HTML can't be.

Duh, of course it can be

[Quila]

Any method used by humans to express themselves can be a vehicle for art. How good that method is for conveying artistic talent is another matter entirely.

Define "art"

[simong_oz]

Something that has always fascinated me - can ayone provide a definition of "art". I mean the type of art that hangs in galleries and modern art museums and people argue endlessly about whether it really is art or is just plain stupid. The type of art that this is trying to classify HTML under?

The best one I've found is "the products of human creativity", but that still seems way too broad. Personally I feel that art should have no functional purpose, so something that has a purpose (a building say) can be beautiful, but I don't think it is art.

Re:Define "art"

[Euro]

Something that has always fascinated me - can ayone provide a definition of "art".

This reminds me of a quote: "anything that is put up for display and cannot be pissed into is art". I cannot remember who it was that uttered this, but there you go.

Of course, the reasoning (such as it is) behind is the fact that anything that is put up for display and labeled as art actually becomes art. Therefore any object (or thing) can become art if the artist decides it is art. For example, a toilet seat by itself is not art, but when stripped of its general usefulness (i.e. put for display), placed in nonconventional surroundings and labeled as art it - for some reason - becomes art. Not necessarily good art, but art nevertheless.

The more interesting questions in my opinion is why some pieces of artwork are considered to be "better" than others.

Art is art

[Washizu]

The artist makes the medium viable for art, not the other way around. If you can make something creative with popsicle sticks and glue [mcpherson.com], then that's art. It's the same with anything.

Re:Define "art"

[simong_oz]

Anything created for the sense of a message is art.

I know several people who paint simply because they enjoy to paint. They don't paint for money or for praise or to make cheap presents. There is no poignant statement or message, just simply because they enjoy creating the act of painting.

Architecture is most certainly art.

See, I don't agree - which I guess was partly the point of your post! Most architecture has a definite purpose (holding up a roof; not exactly right, but I'm sure you get my meaning) which I don't think is part of "art". The architecture that is created more as an industrial sculpture I would call art, though some of that stuff is pretty stupid. That is of course just a personal opinion that you're free to disagree with, but I really feel that to truly be art the art must be created for no other purpose.

Take a look sometime at the architecture of Tadao Ando, a Japanese architect. His use of curves and natural light in his buildings are amazing.

hmmm ... just did some googling and he has created some amazing buildings, and I agree that they are unique and beautiful, but I don't consider them "art". Just like car designs - they may well be beautiful and conjure up all sorts of emotions in people, but they are not art.

Re:gimmie a break

[Raffaello]

"Art is all in the eye of the beholder."

How about...
Science is all in the eye of the beholder
Engineering is all in the eye of the beholder

No? Good, now you're catching on. In fact, any discipline is *not* merely in the eye of the beholder, but a consensus defined by the community of competent practitioners.

If a consensus of scientists think that one person is a crackpot, then, guess what, he's a crackpot.

If a consensus of artists, and people knowlegeable about art, think that something is not art, then it is not art. And, no, not just the judgement of anyone, just as we don't decide whether something is bogus science based on the opinion of unqualified lay people.

Art may be a broadly defined word, but to allow anything into the category makes the word meaningless - indistinguishable from the word "thing." If everything is art, then the word art means "thing," and nothing more.

Any decent definition of art includes two elements: vision, and mastery. A work of art must express an underlying vision (whether that be visual, musical, poetic, sculptural, etc.), and it must demonstrate a mastery of process and materials in doing so.

Re:Define "art"

[schon]

I know several people who paint simply because they enjoy to paint. They don't paint for money or for praise or to make cheap presents. There is no poignant statement or message, just simply because they enjoy creating the act of painting.

*sigh* And if a tree falls in the forest, then it doesn't make any sound, right?

Their paintings are an expression of something inside them, which is a message. Whether anyone else ever sees that message is irrelevant - it's still there.

Most architecture has a definite purpose (holding up a roof; not exactly right, but I'm sure you get my meaning)

Most writing has a definite purpose, too (telling a story) - does that mean it's not art either?

they may well be beautiful and conjure up all sorts of emotions in people, but they are not art.

Funny, because that's pretty much what art is.

"Art", as an expression is supposed to invoke a reaction in it's audience. If an object inspires emotion in you (either good or bad), then it's probably art - especially if the person who designed it did so precisely to inspire you.

Methinks you have too narrow a definition of "art".

Re:gimmie a break

[liquidsin]

Now you're trying to confuse science and art. Art can't be classified into good or bad by any simple technical means. There is no solid line you can draw that says 'anything on this side is art, anything on that side is not'. Decorating your house can be art. A computer case can be art (think new iMac). Any time you go beyond function and into form, you are creating art on some level. Simply because some people in "the community" may not like it, it doesn't make it any less of an artwork. Your analogy is flawed, simply because science is (for the most part) based on facts. If someone tries to tell you that the world is flat, then yeah, they're a crackpot. We have factual evidence that the world is round. We can see it from space. We can measure it's curvature. Where's your factual evidence that something is not art, other than the opinions of people who call themselves artists? Art is NOT a science. Are you trying to tell me that if critics don't like a movie, it's not a movie? I mean, hey, they are knowledgeable about movies, right? I'm not sure why it's so hard for technical people to grasp that some things are entirely subjective. Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder, and whether or not someone claiming to be an 'art expert' says something is not art, it can still be art in someone's eyes.

Re:Art/medium?

[russellh]

Art and utilitarianism are not necessarily mutualy exclusive. One might argue, instead, that art that actualy does something useful is more deserving of the word than much of what traditional is attached to the word.

They are not mutually exclusive, but your second statement is ridiculous. A display-only sword is better than one which is meant to be used? A house which is not meant to be lived in is better than one which is? Absurd. Certainly a craft attains its hightest or purest expression in art, but what is the purpose of a sword? To hang on a wall? To take into battle? If it is for display only, is it really a sword? What is its utility if it is too valuable to use? But in any case, this is why there are schools of thought on the subject - nobody is right. I suggest three books - The Picture of Dorian Gray (Oscar Wilde), From Bauhaus to Our House (Tom Wolfe), and The Voices of Silence (Andre Malraux).

Why is this news?

[superflippy]

Head over to netdiver [netdiver.com] and you'll see dozens of artists who use HTML, Javascript, etc. as their medium and have done so for years.

Perhaps back in 1998, this was a new art form. Today, there are more "my site is my art" web sites than you can shake a stick at.

Re:gimmie a break

[JimDabell]

Programming languages are instructions to be interpreted by a compiler of some sort, eventually resulting into machine code which can be executed.

HTML surely isn't a Turing complete programming language, but I would say one does program HTML in a sense.

No. Like you said, programming involves instructions for the computer. HTML is purely descriptive. When you write <p>, you aren't saying "computer: add a line break and some vertical space please", you are saying "this is beginning of a paragraph".

surely HTML is interpreted and indirectly turned into machine code

Not at all. It's data, not code. HTML is not a set of instructions.

Not that the result is a stand-program, but the result is your browser generating the machine code to display the page.

By that reasoning, typing your name into a plain text file would also be programming, as when you open the file, the text editor "generates the machine code" to display the file.

Much like what a Java virtual machine does with an applet...

Well, no. A Java applet is a standalone program, written for a virtual platform. The VM simply interprets the instructions as is appropriate for the platform it is running on.

I guess it's like the term hacker. I don't see cracking as being equal to hacking, but I do recognize the fact that for many people that distinction simply doesn't exist. Why be so absolute?

Because the media doesn't almost exclusively call HTML "programming"? Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because thinking of HTML as a programming language gets you into the wrong frame of mind for developing high-quality websites?

Re:gimmie a break

[lineymo]

"Art is all in the eye of the beholder."

How about...
Science is all in the eye of the beholder
Engineering is all in the eye of the beholder

No? Good, now you're catching on. In fact, any discipline is *not* merely in the eye of the beholder, but a consensus defined by the community of competent practitioners.

If a consensus of scientists think that one person is a crackpot, then, guess what, he's a crackpot.

[snip]
Wow, let me try:

If a consensus of scientists think that the world is flat, then, guess what, the world is flat.

Hmmm, that doesn't sound right. If a consensus of [people group] think [a specific thing], then guess what, you have a consensus, not a truth.

Truth is external to consensus and is immovable by what a mass of people think.