Hackers: The Art of Abstraction

scubacuda writes "Wired: Inspired by McKenzie Wark's The Hacker Manifesto , Madrid's MNCARS's exhibit, Hackers: The Art of Abstraction , explores the connections between hackers, artists and anyone engaged in any kind of creative work. The centerpiece of the exhibition are documentary films and videos made by independent filmmakers and hackers from all over the world, including Freedom Downtime by Emmanuel Goldstein, Free Radio by Kevin Kayser, The Hacktivist by Ian Walker, Unauthorized Access by Annaliza Savage, New York City Hackers by Stig-Lennart Serensen and Hippies From Hell by Inne Pope."

CHAOS

Chaos is what drives the creative process, I believe it was Heidegger that said that All Creation is Destruction, which makes sense because when you create something you destroy its original state, the unadulterated, virginal state before creation!

Re:CHAOS

"Chaos is what drives the creative process"

It really depends on what you are trying to create. If you want to create strictly art then maybe chaos drives teh creative process but much of the creative process is due to there being something needed to be created. Like something an engineer creates. An engineers creating something has little to do with Chaos and a lot to do with structure.

Hacking is not an art...

Well, maybe for the few true geniuses out there. But for most hackers it's merely a skill, maybe a craft at most.

Re:Hacking is not an art...

" Well, maybe for the few true geniuses out there. But for most hackers it's merely a skill, maybe a craft at most."

Is it really more of a skill?? The coding itself may be a skill but the way you do it isn't. Sure maybe for your average joe who knows little but for your hacker the way you code can be art. It's your own style and flavor. I guess the way you code could be considered art. Just like writing poetry.

Re:Hacking is not an art...

Except in writing poetry, if you throw out every rule in the book, you can create some masterpieces. Nothing has to fit any kind of mold saying "This works and this doesn't."

When you decide, hey I don't like using loops, lets write 10,000 if statements, you aren't creating art, you're creating a bad program and ugly code. You don't have much freedom in code, I guess you could say efficient code with as few lines as possible is art, but not the same way poetry is an art.

Re:Hacking is not an art...

Untrue. You still need to follow some rules, otherwise it'd be complete gibberish. Even if you look at the famous Jabberwocky [jabberwocky.com], rules are followed. The words themselves may be nonsense, but:

1. They still conform to proper phonemic structure of English;
   
2. English grammar is upheld;
   
3. The English phonology and alphabet are used;
   
4. Rules of poetic structure are upheld (eg. rhyme, meter, etc.).

Poetry, or indeed any artistic expression, is all about intelligently manipulating a structured system in some creative way. Language is a supreme example of this, and programming can be as well. You cannot throw out every rule, as there would then be no context for understanding the art. Coding is more restrictive than spoken language, but that makes the art of coding all the more esoteric and challenging.

Ever read The Story of Mel [watson-net.com]?

Re:Hacking is not an art...

The poem you refer to is a perfectly legitemate program in whitespace [dur.ac.uk]. Depending on the use of tabs newlines and spaces in the poem, it might actually do something useful as well.

Re:Hacking is not an art...

Not entirely true....even in poetry you have to remain within the confines of what defines "poetry". If I just pour some ink on the page, make a big ol' ink blob...that isn't poetry. If I crumple up some paper in a big ball, that isn't poetry. If I cut off my ear and stick it in a plastic box, it isn't poetry. If I run naked through my back yard, it isn't poetry.

All of that could, possibly, be loosely defined as some sort of art...but not poetry. In order for it to be poetry, you need to obey some basic rules - rules such as writing words on paper. Same thing goes for programming, you need to follow basic rules - such as using valid statements that will actually compile.

Just because the basic rules in programming are somewhat more strict than those of poetry, does not mean that you cannot be creative or artistic with it.

yrs,
Ephemeriis

Not entirely true....

Not entirely true....

Not entirely true....
Even in poetry you have to remain within the confines of what defines "poetry".
If I just pour some ink on the page, make a big ol' ink blob... that isn't poetry.
If I crumple up some paper in a big ball, that isn't poetry.
If I cut off my ear and stick it in a plastic box, it isn't poetry.
If I run naked through my back yard, it isn't poetry.

-- by Ephemeriis (315124) on Monday March 01, @08:42AM (#8428306)

Now that's poetry...

Q.

Re:Hacking is not an art...

If it's an art, it's more like architecture: you have to conform to strict rules or your code won't compile/building will fall over. There may even be rules imposed by others: coding standards/building regs. Then there's ergonomics to take into account: GUI design/ergonomics of building use.

But within those restrictions, there's still a lot of freedom to express oneself creatively.

Re:Hacking is not an art...

"it's more like architecture:"

When designing something it can be both art and architecture. Look at buildings. Many are very artistically done but have great architecture to them. Look at the designs for the new world trade center building. To be the tallest building in the world there is a great amount of detail to the architecture but it is a very beautiful design that is artistically done.

Re:Correct.

The act of calling ANYTHING related to precise science "art" can not be anything but a mis(ab)used metaphore (sic)

The mathematician, contributor to the Manhattan Project -- and a founder of modern computing -- John von Neumann, considered by knowledgeable colleagues to have contributed to all fields of mathematics except topology and number theory, disagreed. Describing the qualities of a good mathematical proof, von Neumann wrote :

One also expects "elegance" in its "architectural," structural make-up. Ease of stating the problem, great difficulty in getting hold of it and in all attempts at approaching it, then again some very surprising twist by which the approach, or some part of the approach, becomes easy, etc. Also, if the deductions are lengthy or complicated, there should be some simple general principle involved, which "explains" the complications and detours, reduces the apparent arbitrariness to a few simple guiding motivations, etc. These criteria are clearly those of any creative art.... all this is much more akin to the atmosphere of art pure and simple than to that of the empirical sciences.

(John von Neumann as quoted in William Poundstone, Prisoner's Dilemma).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given von Neumann's seminal influence on computer programming, his description of a good mathematical proof reads to me very much like a qualities I expect to see in a good algorithm, function, or class when I'm reading or writing code. Foe me, elegance is always of first importance when I -- and I use the word consciously -- craft code: a function that does not flow, a class the instances of which cannot be used in an elegant and (at least from the user's point of view) transparent way, is almost always bad code, and illuminates a lack of understanding on the part of the coder.

Kludges are offensive, not because they don't work -- the only justification for a kludge, after all, is that if nothing else, it works -- but because they are indicative of a lack of craft, and because they indicate a lack of understanding, either on the part of the coder himself, or the on the part of framework/clases/language he is coding in or with. A kludge is bad because it is the pulled thread in the fabric of the program, a pulled thread that threatens or exposes a potential for further and MORE disastrous unravelling.

Hackers and Painters

Hackers and Painters [paulgraham.com] by Paul Graham [paulgraham.com] is a great read on why artists and hackers have similar interests and mindsets. A must-read for hackers.

This seems like a bad ripoff of the Mentor.

There is only one hacker manifesto:

Apologies to phrack for the lameness filter edits.

==Phrack Inc.==
Volume One, Issue 7, Phile 3 of 10

The following was written shortly after my arrest...

\/\The Conscience of a Hacker/\/
by
+++The Mentor+++
Written on January 8, 1986

Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager
Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal", "Hacker Arrested after Bank Tampering"...
Damn kids. They're all alike.

But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's technobrain,
ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever wonder what
made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him?
I am a hacker, enter my world...
Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm smarter than most of
the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me...
Damn underachiever. They're all alike.

I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain
for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it. "No, Ms.
Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head..."
Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike.

I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is
cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I
screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me...
Or feels threatened by me...
Or thinks I'm a smart ass...
Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...
Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike.

And then it happened... a door opened to a world... rushing through
the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is
sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is
found.
"This is it... this is where I belong..."
I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to
them, may never hear from them again... I know you all...
Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike...

You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at
school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip
through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or
ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us will-
ing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.

This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the
beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying
for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and
you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek
after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color,
without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals.
You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us
and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.

Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is
that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like.
My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me
for.

I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual,
but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike.

+++The Mentor+++

Re:This seems like a bad ripoff of the Mentor.

The post reminded me of their excuse, full of self-justification and blaming others for their actions, especially if things go wrong and someone ends up getting hurt. Remember it's not the people at the top, the town planners who designed an estate with little children to do, but the people at the bottom who get hurt.

I wonder to whom and where this animosity is directed?

The events of the late 80's and very early 90's were much different than the world today. The barriers to entry were much higher - there weren't many script kiddies. There was NO free unix. Access to real computers was almost nonexistant - as was free access to almost any telecommunications service. A 'C' compiler could run you real money. The internet did not exist as you know it now, except in the hands of few academics. TeleNet, Datapac, and other networks were the only means to access longhaul data communication.

The exposure of vulerabilities went a long way towards demonstrating that little or no forethought had gone into the security of communications infrastructure. Blue boxing was a driving force to give AT&T a kick in the ass to move to OOB signalling in the late 80's / early 90's.

It's difficult to justify or look back at now, but a lot of the GOOD that you see in the community today came out of the seeds of that movement. Articles and writing such as the Mentor's capture the emotions and motivations behind the hacker mind moreso than any artifical piece of writing ever will.

My $0.02.

Re:This seems like a bad ripoff of the Mentor.

Yeah, I been there, but with differences.

I didn't go around breaking others' art; I made some of my own.

I was bright enough to figure out that, if I do it the way the teacher wants it done, I don't get hassled. I can always do it my way when I'm doing it for me, and then nobody has the authority to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

I showed some promise and was rewarded with more challenging (and interesting) stuff by teachers who cared. That's how you *find* teachers who care.

You can learn the system and get what you want. Or you can turn your back on it and let it hit you from behind. Your choice.

Art & computers

I believe that art (fine art) and computers are integrally related in the methods of abstract creativity requried for the initial creative phase. After that, they deviate in the techniques and level of creativity required. Fine art generally allows for more creativity, because there is not necessarily the business push to "get it done now". As a fine artist whose day job is I.T. related, I can say that it is an easy transition.

Also known as:

Mitnick, Escher and Lamo: an Eternally Twisted Pair.

just the first though that came to me with the description of the book...

Documentus Legalus

That godforsaken article reads like a legal document! Surely it wasn't written by any kind of literary hacker. I quit reading after the third paragraph.

Remember that KISS principle thingamajig.

- IP

I always thought...

..that 'art' was whatever an 'artist' managed to sell for money to someone with even less insight into what art is than myself...

I may know little about art in a formal manner, but I know what I like. To me, a piece of art should in some way speak to the beholder on an emotional level. By that definition, hacking is not an artform - at least not in my eyes. YMMV off course, but I would define it rather more as a skill or a knack than as an (artistic) ability.

Patents for Creative Hacking?

This expansion of the term "hackers" is a great idea. Now if we could just combine it with the idea of making really "creative hacks" patentable, we might have a solution to the whole mess of US Patents, and democratize the gold rush towards the "patent extortion money" pie.

"... everyone who creates anything is a hacker -- programmers, artists, musicians, writers, engineers, chemists and so on are all hackers and, no matter how culturally diverse we may be, as creators we have convergent interests,"

Think about it for a moment. Creativity deserves to be patentable. Once a hack is patented the "hacker" will then try to dissuade others from using it till they pay him for the rights to use it. Thus we have transferred the policing of the hack to the hacker itself! That is advantage number one.

Advantage number 2 stems from the fact that why let SCO (and other similar scum) try to get away with the patent extortion money. Let all the others who are really creative (hackers) get a share of it too. This way, everyone, programmers, artists, musicians, writers, engineers, chemists, and so on, are now eligible for patents (much better than the measley copyrights) and the patent extortion pie.

And the bonus advantage of making the "creative hacks" patentable is that it would flood the US Patent Office and wash away its patenting sins, and maybe force it to stop giving out dumb patents.

.

Plan9 is the fine art of the hacking world

Plan9 [bell-labs.com]; the most beautiful code in the most beautiful OS [bell-labs.com] with the prettiest mascot. [bell-labs.com]

For the true unbelievers ...

Look at the projects we can view the source for ...

Linux, Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice, Mozilla, and ummm lets choose, VI.

These code bases are beautiful works which entail blood, sweat, passion, and thought. There are pieces of Art that I think shouldn't qualify as its not an expression of the creator, yet just a piece of art for arts sake.

Just as not all code is something that is enjoyable for many reasons but some being that the end result sucks or the code is so piss poor the end result sucks.

Is Linus a genuis, nope, is he quite possibly the most creative man in OSS programming, sure. I don't think Linus is a superhuman by any means, but I do know he posses the talent to see something and then make it happen. Just as you can have an artist look at a canvas and then paint the mona lisa on it. Its the coders that can see a picture of what they want the end product to look like and make it happen, is the same as an artist looking towards a canvas and seeing the finished product before anyone else can.

So yes, hacking is an art form, but like any art, not just anyone can do it.

But why?

Why do all these programmers want to be considered artists anyway?

An artist is someone who ignores function and concentrates on form where they think beauty lies. An engineer is someone who sees beauty in pure dedication to achieving a function in the most efficient fashion.

A perfectly calculated arching cantilever is beautiful, a painting of a waterfall is just an inferior copy.

-- An Engineer

Re:But why?

Why do all these programmers want to be considered artists anyway?

Because programmers are just like normal human beings, in the sense that most of them have that subconscious yearning for the approval and respect of their fellow man.

Now look at the amount of respect society at large bestows on artists and programmers / engineers. Artists are generally well-regarded... even the people who think that most artists are lazy and weird, can muster some respect for them. Contrast that with the amount of appreciation programmers garner these days. Most non-techs have little respect for programmers, or geeky activities in general.

A perfectly calculated arching cantilever is beautiful, a painting of a waterfall is just an inferior copy.

Yet very few 'regular' people will notice the beauty in beautiful bridges... but will fork over good money for that painting of a waterfall. Unsurprisingly... to appreciate the beauty of most engineering works, you have to have at least some working knowledge of the underlying principles. But if you know nothing about painting, proportion, shading and composition, you are still able to be moved emotionally by a piece of art. And that is what art is about.

Re:But why?

That's certainly an interesting observation... but could non-functional art (such as a painting or sculpture) also be considered beautiful based on these parameters, on a more physical level? Does the efficiency of the construction of even a nonfunctional piece of work contribute to its beauty?

I see that you are suggesting a duplicity in the definition of beauty, yet it is apparent that they are tied together on a fundamental level. One definition is of a mathematical beauty, which values efficiency as an aesthetic. The other capitalizes on organic beauty, the result of human perception and evolved cognitive processes. However, these perceptions are the result of natural forces of evolution which itself values efficiency. Therefore, what is mathematically efficient is also humanly aesthetic: form and function are intimately related. This suggests that there does exist a universal, unified beauty which is present in design, be it functional or not.

This is why programmers can also be artists.

New York City Hackers

Streaming video of NEW YORK CITY HACKERS plus extras available at http://uit.no/breifilm/4276/1 (norwegian). Direct movie link: http://uit.no/breifilm/4276/3

Don't glorify this nonsense.

Hacking an Art? Hardly. Don't try to further glorify this nonsense, little hacker groupies.

And if anyone is considering reading the article with the lame 'manifesto', just read this one paragraph with its rambling, babbling nonsense...

"Production produces all things, and all producers of things. Production produces not only the object of the production process, but also the producer as subject. Hacking is the production of production. The hack produces a production of a new kind, which has as its result a singular and unique product, and a singular and unique producer. Every hacker is at one and the same time producer and product of the hack, and emerges in its singularity as the memory of the hack as process."

Trying to sound intelligent and profound? You fail miserably.

To everyone claiming code isn't art...

Sorry, you're wrong. Code is art. We're talking about design, not mechanics. Questions like: functional, procedural, or object-oriented design paradigm? Plug-ins or scripting for extension? How will networking and persistence be handled? How will the software test itself? Which design patterns should be applied in what combination?

The choices require experience and creativity, and it is truly art and beauty at the design level. If you can't see it as art, then sorry, you lack the design experience to understand.

Define art first...

I think there are as many definitions of what constitutes "art" as there are aspiring artists (or their parasitical campfollowers, art critics).

I'm a traditionally trained commercial artist. (You are welcome to slashdot my site at spanishcastle.com to confirm that pronouncement). I also have done a limited amount of programming. I find them to be two distinctly different experiences, but not altogether different. I think any act of creation done in the pursuit of excellence can be considered art.

However, I tend to prefer my own simple formula for answering the age old question: is it art? They are:

1) Is it beautiful? (which is a loaded question, too, really)
2) Would you have it in your home? (or, in the case of large works, in your town?)
3) Five hundred years from now, when some future archeologist digs it up, will it still be recognizable as art?

Obviously, some art forms are simply too ephemeral (like music or dance) to meet these conditions completely...although you could also argue that the best of them are preserved in one fashion or another (symphonies are committed to paper, and dances are taught to the next generation)

I think programming might be considered more akin to graphic art than fine art.

Fine art is a form of expression. I am not sure how well programming does this. Were it not for commented code, I don't how one could discern the author of a great piece of code from another.

Graphic art is a form of communication, which programming is designed to do, after a fashion. It is a means whereby a person may communicate with a machine.

Perhaps only machines know the difference? Perhaps we are bearing witness to a new form of art: machine art. Maybe one day, sentient machines will look and marvel at the elegance and simplicity of some tidy bit of code with the same fascination and admiration we might admire an artist's rendering of our own universe today.

I'm still waiting for both hardware and software manufacturers to address the issue of permanence, though...

Programming is essentially a creative endeavor

Programming [silent.se] is essentially a creative [mit.edu] endeavor where beauty emerges from the harmonious [catsspeed.co.jp] implementation of function - i.e. a function (creation) in harmony with the object (material or imagined) which is the program's intention to model [nist.gov] and with a given set of factors or rules (the API, language [ecma-international.org], instruction set.) This kind of creativity is in this sense more akin [berkeley.edu] to that expressed in building architecture [atomix.com] and industrial design than that expressed in the fine arts and philosophy [dpklinik.de].

Terming programming as a fine art is quite a stretch apart from the latter's primary concern - which is the creation of beautiful objects. Programming's primary concern is the creation of interactive models of objects in harmony with their material or imaginary counterparts and the boundaries that define the model space.

In this other sense, the aesthetic pleasure derived from programming or observing beautiful code is similar in nature to that derived from the construction or contemplation of philosophical concepts - both can recur to visual metaphors but are in essence invisible.

creative?

Art work is there to create an atmosphere, to procure an emotion, so it has a function.

Its not because the function is psychological that it is inexistent. The summit is to be able to associate beautiful with practical form, and that's what design is all about.

I have seen beautiful designs by hackers, so to me many have artistic concepts, and are inspired.

Hacking a way of slicing reality for mathematical minds?
A good cook is creative in his art so is a doctor undertaking a chirurgic operation, so is, so is so is.....

All professions have their amount of creativity, and some are more creative then others, no matter the occupation.

In all cases, the inventor has to master the rules who define the medium he applies, thus to use the maximum possibilities, for the creation to be well balanced, i.e. ingredients in the case of a dish, colours for a painting, sounds for music, etc...

Redefining hackers

I really can't wholeheartedly suggest that anyone RTFM[anifesto]--it is pretty tough going. (Incredibly, it is apparently shorter than previous versions. Groan.)

The manifesto attempts to redefine "hacker" as pretty much anyone who reworks intellectual material. At this stage of the world, this includes a substantial swath of humanity. Politically, this places a bunch of knowledge workers alongside each other in the trenches, all working to reap the benefits of their insights rather than being victimized by the amusingly named & nefarious "vectorists," who aspire to possess not only all means of communication (vectors) but stocks of information (archives) and flows of information (?just-in-time news coverage?) as well.

Under the banner that information should be free, the manifesto envisages a fairly nebulous post-factional regime that sounds a lot like contemporary anarchism.

To worry about whether or not you like the idea that hackers are artists is to get it exaclty backwards, the point of this is to convince all other knowledge workers that they are hackers. I think that the manifesto author presumes that other knowledge workers should be being flattered by being considered hackers, and that they will be so tickled that they will embrace the notions of the manifesto.

This is not to say that there is not some food for thought here; though sometimes obscurely worded, it really does have some interesting takes on the economy of invention. My caution to readers of the comments, is that whether or not you support this broadening of the term hacker, be careful that you don't accidentally side with a political agenda simply on the basis of that definition.

Business 101?

A line from the hacker manifesto referenced in the post, would serve as a valuable business lesson to many:

"To produce is to repeat; to hack, to differentiate."

Art or Not Art

Hmm first time poster long time listener. Sorry had to say that as this is my first post. Art to me is about the process of creating but so yes any form of creation is an artistic expression but at the same time the purpose of art is to convey an emotion or feeling. So I have to ask how does programming touch people? Yes it changes life and makes things easier for people and it enriches them but does it really make them aware of what they have been unaware of or in other words does it leave them with a feeling. Programming by nature is a tool used to develop other tools. The other question that I would like to put out there is who can really see the artful work of it. Do we put the source code in places so that it can be enjoyed? So do you spend time looking and really appreciating the code and learning how to read it to see the programmer behind the programming? No all we usually look at is how effective and efficient the code is. It is a cold dead language to me that expresses ideas and processes but how can it be alive it if does not express emotions to me. The real beauty is something behind the scenes of what is created. Seem to be rambling but that is fun sometimes too. Also would like to add sorry if this thread was started somewhere else had to get these thoughts out. So how does programming embody what it means to be alive and to live in this world. Does it do that by my previous statement that our world is becoming more stale and logical with the lose of feeling. I understand the moments of developing simplifying and optimizing to the point where you have to step back and wow did i do that and that makes it all so simple and elegant. But want emotions have been felt by other programmer's? For me it is mostly frustration (not knowing), insight(knowing), and exhilaration on completion(doing). But again art is in the eye of the beholder. So what one sees as pure truth and pure beauty to another is just a waste of time and energy. So the question in itself is subjective. Boy I love to dance with my logic traps some times. Well that is all for now.

Charles Babbage - Ada Augusta - Lord Byron

The Editor of Linux User & Developer [linuxuser.co.uk]
Richard Hillesley wrote a great article in issue 36 titled
"The Poetry of Programming".

In it he detailed the connection between E De joncourt,
Charles Babbage, Ada Augusta and Lord Byron.

Truely enlightening.