You presented 2 broad generalizations about "software developers" and "artists" along with your statement about this specific "manifesto", so that's what I was referring to.
Artistically produced software though could certainly be a CRUD app just as much as it could be a photo that you pulled off the shelf at Target, I'm arguing that the type of product it is doesn't necessarily have a bearing on whether it can be art or have elements of art in it.
Many people use the term in different ways to describe a kind of abstract ambiguously valuable process of creation, or the product of it. I think it's possible to interpret software as art, but it's not a necessary quality for the software to exist.
For purely artistic works of software, my opinion is that they'd pretty much serve no explicit purpose at all other than as a creative exploration of some sort, completely open to interpretation with no success or failure case. Like the webfont Candy which was made with CSS shapes, creative coding, or various kinds of digital illustrations. Exploring what you can do with ai generated imagery is surely one of them, but not necessarily so if it's just the solution to a problem.
Most things people would describe as "having an art to it" or "art" have nuanced colloquial interpretations, but it's usually just an aspect to the creation process that embodies some of these qualities. Someone could say "there's an art to sucking as bad as you do at X" and although it's meant to be figuratively derisive rather than literally artistic, it could also refer to the abstract nebulous means by which someone fails to be good. Likewise, it could mean the abstract nebulous process by which someone makes CRUD apps good/bad.
Artistically produced software though could certainly be a CRUD app just as much as it could be a photo that you pulled off the shelf at Target, I'm arguing that the type of product it is doesn't necessarily have a bearing on whether it can be art or have elements of art in it.
Many people use the term in different ways to describe a kind of abstract ambiguously valuable process of creation, or the product of it. I think it's possible to interpret software as art, but it's not a necessary quality for the software to exist.
For purely artistic works of software, my opinion is that they'd pretty much serve no explicit purpose at all other than as a creative exploration of some sort, completely open to interpretation with no success or failure case. Like the webfont Candy which was made with CSS shapes, creative coding, or various kinds of digital illustrations. Exploring what you can do with ai generated imagery is surely one of them, but not necessarily so if it's just the solution to a problem.
Most things people would describe as "having an art to it" or "art" have nuanced colloquial interpretations, but it's usually just an aspect to the creation process that embodies some of these qualities. Someone could say "there's an art to sucking as bad as you do at X" and although it's meant to be figuratively derisive rather than literally artistic, it could also refer to the abstract nebulous means by which someone fails to be good. Likewise, it could mean the abstract nebulous process by which someone makes CRUD apps good/bad.