Is Software Folk Art?

Just got back from a trip to the northern California Coast area, Guerneville to be exact, and ran into some folk art (on purpose) by the artist of Partick Amiot in Sebastopal. This is one of his pieces on the right. Very cool to see out in a yard. I then ran into another piece of somewhat practical (unintentional) folk art on a walk (see below). What a hoot to see something that was created for a practical purpose (lighting and holding up the mail box), but could also be placed as folk art. This made my day. I was just imagining what the owner was thinking when they put this together.

Seeing this I of course got thinking if this somehow equates to software and it's development.

OK, lets compare the creation of folk art and software.

If you have two different software groups create an application with only vague design or requirements, how different would the resulting applications be?
How much of of the developers personality and perceptions be projected into the code, language, operation, UI, features, stability, etc?
How maintainable would the code be? (Seeing as most of a projects life is spent in maintaining, would this be a concern?)
Would the different teams refer to their work as "Engineering" and how would they justify this?
At the completion of the applications (or after a set period of time), what would prospective buyers (customers) pay for the applications and what would their comments be?
How do you build a business on developing software like this? and getting customers to pay big money for it?

I love folk art. I get a different view of the world and my take on it. I even like Folk software development once in a while and the freedom and creativity it brings.

However there is the time and place for folk art and not every business can support it. For the times when detail designs, requirements, timetables and expected results must be attained, folk software development may not be the best choice.

But the world needs both.

Comments

My Current Desktop and Happy Vining.

It's been a big switch when I quit my old procession (Software Engineer) and ventured into the unknown. So this is my current desktop. First it's a REAL desktop and not a computer screen. Second, I've had to learn a whole new set of tools. You would think a pencil is just a pencil and a paint brush is just a paint brush, but noooooo, they are tools into you mind and that's what needs re-tooling. The tactual nature of these tools and operation as much more rewarding (and frustrating too) than typing code in an IDE. That had it's incentive but that well went dry and life changes, so I changed. The pleasure of creating colors (no RGB involved) ad hoc wise is interesting. Getting the technique to merge them on paper is very tough. You do not know what you're going to get, so you just have to go with it. I'm glad that I can do a lot of other things instead of Software, but I hope that others in my past procession work on other pa...

3rd Try is a Charm

I've been trying to draw / paint these barns for a couple of years but never felt or got them right. This time I think they turned out right. So What went wrong before and what's right now with this drawing? This time, the light was right. It's coming from the upper right and the shadows just looked right. The other thing is the corn field on the left had to "be in season", otherwise it's just a plowed field. I had taken other photos from different angles but they never felt right. This angle has the road, power lines, corn field, etc. all leading to the right. The shadows on the lower right helps fill in that corner (don't forget about the corners!). The last part is trying to draw (ink paint maybe) the trees in the background. Not so easy when they are kind of a blob is green shades. So yeah, it's composition that is king. Many times I just don't see it until the drawing / painting is finished and when it's right it feels goo...

Thought Patterns

I know how I work. How a think about, visualize a problem and go about mentally design a solution and implement it in code. My thought pattern works pretty well for me on most occasions, but not always. There are times when I have a force myself to change my thought pattern because of the problem I'm solving requires a different mindset. Anyway, this posting is about how I work most of the time. Here is goes. I quickly break down a feature into operations that are required to exists and tackle that code first. My thinking is that, if I can solve the primary issues first, then secondary features will fall into "known knowns" and I can address those at anytime (and sometimes at my leisure) and this allows me to meet my internal timeline. If I addressed features and operations that are not primary first, then I feel I risk my (and the projects) timeline without addressing issues that allow the feature to operate. You may have seen this occur where...

A Person, Artist, Software Engineer, Geologist.

Search This Blog