I disagree. The conversation here isn't analogous to a bunch of fine arts majors talking about programming languages, it's analogous to a bunch of fine arts majors talking about (say) iPhone vs Android user experience. Their opinions on that are valuable because they're talking in their role as customers, just as our opinions on art are valuable in our customers.
If we started talking about the relative merits of different types of paintbrush then it might be more analogous to fine arts majors talking about compilers. That's a discussion for producers, not customers, but the quality of art on the market is a question for customers, not producers.
Art that can only be "appreciated" by other artists is a bit of a wank, and I guess the analogy is programs that only a programmer can appreciate [1], like an Ook compiler written in Brainfuck or the Obfuscated C contest. It's okay for the occasional kick, but if you spend your entire career making stuff that has no utility and no appeal outside your immediate in group then you're wasting your time and might as well be making lolcats.
It should be noted that the vast majority of visual artists working today aren't producing wanky stuff that gets exhibits in galleries and never finds actual paying customers. They're out there producing pleasant-looking landscapes and things that people pay good money to hang on their walls. Or else they're graphic designers or working in the advertising industry, making good money doing something useful to somebody. Sticking a dead horse on the floor of a gallery gets you more headlines than flogging off a load of $200 watercolours of beaches, but the latter is the majority of the actual art industry.
[1] Note: not the same thing as a program that only a programmer finds useful, just something useless that amuses other programmers.
If we started talking about the relative merits of different types of paintbrush then it might be more analogous to fine arts majors talking about compilers. That's a discussion for producers, not customers, but the quality of art on the market is a question for customers, not producers.
Art that can only be "appreciated" by other artists is a bit of a wank, and I guess the analogy is programs that only a programmer can appreciate [1], like an Ook compiler written in Brainfuck or the Obfuscated C contest. It's okay for the occasional kick, but if you spend your entire career making stuff that has no utility and no appeal outside your immediate in group then you're wasting your time and might as well be making lolcats.
It should be noted that the vast majority of visual artists working today aren't producing wanky stuff that gets exhibits in galleries and never finds actual paying customers. They're out there producing pleasant-looking landscapes and things that people pay good money to hang on their walls. Or else they're graphic designers or working in the advertising industry, making good money doing something useful to somebody. Sticking a dead horse on the floor of a gallery gets you more headlines than flogging off a load of $200 watercolours of beaches, but the latter is the majority of the actual art industry.
[1] Note: not the same thing as a program that only a programmer finds useful, just something useless that amuses other programmers.