Urbit [1] is a real software effort that many have considered a deliberate performance art.<p>Beautiful Code [2] is a well-known book that attempts to examine the development of some successful software projects from the perspective of the lead developers, and how they came to design decisions.<p>Beautiful Architecture [3] is a similar book focusing on large-scale project design.<p>[1] <a href="https://urbit.org/" rel="nofollow">https://urbit.org/</a><p>[2] <a href="http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596510046.do" rel="nofollow">http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596510046.do</a><p>[3] <a href="http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596517984.do" rel="nofollow">http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596517984.do</a>
What evidence could there be, beyond a common assertion?<p>I have admired software, but art is not simply that which is admired. I have admired tools, and have been happy with them even while they sit beside me, unused.<p>I may write this comment without expecting it to be admired for its luster. I may write a lyric poem with quite different hopes. It is hard to say just what art is, but I imagine many would agree that writing may or may not be an artistic practice. The same goes for pencilwork; I could be tallying in a margin or sketching a scene. It all depends on how one goes about it, and what one makes—and to what purpose it is made.<p>As with art, almost all software is forgettable, most of it is a poor copy of something already done well long ago, and the best it can hope for in future is to take up a few minutes of an archivist's life. Still, it may have been worth making.