I see the "is code art?" discussion is going again!
Code definitely is art. We know this, because Silicon Valley came to destroy coding at the exact same time they came to destroy all other art.
A bit less flippantly: My opinion is that code can be art, but isn't necessarily. This is unconnected to its quality, because both bad art and good non-art also exist. It *is* connected to its purpose.
In this sense, it's just like writing. Some writing is art and some isn't. A terrible airport novel is bad art, but art nonetheless. An administrative memo can be very well-written, but is not art.
(Incidentally: People had been writing for over a thousand years before anyone realized writing could be for artistic purposes. The bronze age Mesopotamians had been writing census reports, tax records, legal proceedings and other administrivia for at least a millennium before they started writing down poetry and stories.)
@datarama ah! I was going to disagree, but I agree with your second toot.
One important thing is that nothing is "lesser" because it's not art. Just like HTML/CSS rarely are "programming" (but they can be), but that doesn't make them any less important, complex, or valuable.
We like to shoehorn things into categories we think are important, when those things are important in their own right.
@datarama (and sidenote: I think the definition of art must include some kind of intentionality; otherwise all bad software is art, because it does evoke quite strong feelings in its users: anger, frustration. Whereas good software sometimes does not cause delight because it just works.)