Programming and art don't seem to be related, so unless someone practices both it's understandable that he'd excel in one and not the other.

That's not true at all. Look at Gazoot, he does awesome graphics, awesome code, and writes music to boot! There are also plenty of people like Leftley, Gughunter, and Mike H who are just plain good at both. In fact, most of the competant artists that I know are good at programming. Its just that some programmers can't draw worth beans (like Theodis and Shadowdarke), that's all. (And some of the artists are just too lazy to learn programming, I suppose.)

Although, I suspect as Justin Knight commented, there's more of a difference between people who are good at math (which helps in programming but doesn't determine if you're good at it) and people who are good at art.

That just means you suck at art. If you practiced more, you'd get better at it. But don't feel bad, Theodis, Deadron, Shadowdarke and Lummox are kind of the same way. (I kinda think Dan and Tom are too.)

Shlaklava wrote:

I have noticed that (at least from where i am) people that are good at coding usually aren't good at graphics and vice versa

|Good at|Bad at|
|Code |Icon |
|Icon |Code |
----------------

(There are exceptions)

This could better be summed up with a simple punnet square.



Statistically speaking, heterozygous relationships and homozygous relationships are exactly equal. As such, your example is a bit skewed because it only takes in to account those who create art or program. Discounting the homozygous recessive possibility, yes, there is a larger percentage of chance for someone to be proficient at one field and not the other (66%), but there is an equal chance for someone to be dominant in one area versus equal in both. Of course, this does not account for varying levels of skill, as that would be entirely impossible to measure.

Why is this?

Because God hates us because Adam ate the apple. >:-(

Crispy wrote:

I can draw some half-decent placeholder art in a pinch. I could be a lot better if I practiced though!

Yeah, anyone can be decent at drawing things if they practice. Odds are most of the good artists you know have been practicing most of their lives because they've been drawing for fun.

True, but there are certain requirements for programming that are normally grouped together. This is just the same for art. Although designing the backend of a program can be a work of art in its self, artistic ability plays little into programming, and vice versa.

I have next-to-no artistic ability. I have taken classes and spent a lot of time learning, yet I still produce crap. Programming, on the other-hand, comes as second nature to me, at least with the basic ifs, whiles, and fors. I can pick up just about any language and apply my knowledge of it in minutes, but give me a paintbrush and I am lost, creating nothing but a mess.

Because they are so vastly different, you rarely have them overlapping with high amounts of talent in both fields, but it does happen. Talent is rare, so having talent in two totally different tasks is even more rare.

Theodis wrote:

Somehow I doubt their is a programmer gene and actual ease of learning and talent comes from many genes :P.

Your intuition is umatched! ;-) It was used simply as a visual example for probability.

Ben G wrote:

Why is this?

Because God hates us because Adam ate the apple. >:-(

I think you're mistaken, it was that woman who ruined it for us:P (Just like a woman to ruin paradise)