Data is NOT like art!

Every now and then, I see references to the arts in trying to explain what makes a “good” data practitioner. At one point, some data roles were called “data artists” as the analytics profession was maturing. Thankfully, that seems to have waned over the years.

I get the point, and I generally agree with the underlying sentiment. It would definitely be an exaggeration to say the reference is cringe-worthy. However, I do think the reference is way overused in describing the intangibles often desired in the information profession.

What makes the comparison to art tempting? As I see it, it points to some whimsical, spontaneous, perhaps improvisational, and maybe even kooky je ne sais quoi that often comes to mind when we think of the arts. Expressions like “the X factor,” “the ‘it’,” “nose for the solution,” “intuition,” and “creativity,” are often used to convey similar ideas.

Merriam-Webster has several definitions for “art” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art). I believe it is safe to say what most people mean is the fourth definition: “The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects.”

Curiously, I don’t think I have ever come across artists making comparisons between data/technology and the arts or vice versa. I do not say this out of some sense of superiority…