Should Hand-Written Code Be Considered Art Now?

A few years ago, "writing code" meant sitting down and writing code with your own hands, kicking in a concentrated thinking process, being in a "flow". Today, more and more of it is generated, scaffolded, auto-completed, or delegated wholesale to AI. The act of typing out a function by hand has shifted pretty drastically from the default way of building software to delegating most of the code writing to AI.

And that shift makes me wonder: if coding by hand is no longer the norm, does it start to look less like labor and actually more like craft?

The car manufacturing analogy

Consider the automotive industry. Most mass-market cars roll off highly automated production lines. Robots handle welding, painting, and assembly with precision and speed that no human can match. Humans are still in the loop, but mostly as reviewers, inspectors, and exception-handlers - finding defects and making judgment calls the machines can't.

Then there's the other end of the spectrum. Bugatti, Pagani, Morgan, Rolls-Royce - manufacturers where people still shape body panels by hand, stitch leather in-house, and assemble engines one at a time. These cars cost a fortune, take months to build, and are objectively less "efficient" than their mass-produced counterparts.

Nobody buys them for efficiency. They're bought because they're considered art.

But here's the nuance worth keeping in mind: even these manufacturers don't do everything by hand. Machine-stamped steel, off-the-shelf electronics, supplier-made fasteners - all of it shows up in a Bugatti too. The craft is concentrated where it matters: the engine, the interior, the body lines.

The interesting thing is that hand manufacturing didn't become art because the craft itself changed. It became art because the context around it changed. Once automation became the default, building by hand took on a different meaning.

Software is going through the same shift

For decades, all code was hand-written - so we never thought of it as artisanal. It was just how the job got done. But as AI-assisted development becomes the norm, the way code gets produced is splitting in two:

• Generated code - fast, cheap, good enough for MVPs, but without proper supervision it tends to turn into slop - plausible-looking code that quietly rots a codebase over time.
• Hand-written code - slower, more expensive in human hours, but shaped by intent, taste, and experience at every line.

Real codebases won't be purely one or the other. Most will be a mix - boilerplate, glue, CRUD endpoints, and test scaffolding generated by AI, while the parts that really matter - the core domain logic, the critical algorithms, the architectural seams - stay hand-written. Same as the Bugatti. The craft gets concentrated where it counts.

And if the analogy holds, those hand-written parts might eventually carry the same kind of prestige a hand-built engine does.

What would make code "art"?

Art in craft isn't just about doing things the hard way. A handmade engine isn't art because it's slow to build - it's art because every decision was made deliberately by someone who understood the whole. The same could be true for code:

• Intentionality - every abstraction, every name, every structural choice made for a reason.
• Coherence - the handcrafted parts read like they were written by one mind, with a consistent aesthetic.
• Restraint - knowing what not to add, which is something unsupervised AI-generated code famously struggles with.
• Taste - the hard-to-articulate sense of what makes a solution elegant rather than merely correct.

And here's where it gets interesting. There's growing evidence that heavy AI use doesn't just change what we produce - it changes how we think. A recent paper from USC researchers argues that when people's writing and reasoning are mediated by the same handful of LLMs, their distinct linguistic styles, perspectives, and reasoning strategies get homogenized into standardized expressions and thoughts. An MIT Media Lab study observed the same effect at the neural level: participants who wrote essays with ChatGPT showed measurably lower brain activity, and their outputs converged stylistically.

If most code starts flowing through the same few models, codebases will start to look alike - same patterns, same abstractions, same "safe" choices. Which means the qualities above - intentionality, coherence, restraint, taste - were always valued, but they weren't distinguishing. When everyone writes code by hand, having taste is an advantage. When most code is generated, and generated code trends toward the average, the hand-crafted parts are what give a codebase its character.

The counter-argument

It's worth noting the other side. Software's value has always been measured by what it does, not by how it was made. A throwaway script that saves a team ten hours a week is more valuable than an elegantly crafted library nobody uses. If AI can produce working code faster and cheaper, the "art" framing risks romanticizing a slower, more expensive process for its own sake.

So, is it art?

I don't think all hand-written code is art, just as not every handmade object is. But I do think the category is emerging. Sometimes it'll show up as entire codebases built from scratch by human hands - small libraries, focused tools, passion projects where every line was deliberate. More often, though, it'll show up as the deliberate pieces inside otherwise ordinary projects: the core engine, the key abstractions, the parts someone cared enough to shape themselves.

Ten years from now, I suspect we'll talk about those pieces the way we talk about a Bugatti engine or a Patek Philippe movement: not because they're the most efficient way to solve the problem, but because someone chose to solve it with care, line by line, on purpose.

And maybe that's enough to call it art.

What do you think?