Digital images of paintings
mil...@cove.com
put the image of an incomplete or unsatisfactory painting onto the computer
in order to be able to manipulate the image with the objective of easily
being able to see the effect of variations in the image. My intent was then,
based on what I had seen of the variations on the computer, to return to the
painting brush in hand and to alter the painting using whatever insight I had
gained on the computer. To get the image onto the computer, I photographed
the painting with a video camera and fed the image into the computer using
software designed for that purpose. With some difficulty, I solved the
technical problems, so that the system worked just as I had hoped. However,
in actual practice, the setup did not prove useful and I abandoned it. What I
saw on the computer simply did not help me produce more satisfactory
paintings.
More recently, my system for cataloging my paintings fell into chaos. Again,
it occurred to me that the computer might be useful. By now, I had a digital
still camera, which is more appropriate for photographing paintings than the
video camera was. For the cataloging, someone suggested using Microsoft
Access, which has worked out just fine. I now have photos of perhaps 60
paintings, numbered, titled,and with information on medium, size, location,
etc. When a painting is moved or sold, it is very easy to modify the record
to bring it up to date. While the system is quite new to me, it appears to be
a success.
The use of computers and digital images by painters will probably grow and
become standard practice. Many painters already have web sites on which they
display their work. Some galleries use their computers to review work by
artists. As the use of computers becomes more widespread and the quality of
the images on the computer screen improves, it will be much easier for
artists and galleries to use computer images rather than for the artist to
submit slides with SASE. Moreover, it will become much easier for galleries
to show clients more of what is available, including paintings in the
artist's studio or in other galleries.
One can also readily imagine being able to use the computer to surround the
image of a painting with an infinite variety of images of frames to give the
client a better idea of how the framed painting would appear in the home. Of
course, if the client had a digital image of his wall space, one could see a
picture of the framed painting just as it would look in the home.
I am confident that creating actual works of art on computers will become
much more widespread. Some years ago, in high hopes, I attended a workshop on
art and computers. It was a great disappointment. The computer is so powerful
that the medium became the message: the artists were so taken with the magic
of the computer that their work was a demonstration of the wonders of the
computer rather than an expression of the artists' sensibilities. To me, the
work was empty. But as more artists become accustomed to using computers, I
am sure that they will learn how to use them in the service of their art
rather than the other way around. Video screens in galleries and museums will
become common --- perhaps taking up more space than the display of actual
paintings.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
DFRussell
|> Several years ago, it occurred to me that it might be helpful to be able to
|> put the image of an incomplete or unsatisfactory painting onto the computer
|> in order to be able to manipulate the image with the objective of easily
|> being able to see the effect of variations in the image.
Chances are that if you can't get a brush to do what you want, you'll have
less luck with a computer.
[snip]
|> More recently, my system for cataloging my paintings fell into chaos.
Chances are that if you can't keep track of 60 paintings manually, you'll
only make a bigger mess of it with a computer...
|> The use of computers and digital images by painters will probably grow and
|> become standard practice.
Doubt it... possibly by galleries to keep records.
|> Many painters already have web sites on which they
|> display their work.
And, to my knowledge, no one is reporting large sales from web sites.
Particularly not with original work.
|> Some galleries use their computers to review work by
|> artists.
They all still take slides/photos.
|> As the use of computers becomes more widespread and the quality of
|> the images on the computer screen improves,
Don't hold your breath. The problem is the *display*. Not the digitized
image.
[snip]
|> One can also readily imagine being able to use the computer to surround the
|> image of a painting with an infinite variety of images of frames to give the
|> client a better idea of how the framed painting would appear in the home.
Maybe you could even get a jpg of the client's couch? :-)
[snip]
|> I am confident that creating actual works of art on computers will become
|> much more widespread.
Maybe. There seems to be little interest in "computer art" at the moment.
|> Some years ago, in high hopes, I attended a workshop on
|> art and computers. It was a great disappointment. The computer is so powerful
|> that the medium became the message: the artists were so taken with the magic
|> of the computer that their work was a demonstration of the wonders of the
|> computer rather than an expression of the artists' sensibilities. To me, the
|> work was empty.
Bingo!!!!!!!! Give the man a cigar!!!!
If you want to be a programmer, by all means, play with the computer.
Observation: I've seen a number of "artists" who were not satisfied
with their work and thought a computer might help. They ended up
with digital caca instead of analog caca.
Assume someone comes up with a program that can help: it won't be
*your* work then. Why not just take it one step further and just
remove the "artist" completely?
"Yo! John-boy! Got another customer for an *original* VanGogh!
Flip the switch, set it for a predom of blue and greens, put in
a 3x2 aged canvas, and crank that puppy!"
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
peter nelson
>The use of computers and digital images by painters will probably grow and
>become standard practice. Many painters already have web sites on which
they
>display their work. Some galleries use their computers to review work by
>artists. As the use of computers becomes more widespread and the quality of
>the images on the computer screen improves, it will be much easier for
>artists and galleries to use computer images rather than for the artist to
>submit slides with SASE. Moreover, it will become much easier for galleries
>to show clients more of what is available, including paintings in the
>artist's studio or in other galleries.
Another area of related interest is in image search engines. It's
estimated that 80% of the information on the web is graphical,
not textual. But all current search engines are text based!
lthough the research is in its infancy, it would be very useful to
be able to search the web or a database for all pictures, say, with
bridges in them over a certain size, with a predominantly blue color
scheme. In a few decades I expect this will be a practical reality.
Here's a page with some current experiments:
http://www-asd-test.stanford.edu/~zwang/imsearch/
. . .
>I am confident that creating actual works of art on computers will become
>much more widespread. Some years ago, in high hopes, I attended a workshop
on
>art and computers. It was a great disappointment. The computer is so
powerful
>that the medium became the message: the artists were so taken with the
magic
>of the computer that their work was a demonstration of the wonders of the
>computer rather than an expression of the artists' sensibilities. To me,
the
>work was empty. But as more artists become accustomed to using computers, I
>am sure that they will learn how to use them in the service of their art
>rather than the other way around.
As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
not the users, which must evolve. I believe that computer users
should be able to focus as much as possble on their task or goal
and worry as little as possible on the ideosyncracies of the tool.
But there's no question that things are coming along. Thousands
of artists now work almost exclusively in the digital realm and
digitally-created movies (e.g., Toy Story or A Bug's Life) are now good
enough to stand on their own as entertainment rather than on their
technical appeal to computer-graphics nerds like me.
---peter
Charles Eicher
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
> not the users, which must evolve. I believe that computer users
> should be able to focus as much as possble on their task or goal
> and worry as little as possible on the ideosyncracies of the tool.
That statement is a perfect encapsulation of everything that is wrong with
high-technology, and computer geeks in particular. They put the cart before
the horse, and create thousands of "solutions" in search of a problem. They
believe that if their tools are perfect, the solution to any problem is
trivial. Well, it just isn't so. But I'm wasting my time again, I've
discussed this before, at length, and they just aren't capable of
understanding the issue.
----------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@inav.net
----------------
Jim Leonard
I'd say just enjoy a cultural difference and rest assured that you are
not the only one out there who isn't afraid of utilizing a computer or
other new technologies while simultaneously maintaining a
gotta-get-your-hands-dirty-can-do attitude about the human spirit.
Jim
andrew
sure, anyone who thinks that computers (or computer art) is on a level
with painting doesnt know much about painting, but that's not the point.
art, IMHO, isnt nearly as pure a thing as some of us might want it to
be. and if there are new toys out there (digital) that might make for a
new way of looking at things, even if the technology is in its infancy,
then i'd argue that that's a good thing.
DFRussell wrote:
>
> Chances are that if you can't keep track of 60 paintings manually, you'll
> only make a bigger mess of it with a computer...
well, you can argue that computers cant paint, and computers cant see,
but my computer (even with me at the keyboard) is a heck of a lot better
at keeping track of things than i will ever be.
it seems that there are two different arguements here: one is, can
computers be a management tool? i cant see that theres really any
serious arguement here. sure, they can be a pain in the ass til you get
figured out what you need to, but as an organizer of information, i'll
take the computer any day.
the second is a bit more murky: can computers be a tool for actually
producing art? i'd argue that they can. sure, its not on a level of
refinement that can rival painting, but that doesnt mean that there cant
be uses. its just another medium. its a limited medium, sure, but there
are things that can be said.
> |> Many painters already have web sites on which they
> |> display their work.
>
> And, to my knowledge, no one is reporting large sales from web sites.
> Particularly not with original work.
large sales? no. but the net is only a few years old, from a
"commercial" standpoint. i'd doubt that the public ever will buy the
majority of their art online (and for that matter, i'd hope not, too),
but we are way too early in the game to know what the future of the net
holds.
> |> One can also readily imagine being able to use the computer to surround the
> |> image of a painting with an infinite variety of images of frames to give the
> |> client a better idea of how the framed painting would appear in the home.
>
> Maybe you could even get a jpg of the client's couch? :-)
ha! and maybe some curtains? and i've got this nice mauve wallapaer...
;)
art (real live painted art, some of which even sells) at website below.
andrew.
* andrew * sa...@cstone.net * http://www.cstone.net/~sand *
peter nelson
>In article <77dht3$74f$1...@strato.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>> As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
>> not the users, which must evolve. I believe that computer users
>> should be able to focus as much as possble on their task or goal
>> and worry as little as possible on the ideosyncracies of the tool.
>
>That statement is a perfect encapsulation of everything that is wrong with
>high-technology, and computer geeks in particular. They put the cart before
>the horse, and create thousands of "solutions" in search of a problem.
>trivial.
What are you talking about? How does your response even relate
to my statement?
Are you saying that computers should NOT be easier to use?
Are you suggesting the ideosyncracies of computer tools
SHOULD stand between the user and his goals?
Are you saying that computer users should be required to
undergo arcane rites of initiation - a species of technological
hazing - in which they learn esoteric commands, totally arbitrary
tools placement and keystroke combinations, and whim-of-the-
programmer use-models in order to gain access to the tool's
capabilities?
And if that's not what you're saying then why can't you write
clearer expository English?
I know, as a software engineer, that we are WELL AWARE of
how to write powerful, easy-to-use, robustly reliable software.
But I also know that we make deliberate design decisions for
various reasons to shortcut the necessary processes. Sometimes
the reasons are ones of cost or time-to-market. Sometimes
they are because software engieers much prefer writing programs
to testing and validating them. Most often they are because
most software engineers have nothing but disdain for nontechnical
end-users and so the thought of spending months or years
without writing a line of code, just meeting users and understanding
their needs is anathema to most engineers.
> Well, it just isn't so. But I'm wasting my time again, I've
>discussed this before, at length, and they just aren't capable of
>understanding the issue.
Perhaps this reflects on your writing skills.
---peter
Charles Eicher
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> Charles Eicher wrote in message ...
> >In article <77dht3$74f$1...@strato.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
> ><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
> >> not the users, which must evolve. I believe that computer users
> >> should be able to focus as much as possble on their task or goal
> >> and worry as little as possible on the ideosyncracies of the tool.
> >
> >That statement is a perfect encapsulation of everything that is wrong with
> >high-technology, and computer geeks in particular. They put the cart before
> >the horse, and create thousands of "solutions" in search of a problem.
> >hey believe that if their tools are perfect, the solution to any problem is
> >trivial.
>
> What are you talking about? How does your response even relate
> to my statement?
Why am I not surprised that you, a computer geek that obviously has no
knowledge whatsoever about Art, just doesn't GET IT..?
> Are you saying that computers should NOT be easier to use?
What, in the way that Windows98 is "easier to use" than Windows95?
> Are you suggesting the ideosyncracies of computer tools
> SHOULD stand between the user and his goals?
The idiosyncracies and "limitations" of any medium are exactly what any
artist exploits. But it would be impossible to explain this to you, you
aren't capable of understanding the concept.
> Are you saying that computer users should be required to
> undergo arcane rites of initiation - a species of technological
> hazing - in which they learn esoteric commands, totally arbitrary
> tools placement and keystroke combinations, and whim-of-the-
> programmer use-models in order to gain access to the tool's
> capabilities?
A typical computer-geek point of view. What you're really saying is that
someday, a computer tool will be just as easy to use as a brush. I have
news for you: it is a lot easier to use a brush.
> And if that's not what you're saying then why can't you write
> clearer expository English?
The artists who read my statements don't have any problem understanding.
> I know, as a software engineer, that we are WELL AWARE of
> how to write powerful, easy-to-use, robustly reliable software.
> But I also know that we make deliberate design decisions for
> various reasons to shortcut the necessary processes. Sometimes
> the reasons are ones of cost or time-to-market. Sometimes
> they are because software engieers much prefer writing programs
> to testing and validating them. Most often they are because
> most software engineers have nothing but disdain for nontechnical
> end-users and so the thought of spending months or years
> without writing a line of code, just meeting users and understanding
> their needs is anathema to most engineers.
blah blah blah. So much geekspeak, so little understanding of the problem.
We're not talking about software engineering, we're talking about art. This
is rec.arts.fine, right?
Let me try to put this simply, with a concrete example, so even computer
geeks might understand.
When I was studying calligraphy in Japan, I had occasion to shop with
custom brush-makers on several occasions. They sold handmade brushes, in an
astonishing variety of styles. I often solicited their judgement on
purchasing brushes appropriate to my work. I trusted their judgement,
because they were all just as skilled at calligraphy as they were at making
the tools to produce calligraphy. I would have been quite happy to study
art and technique with these brushmakers, as I was to purchase their
products.
On the other hand, here we have a computer geek with no knowlege of how
artists think or work, trying to tell us that he knows what kind of tools
we need to use, and how he's going to fix the art world by making better
tools. Do me a favor and spare us your 'solution' to our problems.
> > Well, it just isn't so. But I'm wasting my time again, I've
> >discussed this before, at length, and they just aren't capable of
> >understanding the issue.
>
> Perhaps this reflects on your writing skills.
Perhaps this reflects on your comprehension abilities. Maybe you should
have taken more Humanities classes in college.
peter nelson
>In article <77fnei$40v$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Eicher wrote in message ...
>> >In article <77dht3$74f$1...@strato.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
>> ><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
>> >> not the users, which must evolve. I believe that computer users
>> >> should be able to focus as much as possble on their task or goal
>> >> and worry as little as possible on the ideosyncracies of the tool.
>> >
>> >That statement is a perfect encapsulation of everything that is wrong
with
>> >high-technology, and computer geeks in particular. They put the cart
before
>> >the horse, and create thousands of "solutions" in search of a problem.
>> >hey believe that if their tools are perfect, the solution to any problem
is
>> >trivial.
>>
>> What are you talking about? How does your response even relate
>> to my statement?
>
>Why am I not surprised that you, a computer geek that obviously has no
>knowledge whatsoever about Art, just doesn't GET IT..?
>
>> Are you saying that computers should NOT be easier to use?
>
>What, in the way that Windows98 is "easier to use" than Windows95?
Who said it was? Why am I not surprised that you, a Usenet poster,
are not skilled in basic cognition?
>> Are you suggesting the ideosyncracies of computer tools
>> SHOULD stand between the user and his goals?
>
>The idiosyncracies and "limitations" of any medium are exactly what any
>artist exploits.
So trying to figure out what obscure command makes the
palette appear a certain way, or how to save a file in a certain format,
because the help facility of some software tool is inadequate,
makes better art?? Is it also your thesis that watercolor brushes
should weigh 10 pounds because the challenge of painting
with such tools would improve the result? Is it your thesis that
Liquitex should randomly insert disappearing pigments in
some of their tubes (the equivalent of software crashes)
because then the artist can exploit this "feature"? Maybe
you've hit on something here. Maybe we can IMPROVE the
quality of computer art by making the tools even HARDER
to use, or BUGGIER!
Last year when WACOM got the erase feature on their pens
working in NT I sent them an email thanking them. By your
logic I should have complained because the inability to erase
a line with the wireless pen was a feature I could have exploited
to make better art.
>> Are you saying that computer users should be required to
>> undergo arcane rites of initiation - a species of technological
>> hazing - in which they learn esoteric commands, totally arbitrary
>> tools placement and keystroke combinations, and whim-of-the-
>> programmer use-models in order to gain access to the tool's
>> capabilities?
>
>A typical computer-geek point of view. What you're really saying is that
>someday, a computer tool will be just as easy to use as a brush. I have
>news for you: it is a lot easier to use a brush.
Sure, and Linux is just as easy to use as NT for people who think
"grep" and "ls" are intuitive. Everything is easy to use if you have
an eidetic memory.
I use Adobe Photoshop; it has literally thousands of features and
capabilities. It also crashes sometimes, doesn't always get
along with certain printers, and graphics cards and has various
bugs associated with palettes, color separations and other
matters. It's rich feature set has spawned a huge industry
of seminars, books, and classes explaining to people how to
use them, and other companies make good money selling little
quick-tip cards, reminder sheets, and mouse-pads and digitizer
overlays with tips and reminders because it's nearly impossible to
keep it all in one's head. I have to constantly refer to their help
facility for this or that feature and then I've got to try to guess what
they called it in order to look it up.
If this easier to use than a brush then why doesn't Winsor and Newton
ship a CDROM-worth of help file with their brushes? The last
few brushes of theirs I bought didn't even come with a manual!
I must have gotten ripped off.
---peter
mil...@cove.com
Thanks to Peter Nelson for some interesting and valid comments on this
subject.
I'm relatively new to this medium but already have been stimulated and
informed by comments stimulated be postings on rec. arts. fine., some of
which have been continued through private e-mail communications. My one
disappointment has been the number of users who seem to have a need for a
public forum for wise-ass comments and personal aspersions. Hopefully, they
will tire of this and leave the space for people who have something
constructive to offer.
Milt Lauenstein
Andrew Werby
> > >In article <77dht3$74f$1...@strato.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
> > ><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
> > >> not the users, which must evolve. I believe that computer users
> > >> should be able to focus as much as possble on their task or goal
> > >> and worry as little as possible on the ideosyncracies of the tool.
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
> > >That statement is a perfect encapsulation of everything that is wrong with
> > >high-technology, and computer geeks in particular. They put the cart before
> > >the horse, and create thousands of "solutions" in search of a problem.
> > >hey believe that if their tools are perfect, the solution to any problem is
> > >trivial.
[It is up to us artists to sort through the tools available in order
to find something that suits our own ideas about or style of
working. No tool will be perfect, but without them the solutions to
some problems are impossible. These new computer tools make new sorts
of art achievable that were unthinkable a short time ago.]
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
> Let me try to put this simply, with a concrete example, so even computer
> geeks might understand.
> When I was studying calligraphy in Japan, I had occasion to shop with
> custom brush-makers on several occasions. They sold handmade brushes, in an
> astonishing variety of styles. I often solicited their judgement on
> purchasing brushes appropriate to my work. I trusted their judgement,
> because they were all just as skilled at calligraphy as they were at making
> the tools to produce calligraphy. I would have been quite happy to study
> art and technique with these brushmakers, as I was to purchase their
> products.
[This is a good point, I agree that any company making software
intended for artists should work as closely as possible with actual
artists in developing the product. The better ones do this. I'd
like to see programs become more intuitive in their interface
design too- I see no contradiction here. There are some computer
graphics software professionals who are a lot like the brushmakers
mentioned above. But why is the brush a sacred object and the
microprocessor a tainted one in your personal mythology?]
>On the other hand, here we have a computer geek with no knowlege of how
>artists think or work trying to tell us that he knows what kind of tools
> we need to use, and how he's going to fix the art world by making better
> tools. Do me a favor and spare us your 'solution' to our problems.
[I don't recall him saying he was going to "fix the art world". But if
he comes up with a tool that's a little easier to use. what's the harm?
If you don't want to, you don't have to buy it. I find few things more
laughable, by the way, than people who rant on about "geeks" over the
internet, trusting the same folks he maligns to faultlessly route their
computer-generated messages around the world.]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools
Charles Eicher
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> Charles Eicher wrote in message ...
> >In article <77fnei$40v$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
> ><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Charles Eicher wrote in message ...
> >> >In article <77dht3$74f$1...@strato.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
> >> ><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
> >> >> not the users, which must evolve. I believe that computer users
> >> >> should be able to focus as much as possble on their task or goal
> >> >> and worry as little as possible on the ideosyncracies of the tool.
> >> >
> >> >That statement is a perfect encapsulation of everything that is wrong
> with
> >> >high-technology, and computer geeks in particular. They put the cart
> before
> >> >the horse, and create thousands of "solutions" in search of a problem.
> >> >hey believe that if their tools are perfect, the solution to any problem
> is
> >> >trivial.
> >>
> >> What are you talking about? How does your response even relate
> >> to my statement?
> >
> >Why am I not surprised that you, a computer geek that obviously has no
> >knowledge whatsoever about Art, just doesn't GET IT..?
> >
> >> Are you saying that computers should NOT be easier to use?
> >
> >What, in the way that Windows98 is "easier to use" than Windows95?
>
> Who said it was? Why am I not surprised that you, a Usenet poster,
> are not skilled in basic cognition?
Why am I not surprised that an computer geek, untrained in the humanities,
does not understand a simple analogy?
> >> Are you suggesting the ideosyncracies of computer tools
> >> SHOULD stand between the user and his goals?
> >
> >The idiosyncracies and "limitations" of any medium are exactly what any
> >artist exploits.
>
> So trying to figure out what obscure command makes the
> palette appear a certain way, or how to save a file in a certain format,
> because the help facility of some software tool is inadequate,
> makes better art??
Typical geek-think. They focus on the tools, not the end-result. Tools are
not a medium, just as a brush is not oil painting.
> ..Is it also your thesis that watercolor brushes
> should weigh 10 pounds because the challenge of painting
> with such tools would improve the result?
Absolutely, if that is the artist's choice. To give a specific example, the
artist Brice Marden did a series of paintings by attaching his brush to the
end of a 10 foot bamboo rod. He liked how the extra weight of the brush and
the shakiness of the thin rod introduced random variations in his lines.
That series of paintings is world famous, and if you tried to buy one
today, it would cost more than you earn in 15 years.
> ..Is it your thesis that
> Liquitex should randomly insert disappearing pigments in
> some of their tubes (the equivalent of software crashes)
> because then the artist can exploit this "feature"? Maybe
> you've hit on something here. Maybe we can IMPROVE the
> quality of computer art by making the tools even HARDER
> to use, or BUGGIER!
I can see you're a Windoze user. My Mac hasn't crashed in several months. I
fail to see how the problems of Windoze crashing has any relevance to this
discussion.
> Last year when WACOM got the erase feature on their pens
> working in NT I sent them an email thanking them. By your
> logic I should have complained because the inability to erase
> a line with the wireless pen was a feature I could have exploited
> to make better art.
When Wacom introduced the eraser pen, I chastized them for failing to
understand how artists draw, and that the constant rotation of the pen to
use the opposite end to erase would induce more carpal-tunnel syndrome in
their users. Its much easier to use the keyboard with your left hand, to
hold down a key to invoke the eraser mode (i.e. like Photoshop does). It
doesn't stress your tendons that way. I'm still using my vintage 1990 Wacom
tablet with no eraser, and it works just fine. The eraser feature is merely
a marketing gimmick, it adds no functionality that didn't already exist in
their earlier product. You fell for it, being a feature-loving computer
geek.
> >> Are you saying that computer users should be required to
> >> undergo arcane rites of initiation - a species of technological
> >> hazing - in which they learn esoteric commands, totally arbitrary
> >> tools placement and keystroke combinations, and whim-of-the-
> >> programmer use-models in order to gain access to the tool's
> >> capabilities?
> >
> >A typical computer-geek point of view. What you're really saying is that
> >someday, a computer tool will be just as easy to use as a brush. I have
> >news for you: it is a lot easier to use a brush.
>
> Sure, and Linux is just as easy to use as NT for people who think
> "grep" and "ls" are intuitive. Everything is easy to use if you have
> an eidetic memory.
Sure, and oil painting is just as easy to use as Crayola Crayons, for those
that have taken the time to master their medium. Everything is easy, if you
practice enough, and are capable of learning. But this is irrelevant (which
is why you raised this issue, I presume).
> I use Adobe Photoshop; it has literally thousands of features and
> capabilities.
There is an old computer-biz saying, "buying the latest, most advanced
word-processing system won't make you a Great American Novelist." I suggest
you read a small book called "Writing with a Word Processor" by William
Zinsser. It discusses writing in the context of the art of writing, and how
the tools have opened up an infinite series of traps for writers, who have
become focused on tools rather than the words they want to write. Zinsser
raises most of the issues I am dealing with here. The tools are not the
work, they are merely tools. Developing better tools doesn't make anyone a
better artist. Better ARTISTS make better art, better TOOLS are largely
irrelevant. You don't even need tools to make art, just your brain.
> ..It also crashes sometimes, doesn't always get
> along with certain printers, and graphics cards and has various
> bugs associated with palettes, color separations and other
> matters.
yep, I knew you were a Windoze user. I have never seen Photoshop crash on
my mac, not since about version 2.0. I'm using 5.02, and its perfectly
stable.
FYI, those "bugs" in pallettes and color separations are not bugs, but
represent well-known problems in color theory that have been documented for
at least a hundred years. But then, you wouldn't know anything about this,
having never studied color theory (a subject taught in almost every art
school).
> ..It's rich feature set has spawned a huge industry
> of seminars, books, and classes explaining to people how to
> use them, and other companies make good money selling little
> quick-tip cards, reminder sheets, and mouse-pads and digitizer
> overlays with tips and reminders because it's nearly impossible to
> keep it all in one's head. I have to constantly refer to their help
> facility for this or that feature and then I've got to try to guess what
> they called it in order to look it up.
How terrible for you. I haven't bothered to read the PS manual since
version 2.0, and I never use the help facility. And I never have any
trouble getting the effects I want. I guess that is the difference between
rasterbating computer geeks and artists. Artists know what kind of image
they want to create, so they instantly know what tools they need to create
it. Rasterbaters don't know the end result they are seeking, and they
blunder around, trying different effects, and undoing them when they aren't
"right" and trying again and again until they stumble upon an effect they
like. There are hundreds of thousands of rasterbaters using Photoshop, but
probably only a few hundred real artists. This easily accounts for the
immense "Photoshop for Dummies" industry you cite.
> If this easier to use than a brush then why doesn't Winsor and Newton
> ship a CDROM-worth of help file with their brushes? The last
> few brushes of theirs I bought didn't even come with a manual!
> I must have gotten ripped off.
God you're an asshole. You see why I say it is futile to argue with
computer geeks? They just don't get it. They are megalomaniacs, who think
that since they have mastered one arcane art, they are qualified to
dispense their expertise on ALL arts. I submit that it is precisely the
opposite. Computer geeks know how to manipulate symbols on a screen,
without any knowledge of the REAL WORLD system that those symbols
represent. They are the "Jack of All Trades, Master of none."
Peter Nelson
>> palette appear a certain way, or how to save a file in a certain format,
>> because the help facility of some software tool is inadequate,
>> makes better art??
>
>Typical geek-think. They focus on the tools, not the end-result. Tools are
>not a medium, just as a brush is not oil painting.
You're just evading the question. My thesis is that current
software tools are artificially and unnecessarily hard to use.
You don't deny it; you seem to be saying it's a virtue.
>> ..Is it also your thesis that watercolor brushes
>> should weigh 10 pounds because the challenge of painting
>> with such tools would improve the result?
>
>Absolutely, if that is the artist's choice.
What if it's not?
>I can see you're a Windoze user. My Mac hasn't crashed
>in several months.
Actually I learned Photoshop on a Mac in a class at a local
university. It crashed regularly. That's because the Mac OS
is poorly designed and does a lousy job of protecting
apps from each other. Not only would Photoshop crash, but it
would take MacroMedia Director with it and we had to reboot.
At least when Photoshop crashes on NT no other apps go down
and I can just restart it.
I've never used Windows95/98 for anything in my life and have
no familiarity with it.
>The tools are not the work, they are merely tools.
Which doesn't change the fact that there are well-designed
tools and badly-designed ones and all current software tools
are badly-designed.
>FYI, those "bugs" in pallettes and color separations are not
>bugs, but represent well-known problems in color theory
>that have been documented for at least a hundred years.
No, there are real bugs. For instance, the Mac had a bug
in which the color palette would freeze in certain locations.
This is not a color theory problem - it's bad software.
> so they instantly know what tools they need to create
>it.
And how do you know WHERE to find the tool in the product or
what the manufacturer decided to call it?
That's the other problem - if the tools are so naturally designed
then Corel, Adobe, etc, should place it the same menu with the
same interface, etc. The design of any tool, be it a bush or a
hammer or a software tool should reflect a natural organic
relationship between the user and his purpose. Almost all brushes
have a similar design and the differences between rounds and flats,
or between bristle material, etc are details. This similar design,
which makes it possible to go easily from, say, Winsor and
Newton to Yasutomo results from this natural process of
independently discovering how a human being needs to manipulate
the tool to achieve his goal. Likewise, going from a Sears
Craftsman hammer to a Stanley one is trivial. But going from
Corel to Abobe, which you allege is simpler than a brush, is
nontrivial.
Abode, Corel, etc, are poorly designed because they did not
start from a natural, organic understanding of user's needs.
>> If this easier to use than a brush then why doesn't Winsor and Newton
>> ship a CDROM-worth of help file with their brushes? The last
>> few brushes of theirs I bought didn't even come with a manual!
>> I must have gotten ripped off.
>
>God you're an asshole.
Another evasion. Hurling insults is a sure way to show that
you're desperatley flailing.
You said that software is simpler to use than a brush. I
am merely pointing out that the brush does not need a
manual to understand it. Neither tool can create art without the
artists' skills. But the difference is that the software tool
creates a wall of complexity and arcane design decisions
between the application of that skill and the end result.
> Computer geeks know how to manipulate symbols on a screen,
>without any knowledge of the REAL WORLD system that those symbols
>represent.
The symbols in tools like Photoshop or Corel Draw don't
"represent" anything. They are not "brushes" or "paints" even
if they use those words. They are tools unto themselves with
their own nature. They're just poorly designed and unnecessarily
complicated.
---peter
Charles Eicher
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> [It is up to us artists to sort through the tools available in order
> to find something that suits our own ideas about or style of
> working. No tool will be perfect, but without them the solutions to
> some problems are impossible. These new computer tools make new sorts
> of art achievable that were unthinkable a short time ago.]
I agree with you completely, and I do use computer tools myself. However,
that is not the main issue here. My point of contention is this guy's
statement:
] As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
] not the users, which must evolve.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of the art world. The evolution
of the arts is a story of the evolution of ideas, not the evolution of the
tools. Yes, there have been many technological advancements that have
impacted on the world of ideas. However, if you took away ALL technology,
artists would still find ways to express themselves, and would advance
their arts even if they were restricted to spoken words and dancing naked.
This computer geek values technology too highly, because he values himself
and his own opinion too highly (c.f. my other response in this thread).
> cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
> > Let me try to put this simply, with a concrete example, so even computer
> > geeks might understand.
> > When I was studying calligraphy in Japan, I had occasion to shop with
> > custom brush-makers on several occasions. They sold handmade brushes, in an
> > astonishing variety of styles. I often solicited their judgement on
> > purchasing brushes appropriate to my work. I trusted their judgement,
> > because they were all just as skilled at calligraphy as they were at making
> > the tools to produce calligraphy. I would have been quite happy to study
> > art and technique with these brushmakers, as I was to purchase their
> > products.
>
> [This is a good point, I agree that any company making software
> intended for artists should work as closely as possible with actual
> artists in developing the product. The better ones do this. I'd
> like to see programs become more intuitive in their interface
> design too- I see no contradiction here. There are some computer
> graphics software professionals who are a lot like the brushmakers
> mentioned above. But why is the brush a sacred object and the
> microprocessor a tainted one in your personal mythology?]
As a brush calligrapher, I place great importance on the brush, and I do
get far more impact with a lowly brush than 99% of the people who have
advanced computer graphics systems. But that isn't the point. Computers
aren't "tainted" and brushes aren't "sacred," they are just tools. You and
I have been through this argument many times before, we both know the
backstory, of all the geeks who descend on this newsgroup and pronounce
that they know the answer to all our artistic problems. That is my only
objection.
> >On the other hand, here we have a computer geek with no knowlege of how
> >artists think or work trying to tell us that he knows what kind of tools
> > we need to use, and how he's going to fix the art world by making better
> > tools. Do me a favor and spare us your 'solution' to our problems.
>
> [I don't recall him saying he was going to "fix the art world".
He thinks that his efforts at computer programming are going to advance the
arts more than us lowly "users." And I disagree. All artists know that
artists are the vanguard of society. The problems that artists discover
today will be the problems that scientists must deal with and resolve.. in
about 30 years.
But if
> he comes up with a tool that's a little easier to use. what's the harm?
> If you don't want to, you don't have to buy it. I find few things more
> laughable, by the way, than people who rant on about "geeks" over the
> internet, trusting the same folks he maligns to faultlessly route their
> computer-generated messages around the world.]
I trust geeks to route my messages, but not to tell me what tools I should
be using to make my art, and how I should be using them.
There's an old saying in the tech world (note, that is not the "geek"
world, this saying implies some sophisticated knowledge of the world) that
"Topology is Politics." In this example, the physical layout of the
internet is an implicit social construct, with political implications.
Geeks think its just a set of technologies to sling bytes around the globe.
I hope you haven't fallen into that trap too. That's like saying a painting
is "just paint on canvas"...
Charles Eicher
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> Charles Eicher wrote in message ...
> >> So trying to figure out what obscure command makes the
> >> palette appear a certain way, or how to save a file in a certain format,
> >> because the help facility of some software tool is inadequate,
> >> makes better art??
> >
> >Typical geek-think. They focus on the tools, not the end-result. Tools are
> >not a medium, just as a brush is not oil painting.
>
> You're just evading the question. My thesis is that current
> software tools are artificially and unnecessarily hard to use.
> You don't deny it; you seem to be saying it's a virtue.
Tools are just what you make of them. I exhibited computer graphics in
1976, when my computer (a Sol 8080) had a screen rez of 64x128 pixels in
B&W, and hardcopy meant photographing a CRT. Only an artist can turn a
limitation into a virtue.
> >I can see you're a Windoze user. My Mac hasn't crashed
> >in several months.
>
> Actually I learned Photoshop on a Mac in a class at a local
> university. It crashed regularly. That's because the Mac OS
> is poorly designed and does a lousy job of protecting
> apps from each other.
No, its because you someone (probably you) didn't know how to install and
operate the MacOS. But then, university labs aren't known for having the
latest and greatest equipment. But that's no excuse, my Mac 8100/110 is
quite old, but I still have no problem with crashing. I can't remember the
last time I crashed.
> >The tools are not the work, they are merely tools.
>
> Which doesn't change the fact that there are well-designed
> tools and badly-designed ones
I don't dispute this, its a fact.
> ..and all current software tools
> are badly-designed.
but that is just an opinion. And a poorly informed one too. Have you used
ALL the current software tools?
> >FYI, those "bugs" in pallettes and color separations are not
> >bugs, but represent well-known problems in color theory
> >that have been documented for at least a hundred years.
>
> No, there are real bugs. For instance, the Mac had a bug
> in which the color palette would freeze in certain locations.
> This is not a color theory problem - it's bad software.
Never heard of such a bug. I think you're referring to what is known as an
"I/O Error" (Idiot Operator).
> And how do you know WHERE to find the tool in the product or
> what the manufacturer decided to call it?
You mean, how do I know that when I click on a little symbol of a
paintbrush, that I can use my cursor like a paintbrush?
> That's the other problem - if the tools are so naturally designed
> then Corel, Adobe, etc, should place it the same menu with the
> same interface, etc.
Gee, that's funny, Adobe has a common interface between Illustrator and
Photoshop, just to name one example. Maybe you haven't noticed this common
user-interface feature?
> ..The design of any tool, be it a bush or a
> hammer or a software tool should reflect a natural organic
> relationship between the user and his purpose.
Bullshit. I can pound a nail just as effectively with a cheap hammer as
with an ergonomically designed titanium hammer with a custom grip molded to
my hand.
> ..Almost all brushes
> have a similar design and the differences between rounds and flats,
> or between bristle material, etc are details. This similar design,
> which makes it possible to go easily from, say, Winsor and
> Newton to Yasutomo results from this natural process of
> independently discovering how a human being needs to manipulate
> the tool to achieve his goal.
I can see you have no real experience in this area. There are substantial
differences, say, between a 3 inch flat Hake brush, a 3 inch flat bristle
paintbrush. Or maybe a better example, a 1 inch round Chinese calligraphy
brush and a 1 inch round bristle brush used for oil painting.
Likewise, going from a Sears
> Craftsman hammer to a Stanley one is trivial. But going from
> Corel to Abobe, which you allege is simpler than a brush, is
> nontrivial.
You don't read too well. I said it was easier to use a real brush.
> Abode, Corel, etc, are poorly designed because they did not
> start from a natural, organic understanding of user's needs.
Incorrect. That is precisely the best feature of programs like Corel Draw
and Adobe Illustrator (for example). When I first did CG, if I wanted to
draw a bezier curve, I had to write mathematical functions in Fortran,
write it on punched cards, submit it to the IBM 360 mainframe operator, who
would run it and output it to a CalComp plotter (I did this a lot). But
now, I just click to draw a couple of endpoints, and stretch the control
points, its completely natural.. IF you understand how the tool functions.
Don't blame the computer because you don't understand how it works.
> >> If this easier to use than a brush then why doesn't Winsor and Newton
> >> ship a CDROM-worth of help file with their brushes? The last
> >> few brushes of theirs I bought didn't even come with a manual!
> >> I must have gotten ripped off.
> >
> >God you're an asshole.
>
> Another evasion. Hurling insults is a sure way to show that
> you're desperatley flailing.
No, I wasn't flailing, I was making a cogent observation about your
particular mindset, which you snipped in a pathetic attempt to avoid my
remark, so I will restore it:
] You see why I say it is futile to argue with
] computer geeks? They just don't get it. They are megalomaniacs, who think
] that since they have mastered one arcane art, they are qualified to
] dispense their expertise on ALL arts. I submit that it is precisely the
] opposite. Computer geeks know how to manipulate symbols on a screen,
] without any knowledge of the REAL WORLD system that those symbols
] represent. They are the "Jack of All Trades, Master of none."
FYI, that is a close paraphrase of a remark made by Joseph Wiezenbaum, an
MIT researcher in Artificial Intelligence. It is paraphrased from the
conclusion of his book "Computer Power and Human Reason." He even used the
specific word "megalomaniac" to describe computer geeks. His remark wasn't
aimed at you, but if the shoe fits...
> You said that software is simpler to use than a brush.
I never said any such thing. Do you really have to lie, in order to make
your point?
> I am merely pointing out that the brush does not need a
> manual to understand it. Neither tool can create art without the
> artists' skills. But the difference is that the software tool
> creates a wall of complexity and arcane design decisions
> between the application of that skill and the end result.
Which is irrelevant to an artist. To give another concrete example, and
sticking with the brush metaphor, there are some famous pieces of Japanese
calligraphy that are considered National Treasures. They were executed by
an impoverished priest, he had paper and ink but no brush, so he chewed on
a twig until it became frayed and soft, and executed rough calligraphy,
dipping the twigin the ink and writing with it as if it were a brush. Those
calligraphies are more highly prized than those he executed smoothly with a
real brush. The rough calligraphy is more expressive than the highly
polished brushwork.
It is the limitations of a medium, and how we surpass them, turning the
disadvantages of a medium into its virtues, that makes a painting into a
work of art.
> > Computer geeks know how to manipulate symbols on a screen,
> >without any knowledge of the REAL WORLD system that those symbols
> >represent.
>
> The symbols in tools like Photoshop or Corel Draw don't
> "represent" anything. They are not "brushes" or "paints" even
> if they use those words. They are tools unto themselves with
> their own nature.
And here is your fundamental misunderstanding. Those tools employ a scheme
which is known as a "Real World Metaphor." A paintbrush in Photoshop
emulates the behavior of a real paintbrush as closely as is possible on a
computer. If you misunderstand how a real brush works, or you misunderstand
how the metaphor is applied, you will never be effective at using the
computer tool. Effective use of that tool has nothing to do with the
inherent quality of design of the tool, it is a function of your
UNDERSTANDING of the Real World Metaphor. If you had prior experience using
a brush, your understanding of the PS brush would be more comprehensive.
That is why most of the good computer artists were good artists FIRST, and
computer users second.
> ..They're just poorly designed and unnecessarily
> complicated.
Like your entire argument.
DFRussell
[snip]
|>
|> I agree with you completely, and I do use computer tools myself. However,
|> that is not the main issue here. My point of contention is this guy's
|> statement:
|>
|> ] As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
|> ] not the users, which must evolve.
|>
|> This shows a complete lack of understanding of the art world.
More likely a lack of understanding of the limitations of
computers on your part.
|> The evolution
|> of the arts is a story of the evolution of ideas, not the evolution of the
|> tools.
Without the "tools" to express those "ideas," there wouldn't be much "art".
The things you take for granted: paper, canvas, paint, etc.
|> Yes, there have been many technological advancements that have
|> impacted on the world of ideas.
Duuh.
|> However, if you took away ALL technology,
|> artists would still find ways to express themselves, and would advance
|> their arts even if they were restricted to spoken words and dancing naked.
Geee, sounds like "performance art" (note the quotes) --
shall we bleed on the stage also?
|> This computer geek values technology too highly,
"Geek"? I alway find it amusing when someone displays their
ignorance of computers by labeling someone else a "computer
geek".
You sensitive artistic types are *soooooo* inclusive and open to
other ideas! How do you do it?
"Values technology too highly"? How, pray tell, did you manage
to come to this conclusion? The person clearly said that he didn't
think computers currently up to the task. How does that translate
into valuing "technology too highly"?
|> because he values himself
|> and his own opinion too highly (c.f. my other response in this thread).
Translation: he knew more about something than I did and had the gall to
mention it to me in public. Deal with it better, next time.
"Computer art" is, at best, mildly interesting, and it certainly
doesn't have much of a market. I believe there will someday
be a computer program itself which produces images which will
be hawked as "art". The same is currently done with elephants.
However, if you are so lame as to *need* a computer to enhance
your work, quit now. If a computer program can help you that
much, let's just eliminate the middle man and go straight to
the program.
Careful what you wish for -- remember the printing press? :-)
peter nelson
>In article <77gnj7$fn0$1...@strato.ultra.net>, "Peter Nelson"
><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>> You're just evading the question. My thesis is that current
>> software tools are artificially and unnecessarily hard to use.
>> You don't deny it; you seem to be saying it's a virtue.
>
>Tools are just what you make of them. I exhibited computer graphics in
>1976, when my computer (a Sol 8080) had a screen rez of 64x128 pixels in
>B&W, and hardcopy meant photographing a CRT. Only an artist can turn a
>limitation into a virtue.
Which doesn't change the fact that it's a limitation.
>No, its because you someone (probably you) didn't know how to install and
>operate the MacOS.
( Although this is off the subject, the MacOS really is a bad OS.
In the MacOS all memory is shared - there is nothing to stop
one errant application from scribbling over a range of
addresses used by another application. Furthermore all
multitasking is "cooperative", meaning that an application
must explicitly give up control to the OS for the next task
to run. This results in errant apps locking the machine.
NT and Unix use preemptive multitasking and also do a
far better job of protecting themselves and other programs
from misbehaving applications. Apple has been promising
a new OS for many years that will correct these and other
shortcomings. )
>> >FYI, those "bugs" in pallettes and color separations are not
>> >bugs, but represent well-known problems in color theory
>> >that have been documented for at least a hundred years.
>>
>> No, there are real bugs. For instance, the Mac had a bug
>> in which the color palette would freeze in certain locations.
>> This is not a color theory problem - it's bad software.
>
>Never heard of such a bug. I think you're referring to what is known as an
>"I/O Error" (Idiot Operator).
It was documented on Adobe's website and they offered a
downloadable fix.
>You mean, how do I know that when I click on a little symbol of a
>paintbrush, that I can use my cursor like a paintbrush?
No, how do users know how to make more subtle adjustments
like the shape of the point, the degree of transparency in a color,
etc? I work in charcoal, pencil, pastels and lately I've taken up
painting. What I like about those media is that I don't have to
memorize where things are or how to access them. Vine charcoal,
compressed charcoal, fine points, broad ones, my palette, water,
whatever, are all there before me - I don't have to "access" them
through menus and mouse clicks, and I don't have little
dialog boxes popping up in front of my paper or canvas. That's
ease of use.
>
>> That's the other problem - if the tools are so naturally designed
>> then Corel, Adobe, etc, should place it the same menu with the
>> same interface, etc.
>
>Gee, that's funny, Adobe has a common interface between Illustrator and
>Photoshop, just to name one example.
That's because it's the same company. It was a corporate design
decision made by some committee of engineers or marketing
people sitting around a conference table talking about "common
look and feel". And you call ME a geek!
>> ..The design of any tool, be it a bush or a
>> hammer or a software tool should reflect a natural organic
>> relationship between the user and his purpose.
>
>Bullshit. I can pound a nail just as effectively with a cheap hammer as
>with an ergonomically designed titanium hammer with a custom grip molded to
>my hand.
But that's because they have the same basic design. The titanium
head and custom molded grip are just details, like whether you
click "OK" or "Apply". You're so used to it that you take it for
granted that hammers all have the same "user interface". But
the fact that the Sears Craftsman hammer and a Stanley hammer
and a Home Depot no-name hammer are all so similar is NOT
a result of a committee in a conference room. Instead it reflects
the natural relationship which that design has with the user banging
or pulling nails. If you needed a tool to bang nails and you'd never
seen a hammer before you'd still probably come up with that
design.
>
>> ..Almost all brushes
>> have a similar design and the differences between rounds and flats,
>> or between bristle material, etc are details
. . .
>I can see you have no real experience in this area. There are substantial
>differences, say, between a 3 inch flat Hake brush, a 3 inch flat bristle
>paintbrush. Or maybe a better example, a 1 inch round Chinese calligraphy
>brush and a 1 inch round bristle brush used for oil painting.
They all have a long handle, a ferrule and a tip of hairs or artificial
fibers at one end to hold the medium - in effect they all have
the same USER INTERFACE. There is nothing which says paint or
ink HAS to be applied that way. Indeed, some artists use sponges,
balled up t-shirts filled with cotton, knives, pieces of aluminum
foil, etc, to apply their media. But brushes are by far the most
common tool and this is because of their natural - as opposed to
committee-of-geeks - design basis.
>> Abode, Corel, etc, are poorly designed because they did not
>> start from a natural, organic understanding of user's needs.
>
> But now, I just click to draw a couple of endpoints, and stretch the
control
>points, its completely natural.. IF you understand how the tool functions.
>Don't blame the computer because you don't understand how it works.
Au contraire. If it is hard to understand how a tool works then it IS the
fault of
the software designer. If I want to draw a fine line in charcoal I will
naturally pick up a piece with a narrow tip. Going to graphite, or even to
paints the same principle applies. I don't need to learn a new thing to
look for because that relationship is natural and intuitive. But going
from one brand of software to another requires learning a whole different
tool or use-model to change the point size of my pen or brush - having
learned how to do it in one brand doesn't inform me how to do it
in a different brand because their user interface design is not the
result of a natural organic process. The reason is that these tools
are designed by committees of geeks they do not necessarily reflect
they way real users would intuitively try to do those things.
I've worked in computer graphics since 1981 and I've sat on many
such committees and I'm telling you the truth about this software -
it is poorly designed and if you find it easy to use then you are
either a bigger geek than me or they just got lucky with you.
>Which is irrelevant to an artist. To give another concrete example, and
>sticking with the brush metaphor, there are some famous pieces of Japanese
>calligraphy that are considered National Treasures. They were executed by
>an impoverished priest, he had paper and ink but no brush, so he chewed on
>a twig until it became frayed and soft, and executed rough calligraphy,
>dipping the twigin the ink and writing with it as if it were a brush. Those
>calligraphies are more highly prized than those he executed smoothly with a
>real brush. The rough calligraphy is more expressive than the highly
>polished brushwork.
Because what he made was a BRUSH. This only reinforces my contention
that a brush is a natural user-interface; it is what arises naturally from
our human nature - the shape of our hands and fingers, the way our
muscles work, the way we look at our work as we create it and the way
we think. The fact that thousands of different sizes and shapes
and materials of brushes exist is testimony to the wonderfully elegant
expression of this organic design principle.
Software interfaces need to be designed the same way. They should
be a natural organic extension of the attributes of the artist. Had we
been in that artist's situation we would have probably done the same
thing as he did (probably not as well) because it's the obvious,
intuitive, natural thing to do.
>And here is your fundamental misunderstanding. Those tools employ
> a scheme wich is known as a "Real World Metaphor." A paintbrush
>in Photoshop emulates the behavior of a real paintbrush as closely
> as is possible on a computer.
No it DOESN'T. Look, I design these things for a living!! If it
we wanted to emulate a brush we would make something which
sometimes drips, which dries out, which becomes stiff and hard
after time, which become frayed or mis-shapen after time or as a
function of how often the user has borne-down hard on it, which
sometimes has some hairs or bristles that hold more medium than
the surrounding ones, which can be twirled as it's being applied, etc
All of these are technologically feasible (indeed, some tools have
some of these features).
Metaphor and emulation are two VERY different things in UI design.
A metaphor is something to help the user over the learning curve.
He knows what a brush is so we give him something similar enough
so he doesn't have to start from scratch. But we limit the illusion
to only those features of a "brush" we guess in a committee of geeks
that he might really want, and if the marketing guys insist, then we
add features to this "brush" that real ones could never have. In
a real emulation you simulate every feature you can without making
value judgements about what the "good" and "bad" features are.
---peter
peter nelson
Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
>
>> > >In article <77dht3$74f$1...@strato.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
>> > ><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> should be able to focus as much as possble on their task or goal
>> > >> and worry as little as possible on the ideosyncracies of the tool.
>
>> > >That statement is a perfect encapsulation of everything that is wrong
with
>> > >high-technology, and computer geeks in particular. They put the cart
before
>> > >the horse, and create thousands of "solutions" in search of a problem.
>> > >hey believe that if their tools are perfect, the solution to any
problem is
>> > >trivial.
>
>to find something that suits our own ideas about or style of
>working. No tool will be perfect, but without them the solutions to
>some problems are impossible. These new computer tools make new sorts
>of art achievable that were unthinkable a short time ago.]
Absolutely. I think they're great in that sense. And I think they'll
continue to get better. I've worked in computer graphics -mostly
3D - since 1981 designing the software. But when it comes to
making my own art I use charcoal, pencil, pastels, paper, illustration
board, and canvas. I find the user-interface on the computer tools
awkward.
Drawing is particularly a problem because when I'm drawing with
a pencil the line appears where I'm applying the the point. With
a computer I'm applying the point on a digitizing tablet but it
remains blank and the image appears on the display which is
elsewhere. I find this very unnatural.
I also find the tools to hard to learn. We KNOW what features
to expect - color mixing, selecting pens and brushes and giving
them shapes and sizes, making masks, creating blends and
transparencies, etc, etc. But each tool has its own user interface
to these features, so especially if it's a feature you don't use very
often you have to hunt around to find it or figure out how to use it.
One of my theses is that humans are natural tool-users and that
our physical and mental design as human beings implies that
certain tool designs will be a better "natural fit" for us than
others - they will feel right and natural and intuitive from the get-go.
I've worked in software design for 25 years and it's my opinion that
user interface design should consist of a search for that
natural, intuitive fit and that one way you know you've found it
is when multiple, separate teams or companies arrive at the
same design independently. Conversely, when different
companies produce *different* UI's to do the same function it's
usually a clue that one or both of them have not found the right
design.
---peter
peter nelson
>> [I don't recall him saying he was going to "fix the art world".
>
>He thinks that his efforts at computer programming are going to advance the
>arts more than us lowly "users."
Where did I say this?
My contention is that the current crop of drawing and painting
tools are unneccesarily hard to learn and use and this results
in people who might be very good artists but not geeky enough
to tolerate the ideosyncracies of current technology not being
able to take advantage of whatever those tools can do.
We talked about the 10-pound paintbrush and you mentioned
some artists who preferred such burdens. Fine. But if
all paintbrushes were 10 pounds there's a lot of great painting
today which would not exist and we would be poorer for that.
Even if those artists became sculptors and draughtsmen
and produced great sculpture and drawing we still wouldn't
have the Mona Lisa. Monet might have given us great works
in charcoal or pencil or but we wouldn't have his Haystacks at
Giverny or Saint-Lazare Station.
Better software tools will not make better art or artists
any more than easier-to-manipulate brushes or better
paint pigments will. But they might allow artists to find
expression for their skills and inspiration which otherwise
would never be created.
. . .
>I trust geeks to route my messages, but not to tell me what
> tools I should be using to make my art, and how I should be
> using them.
But you do anyway. You can only use the tools they give
you and only within the constraints they've built into the product.
(and also only to the extent that you can figure out how they
intended some feature be invoked.) The fact that you've
freely chosen to do so doesn't change the fact that the constraints
you've agreed to be bound by were put there by a committee of geeks.
---peter
Jim Leonard
One of the biggest problems I have with computer's is the user friendly
Command or Ctrl Z key. This is great when I am out making a buck doing
graphic work for someone. But I have found that long term exposure has
made me a bit timid about commiting with marks and changes to physical
works...I find myself desiring to make a change "just to see" how it
looks and then undoing it. Unfortunately, we all know that erasing is
not undoing. Nor is painting over. Sure you can grab a rag and wipe it
clean...but then where the hell did the REDO hot key go?
No sir. I don't like it.
-jim
Charles Eicher
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> One of my theses is that humans are natural tool-users and that
> our physical and mental design as human beings implies that
> certain tool designs will be a better "natural fit" for us than
> others - they will feel right and natural and intuitive from the get-go.
Yep, another fundamental flaw in your mental model. Humans are tool users
because the are able to make an ABSTRACTION of the function of a tool.
Tools have a "natural fit" into our abstraction of a function, it fits a
need that we concieve of.
When prehistoric man wanted to kill a mastodon, he observed that if the
animal's body was pierced it would die, so he had this idea of a tool that
he could plunge into its body. A long pointy stick could fill this
function, so he used it. He didn't start with pointy sticks and notice that
its design could be applied to mastodon hunting.
> I've worked in software design for 25 years and it's my opinion that
> user interface design should consist of a search for that
> natural, intuitive fit and that one way you know you've found it
> is when multiple, separate teams or companies arrive at the
> same design independently.
Or maybe they've all opted for the simplest expression of an abstraction.
This isn't necessarily the best approach.
Conversely, when different
> companies produce *different* UI's to do the same function it's
> usually a clue that one or both of them have not found the right
> design.
Or maybe they just have different abstractions of that function.
Marilyn
>
> Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
> >
> to expect - color mixing, selecting pens and brushes and giving
> them shapes and sizes, making masks, creating blends and
> transparencies, etc, etc. But each tool has its own user interface
> to these features, so especially if it's a feature you don't use very
> often you have to hunt around to find it or figure out how to use it.
>
> our physical and mental design as human beings implies that
> certain tool designs will be a better "natural fit" for us than
> others - they will feel right and natural and intuitive from the get-go.
>
> user interface design should consist of a search for that
> natural, intuitive fit and that one way you know you've found it
> is when multiple, separate teams or companies arrive at the
> companies produce *different* UI's to do the same function it's
> usually a clue that one or both of them have not found the right
> design.
>
Just a comment, jumping into the middle of this thread:
It's interesting that you discuss the limitations/possibilities of
computers for let's say "fine art" for lack of a more precise term.
Where it is
being used to the max, is in commercial art, advertising, TV graphics,
architecture. These were areas where artists were once able to make
a living, while doing their "fine art" in their studios.
I find it interesting to think about the effect of the above on
the role of artists and graphic designers today. If you add printers
(human)and illustrators you broaden the field. This is a socio-economic
development that has already happened.
Marilyn
Marilyn
l.
> Tools have a "natural fit" into our abstraction of a function, it fits a
> need that we concieve of.
> When prehistoric man wanted to kill a mastodon, he observed that if the
> animal's body was pierced it would die, so he had this idea of a tool that
> he could plunge into its body. A long pointy stick could fill this
> function, so he used it. He didn't start with pointy sticks and notice that
> its design could be applied to mastodon hunting.
>
And prehistoric man noticed that he could not kill a mastadon alone.
It required a hunting committee and many spears. Maybe you guys could
get together as a committee and come up with a definitive statement
on the place of computers in the world of "fine art"
1. like where to start - the best hardware, for example
2. what are the best programs
a) what can these programs do (in short)
3. your prognosis for their use in the near & distant future
4. limitations
5. advantages
6. when above stuff will become more affordable
Just a few thoughts from the sidelines.
Marilyn
mdeli
>The evolution
>of the arts is a story of the evolution of ideas, not the evolution of the
>tools.
It is the evolution of both.
What counts is the look of the finished artwork. How it was done is
always a secondary matter if the viewer finds it attractive,
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and read about a skeptical view of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Charles Eicher
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
ah, it seems you've stumbled upon a separate line of discussion in this
thread, between two artists, are you sure you're prepared for this? I could
go back to the other line of discussion, and pick apart your points one by
one, but it is getting rather tedious, since you aren't on the same
wavelength.
> Charles Eicher wrote in message ...
> >In article <drewid-1201...@caulk37.ppp.lmi.net>,
> >dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
>
> >> [I don't recall him saying he was going to "fix the art world".
> >
> >He thinks that his efforts at computer programming are going to advance the
> >arts more than us lowly "users."
>
> Where did I say this?
I already quoted you, and you deleted the quote:
] As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
] not the users, which must evolve.
This, and all of your subsequent statements add up to a simple fallacy: Its
the skilllfulness of the artist in tool-using, and the elegance of his
tools that determines the quality of a painting. Maybe you should be having
this debate with other amateurs like Mani "no skill no art" Deli. The arts
world has long ago left behind the mere physical appearance of objects and
how skillfully they can be depicted, as its criterion for "quality." Today,
it is the quality of ideas that determines the quality of a work. Those
ideas are evolving, just as artists evolve. Artists evolve much more
quickly than technology, in fact, most artists come upon the significant
cultural problems of society long before scientists and geeks ever discover
them.
> My contention is that the current crop of drawing and painting
> tools are unneccesarily hard to learn and use
If making art was easy, anyone could do it. Making art is inherently
difficult and impractical, to some degree.
> ..and this results
> in people who might be very good artists but not geeky enough
> to tolerate the ideosyncracies of current technology not being
> able to take advantage of whatever those tools can do.
I'm going to try to restate my position again, knowing full well that you
aren't listening to a word I'm saying.
1. I use computer tools (at times) in the creation of my art.
2. Yes, some of the computer tools are poorly designed.
3. Despite design flaws, these tools are comprehensible and useful.
4. Some people LIKE the flaws, and exploit them to their advantage.
Let me give another concrete example. When Postscript first came out, some
designers didn't like the smoothly rendered fonts. One of the first (and
most popular) fonts to be issued in reaction to this were some fonts from
Emigre type foundry that emulated the look of the clunky dot-matrix fonts.
A whole group of artists and designers exploited the retro, ragged look,
and it even became a popular and influential style of graphic design. And
most amazingly of all, some of those designers did their work in this genre
in cold-type letterpress, which is absolutely THE most difficult way to do
typesetting. As the new technological advancements made typesetting easier,
the advantages of the older "hard to use" systems became more obvious.
I'm going to give you a small arts lecture, knowing full well that you
won't understand a word of what I'm saying, and if you DO manage to
understand, you will dismiss it completely. Others in this newsgroup may
have heard me expostulate on this subject before, and from past
discussions, I know its easily comprehensible to creative artists, so
please pay close attention.
There is an important theory of artistic activity called
"Previsualization." It was first applied in photography, when some artists
had trouble dealing with the complexities of the mechanical and chemical
aspects of the process. But what it boils down to is simple. An artist
might see a scene and envision how the photograph he wants to take should
turn out (this is a vast oversimplification, since "seeing" is a
fundamental aspect of photography, but I will not get into this here). The
artist makes a mental image of the photograph he desires, he previsualizes
it. Then, having practiced with his tools sufficiently to know how to get
repeatable results, and knowing how variations in their application will
affect his results, he knows how to use the process to capture the
essential aspects of the photograph he envisions.
Note the essential parts of the system:
1. artistic intention to produce a specific image
2. Knowledge of the tools and how they work.
Nowhere in this system is it significant how WELL the tools work, or how
well they are designed. In fact, I've seen this system applied equally well
to 8x10 view cameras and pinhole cameras made out of a tin can (look for
Judy Dater's pinhole photos, for example). The quality of design of the
tools is irrelevant. Some tools (i.e. a view camera instead of a 35mm
camera) can introduce more variables, but to some artists, this is a
distraction, and can actually detract from one's ability to execute the
desired image. More variables to control just means the system is
different, not better.
Implicit in this system is that one must have control over the FLAWS in any
system, and be able to exploit them to one's artistic advantage. Those
things which you decry as "distractions' are inherently part the system.
Computers act in a completely predictable, deterministic, and
comprehensible way, and thus are ideal for using in this sort of system.
This is why computer tools use a Real World Metaphor. The metaphoric
paintbrush does not perfectly emulate a real paintbrush, but the basic
functions are predictable and can be employed predictably, despite any
"flaws" or "distractions."
It really doesn't matter much if these flaws exist. To use my particular
specialty, painting, as an example, if improvements in technology were the
most important matter in the arts world, we'd all be using acrylic paints
and airbrushes or some similarly modern inventions. But most people prefer
the time-tested tools of oil painting, despite its own inherent flaws. Most
artists have learned to turn these "flaws" to their advantage, through
their practice and study in application of these tools.
> We talked about the 10-pound paintbrush and you mentioned
> some artists who preferred such burdens. Fine. But if
> all paintbrushes were 10 pounds there's a lot of great painting
> today which would not exist and we would be poorer for that.
You may consider a computer to be a "10-pound paintbrush" but I think of it
more as a $5000 paintbrush, which makes it accessible only to the elite who
can afford it. Fortunately, not all arts innovations come committees of
white-collar geeks, or from those lowly enduser artists who can afford
expensive tools. It is the quality of one's ideas, not the quality of one's
tools that advances the arts. You can't stop progress, particularly when
the only tool needed for progress is one's mind. Even if your ridiculous
example of a 10 pound paintbrush was real, it would not have stopped people
from innovation in the arts.
> Even if those artists became sculptors and draughtsmen
> and produced great sculpture and drawing we still wouldn't
> have the Mona Lisa. Monet might have given us great works
> in charcoal or pencil or but we wouldn't have his Haystacks at
> Giverny or Saint-Lazare Station.
So you're an art critic now too? Well, let me inform you of a few facts.
Manet was influenced by a new technological innovation, premixed oil paints
in tubes, that allowed artists the freedom to paint outdoors for the first
time, rather than making charcoal sketches outdoors and then executing the
oil painting in the studio with hand-ground pigments (that was the standard
practice of the day). However, this is not why his works are prized today.
There were plenty of plein-air painters from that era, and most of them
were mediocre and are forgotten, despite their use of these same
technological improvements. What made the Impressionists significant (using
Monet as an oversimplified example) was the new idea of rapidly capturing
an impression of the light on a scene. It was the quality of his new idea,
not the methods he used to capture it, that keeps these works fresh and
vital even today.
> Better software tools will not make better art or artists
> any more than easier-to-manipulate brushes or better
> paint pigments will. But they might allow artists to find
> expression for their skills and inspiration which otherwise
> would never be created.
Artists were never lacking for ways to express themselves.
> >I trust geeks to route my messages, but not to tell me what
> > tools I should be using to make my art, and how I should be
> > using them.
>
> But you do anyway. You can only use the tools they give
> you and only within the constraints they've built into the product.
> (and also only to the extent that you can figure out how they
> intended some feature be invoked.)
You truly don't understand how artists work. Artists often use tools in
ways entirely unanticipated by the tool designers. Ever used a pliers to
pull a nail when you didn't have a hammer around?
Charles Eicher
In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
I meant to type Monet here. I always get Monet and Manet's names mixed up,
but I never mix up their images. Whenever I refer to him, or respond to
someone referring to Monet OR Manet, I always doublecheck in a reference
book to make sure we're both talking about the same guy. I did this before
writing this response, and I STILL made that same stupid mistake. Ooops.
What a difference a single character makes!
> ..was influenced by a new technological innovation, premixed oil paints
peter nelson
the
>> >arts more than us lowly "users."
>>
>> Where did I say this?
>
>I already quoted you, and you deleted the quote:
>
>] As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
>] not the users, which must evolve.
So? How does this imply it will "advance the arts"?
>This, and all of your subsequent statements add up to a simple fallacy: Its
>the skilllfulness of the artist in tool-using, and the elegance of his
>tools that determines the quality of a painting.
I'm referring to the elegance of the tools. They're not
elegant.
Why should artists, any more than any other profession, have
to adapt themselves to crude unwieldy, badly-designed tools?
>> My contention is that the current crop of drawing and painting
>> tools are unneccesarily hard to learn and use
>
>If making art was easy, anyone could do it. Making art is inherently
>difficult and impractical, to some degree.
So? How does this justify poorly-designed tools? By your "logic"
we software designers should try even harder to make them
more difficult and obscure.
<irrelevant blah blah, blah deleted for brevity>
>Note the essential parts of the system:
>1. artistic intention to produce a specific image
>2. Knowledge of the tools and how they work.
All I'm saying is that for any given tool there is seldom
any virtue if #2, above takes a year to achieve if it could
be made to take a month. A month learning some arcane
tool syntax is a month in which the artist is not thinking
about or creating his art. Ditto for a mere hour.
> To use my particular specialty, painting, as an example, if improvements
> in technology were the most important matter in the arts world, we'd
> all be using acrylic paints and airbrushes or some similarly modern
> inventions.
Another nonsensical analogy. Acrylics aren't an improvement over
oils, just different from oils. You use the medium whose characteristics
are most suitable for what you're trying to accomplish. For instance,
the short drying time of acrylics or the long open time of oils can be
either a blessing or a curse depending on the situation. But there
is unlikely to be a situation where a feature that is improperly
documented in the help system of a computer-based tool is
ever a virtue.
>> Even if those artists became sculptors and draughtsmen
>> and produced great sculpture and drawing we still wouldn't
>> have the Mona Lisa. Monet might have given us great works
>> in charcoal or pencil or but we wouldn't have his Haystacks at
>> Giverny or Saint-Lazare Station.
>
>So you're an art critic now too? Well, let me inform you of a few facts.
>Manet was influenced by a new technological innovation, premixed oil paints
>in tubes, that allowed artists the freedom to paint outdoors for the first
>time, rather than making charcoal sketches outdoors and then executing the
>oil painting in the studio with hand-ground pigments (that was the standard
>practice of the day). However, this is not why his works are prized today.
>There were plenty of plein-air painters from that era, and most of them
>were mediocre and are forgotten, despite their use of these same
>technological improvements. What made the Impressionists significant (using
>Monet as an oversimplified example) was the new idea of rapidly capturing
>an impression of the light on a scene. It was the quality of his new idea,
>not the methods he used to capture it, that keeps these works fresh and
>vital even today.
Irrelevant to my point that if the tools were sufficiently inaccessible
to use ("the 10 pound paintbrush") there would have been some
art that never would have been created. It is completely irrelevant
if an easy-to-use tool attracts a thousand hacks to a medium as
long as it attracts one master (or at least fails to discourage him
from trying that medium).
>> Better software tools will not make better art or artists
>> any more than easier-to-manipulate brushes or better
>> paint pigments will. But they might allow artists to find
>> expression for their skills and inspiration which otherwise
>> would never be created.
>
>Artists were never lacking for ways to express themselves.
Irrelevant. As I noted before, if painting were not technologically
feasible the artists who developed impressionism may well
have found some other outlet but we would not have the
paintings of the impressionists.
>> >I trust geeks to route my messages, but not to tell me what
>> > tools I should be using to make my art, and how I should be
>> > using them.
>>
>> But you do anyway. You can only use the tools they give
>> you and only within the constraints they've built into the product.
>> (and also only to the extent that you can figure out how they
>> intended some feature be invoked.)
>
>You truly don't understand how artists work. Artists often use tools in
>ways entirely unanticipated by the tool designers.
You're a master of the nonsequitor. The fact that users use tools in
unanticipated way doesn't change the fact that they are still operating
within the constraints of the tool. They can can only do what the
tool lets them do, regardless of whether the feature in question
was intended or not. And what the tool lets you do is a function of
how the geeks designed it, so you're still letting the geeks determine
how you use your tool even if you're not using it as they intended.
> Ever used a pliers to pull a nail when you didn't have a hammer around?
Actually, no.
---peter
peter nelson
><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>> I've worked in software design for 25 years and it's my opinion that
>> user interface design should consist of a search for that
>> natural, intuitive fit and that one way you know you've found it
>> is when multiple, separate teams or companies arrive at the
>> same design independently.
>
>Or maybe they've all opted for the simplest expression of an abstraction.
If they did it would be done in a consistent way and that
consistency would be a result of independently discovering
it, NOT the product of some standards committee or a marketing
suit demanding "common look and feel". The fact that Corel
and Abode choose different ways of invoking the same tools
and features is exactly what I'm taking about.
The concept of a brush is a natural one based on the task and
the design of a human being. Brushes, as we've noted, differ
in details but the archetype is the same. This confirms the
elegance of the design. The Japanese monk and the starving
European artist both bereft of brushes would likely both come
up with the same basic tool design. It's intuitive and natural.
Computer tools should be the same way.
---peter
peter nelson
>> I've worked in software design for 25 years and it's my opinion that
>> user interface design should consist of a search for that
>> natural, intuitive fit and that one way you know you've found it
>> is when multiple, separate teams or companies arrive at the
>> companies produce *different* UI's to do the same function it's
>> usually a clue that one or both of them have not found the right
>> design.
>Just a comment, jumping into the middle of this thread:
>
>It's interesting that you discuss the limitations/possibilities of
>computers for let's say "fine art" for lack of a more precise term.
Do I? I don't think I've made such a distinction. If I did,
I didn't mean to, because the distiction between fine art
and commercial art, to me, is wholly artificial and arbitrary
and mainly the product of snobs and art critics. To me there
is creative, insightful, and skillful art, and bland, unimaginative,
or skill-less art. Those are the only distinctions which matter
to me.
>
Where it is
>being used to the max, is in commercial art, advertising, TV graphics,
>architecture. These were areas where artists were once able to make
>a living, while doing their "fine art" in their studios.
I suspect that the fact that computer art is more used for
commercial purposes reflects the art-critic snobbery I
mentioned above. An advertising agency is perfectly
happy to receive an artist's work on a floppy or Zip drive.
A fine art gallery doesn't usually know how to fit that idea
into their universe. Displaying a computer print - something
that could easily have thousands of perfectly identical copies
- next to original oil and watercolor nonplusses them.
Although they'll tell you that they are interested in the
creative work of the artist, it's really the medium and the
tools they're hung up on.
>I find it interesting to think about the effect of the above on
>the role of artists and graphic designers today. If you add printers
>(human)and illustrators you broaden the field. This is a socio-economic
>development that has already happened.
Yup. That's why I started the "future of painting" thread on
this ng a few weeks ago.
---peter
Charles Eicher
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> Charles Eicher wrote in message ...
> >> >He thinks that his efforts at computer programming are going to advance
> the
> >> >arts more than us lowly "users."
> >>
> >> Where did I say this?
> >
> >I already quoted you, and you deleted the quote:
> >
> >] As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
> >] not the users, which must evolve.
>
> So? How does this imply it will "advance the arts"?
OK, I take it back. I am completely wrong. You have no real interest in the
arts, artists, or their work; you are only interested in the tools, which
are solutions in search of a problem. You are only interested in
"improving" the tools for the ego gratification that most geeks live on,
that you can say you produced the latest and greatest revision of some
obscure piece of irrelevancy.
> >This, and all of your subsequent statements add up to a simple fallacy: Its
> >the skilllfulness of the artist in tool-using, and the elegance of his
> >tools that determines the quality of a painting.
>
> I'm referring to the elegance of the tools. They're not
> elegant.
What's elegant about a chainsaw, or a forklift, or a backhoe, or...? You
fail to understand the difference between practical and elegant.
> Why should artists, any more than any other profession, have
> to adapt themselves to crude unwieldy, badly-designed tools?
Because better-designed tools aren't really necessary?
> >> My contention is that the current crop of drawing and painting
> >> tools are unneccesarily hard to learn and use
> >
> >If making art was easy, anyone could do it. Making art is inherently
> >difficult and impractical, to some degree.
>
> So? How does this justify poorly-designed tools? By your "logic"
> we software designers should try even harder to make them
> more difficult and obscure.
You should have taken more Humanities courses in college (assuming you even
attended a college). They teach things like Logic. There is no "logic" in
the way you are twisting my words. I never said that the tools should be
more difficult and obscure. However, I don't see any problem in "more
difficult and obscure" tools. I myself use several processes that are
considered "lost arts" and they are extremely difficult to use. And those
processes offer advantages that are unavailable in modern technologies that
are "better designed."
> <irrelevant blah blah, blah deleted for brevity>
Gee, I predicted that:
] I'm going to give you a small arts lecture, knowing full well that you
] won't understand a word of what I'm saying, and if you DO manage to
] understand, you will dismiss it completely.
> >Note the essential parts of the system:
> >1. artistic intention to produce a specific image
> >2. Knowledge of the tools and how they work.
>
> All I'm saying is that for any given tool there is seldom
> any virtue if #2, above takes a year to achieve if it could
> be made to take a month.
There is OFTEN virtue in learning a tool that is difficult to master, even
when simplified processes are available. For example, it takes much time
and effort to master Platinum Printing as a photographic medium, so much
that most photographers never bother to even try. But Platinum prints offer
a whole range of possibilities that regular silver printing does not. In
fact, the difficulties of the process INCREASE the range of possibilities,
and improves the aesthetic merit of the work.
Once again, you have only proven your ignorance of how artists really work.
> ..A month learning some arcane
> tool syntax is a month in which the artist is not thinking
> about or creating his art. Ditto for a mere hour.
The process is just as essential as its application. An hour spent
practicing one's process is just another hour spent preparing for the work.
Sometimes you get MORE from the time in preparation, than the time spent
actually working. Every artist knows this to be true.
> > To use my particular specialty, painting, as an example, if improvements
> > in technology were the most important matter in the arts world, we'd
> > all be using acrylic paints and airbrushes or some similarly modern
> > inventions.
>
> Another nonsensical analogy. Acrylics aren't an improvement over
> oils, just different from oils. You use the medium whose characteristics
> are most suitable for what you're trying to accomplish. For instance,
> the short drying time of acrylics or the long open time of oils can be
> either a blessing or a curse depending on the situation. But there
> is unlikely to be a situation where a feature that is improperly
> documented in the help system of a computer-based tool is
> ever a virtue.
Again, you have failed to address the point. Documentation of a tool is not
the tool. Or perhaps I am wrong, and you saw boards in half with the
owner's manual for your tablesaw.
> >> Even if those artists became sculptors and draughtsmen
> >> and produced great sculpture and drawing we still wouldn't
> >> have the Mona Lisa. Monet might have given us great works
> >> in charcoal or pencil or but we wouldn't have his Haystacks at
> >> Giverny or Saint-Lazare Station.
> >
> >So you're an art critic now too? Well, let me inform you of a few facts.
> >Monet was influenced by a new technological innovation, premixed oil paints
> >in tubes, that allowed artists the freedom to paint outdoors for the first
> >time, rather than making charcoal sketches outdoors and then executing the
> >oil painting in the studio with hand-ground pigments (that was the standard
> >practice of the day). However, this is not why his works are prized today.
> >There were plenty of plein-air painters from that era, and most of them
> >were mediocre and are forgotten, despite their use of these same
> >technological improvements. What made the Impressionists significant (using
> >Monet as an oversimplified example) was the new idea of rapidly capturing
> >an impression of the light on a scene. It was the quality of his new idea,
> >not the methods he used to capture it, that keeps these works fresh and
> >vital even today.
>
> Irrelevant to my point that if the tools were sufficiently inaccessible
> to use ("the 10 pound paintbrush") there would have been some
> art that never would have been created.
yes, of course this is irrelevant to the irrelevant points you are trying
to make. It has nothing to do with this discussion, merely focuses on your
mania about "improving" tools, which is something that artists rarely think
about. They just take the tools available, and use them.
> ..It is completely irrelevant
> if an easy-to-use tool attracts a thousand hacks to a medium as
> long as it attracts one master (or at least fails to discourage him
> from trying that medium).
No, it is the central point. It is not the tools, but their application
under an artistic vision that determines quality and value of an artwork.
You're so focused on the minutiae of the tools that you are incapable of
seeing the bigger picture. You aren't listening to a word I'm saying.
> >> Better software tools will not make better art or artists
> >> any more than easier-to-manipulate brushes or better
> >> paint pigments will. But they might allow artists to find
> >> expression for their skills and inspiration which otherwise
> >> would never be created.
> >
> >Artists were never lacking for ways to express themselves.
>
> Irrelevant. As I noted before, if painting were not technologically
> feasible the artists who developed impressionism may well
> have found some other outlet but we would not have the
> paintings of the impressionists.
And if a penguin was enlarged to 70 feet tall, their brains would STILL not
be as large as a human, but they WOULD be larger than the WERE.
Your statement is just as much a non sequitur as that Monty Python
quotation (actually, it is perfectly on-topic, but you wouldn't be able to
figure that out). You still don't get it.
> >> >I trust geeks to route my messages, but not to tell me what
> >> > tools I should be using to make my art, and how I should be
> >> > using them.
> >>
> >> But you do anyway. You can only use the tools they give
> >> you and only within the constraints they've built into the product.
> >> (and also only to the extent that you can figure out how they
> >> intended some feature be invoked.)
> >
> >You truly don't understand how artists work. Artists often use tools in
> >ways entirely unanticipated by the tool designers.
>
> You're a master of the nonsequitor. The fact that users use tools in
> unanticipated way doesn't change the fact that they are still operating
> within the constraints of the tool.
You are wrong. Did the Chinese inventor of gunpowder anticipate that an
artist would lay down lines of gunpowder on wood, and ignite it to burn
lines inthe wood? Did Alfred Nobel anticipate that artists would use
Dynamite in "explosive forming" which is a way to bend thick metal plates
using explosive forces (a rare but not-too-uncommon sculpting technique)..?
Artists continually redefine the constraints of a tool in ways that the
inventor never could concieve of. Thank god for the artists and workers of
the world, those people who actually PRODUCE physical objects, who discover
what the world needs by being out amidst the real people. It is a far
different scenario than the computer geek, sitting on his fat ass typing at
a keyboard, imagining that the invisible structure he writes is running the
world.
> ..They can can only do what the
> tool lets them do, regardless of whether the feature in question
> was intended or not.
The tool only does what I intend it to do, whether that is the designer's
intended purpose or not.
And what the tool lets you do is a function of
> how the geeks designed it, so you're still letting the geeks determine
> how you use your tool even if you're not using it as they intended.
Artists have many needs that geeks will never consider. You are the perfect
example. The reason computer tools suck is because of people like YOU, who
think they know how artists use tools, when they are basically clueless.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Artists have no need for your ideas,
you are proposing solutions to problems that don't exist. In the future,
you should keep gainfully employed writing bloatware with creeping
featuritis, but don't bore me any further with your pathetic attempts to
tell me how I use tools, and why I'm wrong to use them in the ways that
don't conform to your preconceptions.
I am declaring this discussion at an end. Consider yourself trounced, and
go crawl back under your rock. As I began, I expressed my hesitation to get
involved with this discussion. I've had many of these debates with geeks
who pounce on this newsgroup with their pet theory, and it has never proven
a profitable discussion for either of us. But this case is quite
exceptional. I have never seen someone so single-mindedly ignore a
contrasting opinion, and use lies, twisted words, and fallacious logic to
respond to EVERY SINGLE point with a simpleminded idiocy like "but what if
the tools were better?" It is like talking to a brick wall. But I do thank
you for giving the public a perfect example of how the arrogant twits in
the computer world think. They are obsessed with their OWN model of the
world, and seek to impose it on everyone by defining the structures within
their computer models. Fortunately, the world is getting rather tired of
this kind of crap, and the backlash against this computer-geek-imposed
bullshit is already developing.
DFRussell
>In article <77l37n$b89$1...@strato.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Eicher wrote in message ...
>> >> >He thinks that his efforts at computer programming are going to advance
>> the
>> >> >arts more than us lowly "users."
>> >>
>> >> Where did I say this?
>> >
>> >I already quoted you, and you deleted the quote:
>> >
>> >] As a computer professional I propose that it's the computers,
>> >] not the users, which must evolve.
>>
>> So? How does this imply it will "advance the arts"?
>
>OK, I take it back. I am completely wrong.
Who would have thought?
> You have no real interest in the
>arts, artists, or their work; you are only interested in the tools, which
>are solutions in search of a problem.
This conclusion is invalid as your previous one. At least you're
consistent :)
> You are only interested in
>"improving" the tools for the ego gratification that most geeks live on,
>that you can say you produced the latest and greatest revision of some
>obscure piece of irrelevancy.
:-)
Pretty funny. The thought that a "geek" would be looking for "ego
gratification". I thought they were only interested in Frazetta art,
beer, and an upgrade for their laptop? :-)
I guess that was a different thread.
>
>> >This, and all of your subsequent statements add up to a simple fallacy: Its
>> >the skilllfulness of the artist in tool-using, and the elegance of his
>> >tools that determines the quality of a painting.
>>
>> I'm referring to the elegance of the tools. They're not
>> elegant.
>
>What's elegant about a chainsaw, or a forklift, or a backhoe, or...? You
>fail to understand the difference between practical and elegant.
That simple fact that they work. Try designing/building one sometime
and then come back and repeat your claims.
>
>> Why should artists, any more than any other profession, have
>> to adapt themselves to crude unwieldy, badly-designed tools?
>
>Because better-designed tools aren't really necessary?
>
>> >> My contention is that the current crop of drawing and painting
>> >> tools are unneccesarily hard to learn and use
>> >
>> >If making art was easy, anyone could do it. Making art is inherently
>> >difficult and impractical, to some degree.
>>
>> So? How does this justify poorly-designed tools? By your "logic"
>> we software designers should try even harder to make them
>> more difficult and obscure.
>
>You should have taken more Humanities courses in college (assuming you even
>attended a college). They teach things like Logic.
ROTFL :-)))))
Humanities isn't where you get "logic". You should try taking a few
more math/physics/stat classes :)
> There is no "logic" in
>the way you are twisting my words.
Translation: I hate it when someone makes me look stupid.
> I never said that the tools should be
>more difficult and obscure. However, I don't see any problem in "more
>difficult and obscure" tools.
Oh. OK. That's clear now :-)
> I myself use several processes that are
>considered "lost arts" and they are extremely difficult to use.
Is that related to your "logic"?
> And those
>processes offer advantages that are unavailable in modern technologies that
>are "better designed."
Whatever. If there was a demand for it, some "geek" would provide it
for you.
>
>> <irrelevant blah blah, blah deleted for brevity>
>
>Gee, I predicted that:
Face it, few people read your rambling posts in any depth.
>
>] I'm going to give you a small arts lecture, knowing full well that you
>] won't understand a word of what I'm saying, and if you DO manage to
>] understand, you will dismiss it completely.
>
>> >Note the essential parts of the system:
>> >1. artistic intention to produce a specific image
>> >2. Knowledge of the tools and how they work.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that for any given tool there is seldom
>> any virtue if #2, above takes a year to achieve if it could
>> be made to take a month.
>
>There is OFTEN virtue in learning a tool that is difficult to master, even
>when simplified processes are available. For example, it takes much time
>and effort to master Platinum Printing as a photographic medium, so much
>that most photographers never bother to even try. But Platinum prints offer
>a whole range of possibilities that regular silver printing does not. In
>fact, the difficulties of the process INCREASE the range of possibilities,
>and improves the aesthetic merit of the work.
... hurts so good..... hurts so good.....
>Once again, you have only proven your ignorance of how artists really work.
You mean *real* artists like yourself, right?
And.... this is about where I snip your normal rambling, whining
posts.
But then you knew that, right? :>))))
peter nelson
>OK, I take it back. I am completely wrong. You have no real interest in the
>arts, artists, or their work; you are only interested in the tools, which
>are solutions in search of a problem. You are only interested in
>"improving" the tools for the ego gratification that most geeks live on,
>that you can say you produced the latest and greatest revision of some
>obscure piece of irrelevancy.
You are a fatuous moron. From my contention as a computer
professional that the current crop of graphics software, some of
which I helped write - and therefore can speak from firsthand
knowledge - is needlessly complicated, arcane, and difficult
for non-geeks, you draw conclusions about my education
in the arts and humanities, and my psychological motivations?
Are you always this hostile and arrogant to strangers who don't
display the requisite obeisance to your snobbery? Have you ever
considered getting some psychological counseling?
>> All I'm saying is that for any given tool there is seldom
>> any virtue if #2, above takes a year to achieve if it could
>> be made to take a month.
>
>There is OFTEN virtue in learning a tool that is difficult to master, even
>when simplified processes are available. For example, it takes much time
>and effort to master Platinum Printing as a photographic medium, so much
>that most photographers never bother to even try. But Platinum prints offer
>a whole range of possibilities that regular silver printing does not.
The above must be the result of of getting your logic classes in the
humanities department. You are making an apples and oranges
comparison - platinum and silver printing are two different
processes. My contention is that the EXISTING functionality
of painting and drawing software is far harder to learn and use
than it needs to be. I'm not suggesting that any capability,
flexibility or functionality be given up in return for ease-of-use.
>The process is just as essential as its application. An hour spent
>practicing one's process is just another hour spent preparing for the work.
Sitting for an hour on hold with the Tech Support department
because some feature was not properly documaneted in the
manual or help file is NOT "practicing one's process".
>Sometimes you get MORE from the time in preparation, than the time spent
>actually working. Every artist knows this to be true.
Trying to figure out what entry they put something under in
the Index is not "preparation".
>Again, you have failed to address the point. Documentation of a tool
>is not the tool.
Spoken like a true geek. The wonders of self-documenting
software. If the tools were so well-designed so that their use
was intuitive then this dream of yours might be a reality.
But the the bottom line is that modern software tools have
literally thousands of capabilities and unless you've
committed them all to memory then documentation is
a necessary part of the tool.
>yes, of course this is irrelevant to the irrelevant points you are trying
>to make. It has nothing to do with this discussion, merely focuses on your
>mania about "improving" tools, which is something that artists rarely think
>about. They just take the tools available, and use them.
Of course. A true artist has to suffer. Reading your posts
makes true artists of us all.
>> You're a master of the nonsequitor. The fact that users use tools in
>> unanticipated way doesn't change the fact that they are still operating
>> within the constraints of the tool.
>
>You are wrong. Did the Chinese inventor of gunpowder anticipate that an
>artist would lay down lines of gunpowder on wood, and ignite it to burn
>lines inthe wood? Did Alfred Nobel anticipate that artists would use
>Dynamite in "explosive forming" which is a way to bend thick metal plates
>using explosive forces (a rare but not-too-uncommon sculpting technique)..?
>Artists continually redefine the constraints of a tool in ways that the
>inventor never could concieve of.
But they can only do so to the extent that the dyanamite has the
requisite properties to allow them to do so. Had Nobel invented
a different exlosive with different properties that did not admit that
use then they could not have done those things. So if I wrote a
program which only has 16 bits of color you can't do things which
require 24 bits of color. So the bottom line is that you're
still working within constraints made by geeks.
> but don't bore me any further with your pathetic attempts to
>tell me how I use tools, and why I'm wrong to use them in the ways that
>don't conform to your preconceptions.
Where did I say that you are wrong to use them the way you do?
You really ought to seek psychological counseling for your
apparent persecution complex. No wonder you have the reputation
you do on this newgroup.
---peter
mdeli
Huge snip
>I am declaring this discussion at an end.
Is that a threat or a conjecture.
> Consider yourself trounced, and
>go crawl back under your rock.
Woops, Eicher's hemorrhoids are in full blossom
> As I began, I expressed my hesitation to get
>involved with this discussion. I've had many of these debates with geeks
>who pounce on this newsgroup with their pet theory, and it has never proven
>a profitable discussion for either of us.
ANd you better believe it, Eicher always speaks for all of "us."
>But this case is quite
>exceptional. I have never seen someone so single-mindedly ignore a
>contrasting opinion, and use lies, twisted words, and fallacious logic to
>respond to EVERY SINGLE point with a simpleminded idiocy like "but what if
>the tools were better?"
Paranoia perhaps?
> It is like talking to a brick wall. But I do thank
>you for giving the public a perfect example of how the arrogant twits in
>the computer world think. They are obsessed with their OWN model of the
>world, and seek to impose it on everyone by defining the structures within
>their computer models. Fortunately, the world is getting rather tired of
>this kind of crap, and the backlash against this computer-geek-imposed
>bullshit is already developing.
So there all you arrogant twits. Citizen Eicher has spoken.
ERGO/GERO
thing, there are numerous limitations on the way computer monitors produce color.
Humans can distinguish between 1 million and 7 million colors but standard 24 bit
digital images can contain perhaps 50 thousand. It is impossible to produce
highly saturated colors, especially green. Moreover, the color undersampling
creates aliasing discontinuites which make smooth gradations impossible in many
cases.
I discuss this and related color issues in the "Basic Color and Design SBFAQ." at
http://www.ergogero.com/FAQ/cfaqhome.html
mil...@cove.com wrote:
> Several years ago, it occurred to me that it might be helpful to be able to
> put the image of an incomplete or unsatisfactory painting onto the computer
> in order to be able to manipulate the image with the objective of easily
> being able to see the effect of variations in the image. My intent was then,
> based on what I had seen of the variations on the computer, to return to the
> painting brush in hand and to alter the painting using whatever insight I had
> gained on the computer. To get the image onto the computer, I photographed
> the painting with a video camera and fed the image into the computer using
> software designed for that purpose. With some difficulty, I solved the
> technical problems, so that the system worked just as I had hoped. However,
> in actual practice, the setup did not prove useful and I abandoned it. What I
> saw on the computer simply did not help me produce more satisfactory
> paintings.
>
> More recently, my system for cataloging my paintings fell into chaos. Again,
> it occurred to me that the computer might be useful. By now, I had a digital
> still camera, which is more appropriate for photographing paintings than the
> video camera was. For the cataloging, someone suggested using Microsoft
> Access, which has worked out just fine. I now have photos of perhaps 60
> paintings, numbered, titled,and with information on medium, size, location,
> etc. When a painting is moved or sold, it is very easy to modify the record
> to bring it up to date. While the system is quite new to me, it appears to be
> a success.
>
> The use of computers and digital images by painters will probably grow and
> become standard practice. Many painters already have web sites on which they
> display their work. Some galleries use their computers to review work by
> artists. As the use of computers becomes more widespread and the quality of
> the images on the computer screen improves, it will be much easier for
> artists and galleries to use computer images rather than for the artist to
> submit slides with SASE. Moreover, it will become much easier for galleries
> to show clients more of what is available, including paintings in the
> artist's studio or in other galleries.
>
> One can also readily imagine being able to use the computer to surround the
> image of a painting with an infinite variety of images of frames to give the
> client a better idea of how the framed painting would appear in the home. Of
> course, if the client had a digital image of his wall space, one could see a
> picture of the framed painting just as it would look in the home.
>
> I am confident that creating actual works of art on computers will become
> much more widespread. Some years ago, in high hopes, I attended a workshop on
> art and computers. It was a great disappointment. The computer is so powerful
> that the medium became the message: the artists were so taken with the magic
> of the computer that their work was a demonstration of the wonders of the
> computer rather than an expression of the artists' sensibilities. To me, the
> work was empty. But as more artists become accustomed to using computers, I
> am sure that they will learn how to use them in the service of their art
> rather than the other way around. Video screens in galleries and museums will
> become common --- perhaps taking up more space than the display of actual
> paintings.
mil...@cove.com
ERGO/GERO <gr...@ergogero.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------B27F43FE2EC7747A3F10604B
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> It's very doubtful that artists will ever rely heavily on computers. For one
> thing, there are numerous limitations on the way computer monitors produce
color.
There are many limitations on the way color is produced with light reflected
off of pigments, too. How does one determine which limitations are most
significant to painters and viewers?
>
> Humans can distinguish between 1 million and 7 million colors but standard 24
bit digital images can contain perhaps 50 thousand. It is impossible to
produce
> highly saturated colors, especially green. Moreover, the color undersampling
> creates aliasing discontinuites which make smooth gradations impossible in
many cases.
32-bit video displays successfully display millions of colors on 5the right
monitor.
Computer technology continues to advance rapidly. We'll have to wait to see,
but my belief is that within a small number of years, painters will use
computers a great deal.
-N.
<Jean-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> p
> One of the biggest problems I have with computer's is the user friendly
> Command or Ctrl Z key. This is great when I am out making a buck doing
> graphic work for someone. But I have found that long term exposure has
> made me a bit timid about commiting with marks and changes to physical
> works...I find myself desiring to make a change "just to see" how it
> looks and then undoing it. Unfortunately, we all know that erasing is
> not undoing. Nor is painting over. Sure you can grab a rag and wipe it
> clean...but then where the hell did the REDO hot key go?
>
> No sir. I don't like it.
My two cents (damn you guys have been exhausting).
I am a painter. About 8 years ago I became interested in graphic imagery
and one thing led to the next, and I entered the Mac world. After studying
computers for graphic purposes and for a time, devoting my time to the
digital rather than to paint, I felt something missing. Surely the cost
and the intuitve nature of the tools had something to do with it. But
there were other elements as well, that I didn't understand until later.
Shortly after I bought my first system, I was invited to an art residency
program as a painter, in Omaha of all places. It was a tremendously
productive experience. I had gone into that residency (dragging my
computer along) not certain, what if anything, I wanted to paint. My
status as a painter was in limbo to me.
I discovered, or rather rediscovered, the adventure in painting, the risk
involved.
For me painting is a 'heavy' experience. It does involve risk and
adventure, and one needs to make big commitments and take big risks. One
might have a good painting with a great deal of inspired effort in it, but
to strive to turn it into a great painting, one may have to risk what one
already has accomplished, without the possibility of turning back the
clock. One becomes commited to the direction and the choices, for better
or worse. I realized there in Omaha how intoxicating and engaging that
process was (during my computer classes, I had started technical climbing
seriously, as an outlet for adventure...an activity, more than any other,
that has challanged my status as a painter). The computer by comparison
seemed 'light'. I always knew if I was less than perfect, I could undo my
failures, or even better, return to a previous saved version. That leeway
took a good deal of the heavyness of the act of making art that truely
engages, challanges, and tests me. Of course, one still has hard decisions
in comp. work, as one has to make decisions between these myriad of
versions one has saved and created, but somehow it just isn't as
satisfying as when everthing is on the line, hanging on your actions. The
latter I find more satisfying.
It was in that understanding, that I was able to re-commit myself to the
life of a painter, and discounting the doubts and frustration that are
occupational hazards to the artist (as well as functioning to keep you
thinking and on your toes) I have never looked back nor regreted that
decision.
Now, five years have passed, and I am about to enter the graphic
marketplace for the first time, having turned my back on it a few years
ago. I have also made a commitment to re-evaluating digital processes in
my art. I am taking small steps towards thing digital that have inspired
and excited my imagination over the years. I do know I have seen many
things that interest me, both sculpturally, imagewise, and I-D related
that involve digital labor and technology. I know that much of that lies
beyond my immediate financial and techinical means. However, Robert Irwin
summed it up when he said that techical problems should not stand in the
way to making the kind one dreams of making: that any technique can be
learned and/or invented towards that end. I have a friend working in
architecture using 3-D scanning and rapid prototyping (working for years
traditionally before that) and here in NYC he recently received a state
grant to assist his development. He has student interns doing the tedious
computer grunt work for free.
I agree with many on this thread that the tools are not really as
intuitive as I would like them to be. Although I realize learning the
technics of a craft take some time and practice, and If I continue
w/computers, it will mean a prolonged commitment to that task; I also feel
that computers are in their infancy and will develop to meet these
cultural needs in time. Frankly, I can do without the techie side of
computers, and would be just as comfortable delegating that task to
someones who truely enjoys it, as long as they would be able to generate
what I envision. I do not feel that much is hands on anyway, at least in
my appraoch to it, and it doesn't matter to me whose fingers are touching
the keypads.
There is much out there in the digital domain, as well as the industrial
domain that is exciting and which I would love to get my hands on (or get
to control someone elses hands on). I imagine we will get more intuitive
interfaces in time.
Did anyone see the Frank Stella show about a year ago at Costelli in NYC?
He had two room sized sculptures that resembeled long worm-mounds, about
10' high by 30'-40'. Lets get technical a moment: I am not concerned with
anyone's rant pro or con, for the work in the show. The structure was
surfaced with what appeared to be a spatch-work skin composed of numerous
computer generated graphics, perhaps cast in resin and digitally
etched...rich gridded dimensional textures painted(?) (nothing uniform...a
wild proliferation of textures, depths, layers, surfacing). It had all the
meat I love in a good impastoed/materially worked painting, with the
mathematics of computers, a well as generating an expressionist effect
from the layers of the textures, and the irregularity of the surface
skeins.I have longed for years to get my work into some sort of
experimental material-digital-laser etched/cut/formed/cast workshop...this
work was a hint at what was possible, given the resources. One would need
a real working interface with industry. Anyone have any info on where such
work is currently being done? Either from the art related side or the
industry related side? With either a more intuitive interface, or grunt
worker/technicians/consultants to deal with that side of the process, it
seems like a very exciting arena to make art in...a place to wed concerns
of trad art with those of digital industry. The tools are here. Access to
them and the resources to accomplish what one wants is more of an obstacle
(but so is simply renting a studio to paint in). I suppose one just needs
to be around the right people and machinery. And yes, I find Adobe
Photoshop fascinating, but also a terrific pain in the ass.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
-N.
> Did anyone see the Frank Stella show about a year ago at Costelli in NYC?
> He had two room sized sculptures that resembeled long worm-mounds, about
> 10' high by 30'-40'. Lets get technical a moment: I am not concerned with
> anyone's rant pro or con, for the work in the show. The structure was
> surfaced with what appeared to be a spatch-work skin composed of numerous
> computer generated graphics, perhaps cast in resin and digitally
> etched...rich gridded dimensional textures painted(?) (nothing uniform...a
> wild proliferation of textures, depths, layers, surfacing). It had all the
> meat I love in a good impastoed/materially worked painting, with the
> mathematics of computers, a well as generating an expressionist effect
> from the layers of the textures, and the irregularity of the surface
> skeins.I have longed for years to get my work into some sort of
> experimental material-digital-laser etched/cut/formed/cast workshop...this
> work was a hint at what was possible, given the resources. One would need
> a real working interface with industry. Anyone have any info on where such
> work is currently being done? Either from the art related side or the
> industry related side? With either a more intuitive interface, or grunt
> worker/technicians/consultants to deal with that side of the process, it
> seems like a very exciting arena to make art in...a place to wed concerns
> of trad art with those of digital industry.
I am interested in continuing a technical thread here (banishing
aesthetics and ideology from the conversation) regarding specific digital
based processes. Anyone care to contribute? Does anyone have experience
either directly or indirectly with this media?
Charles Eicher
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
> > Did anyone see the Frank Stella show about a year ago at Costelli in NYC?
> > He had two room sized sculptures that resembeled long worm-mounds, about
> > 10' high by 30'-40'. Lets get technical a moment: I am not concerned with
> > anyone's rant pro or con, for the work in the show. The structure was
> > surfaced with what appeared to be a spatch-work skin composed of numerous
> > computer generated graphics, perhaps cast in resin and digitally
> > etched...rich gridded dimensional textures painted(?) (nothing uniform...a
> > wild proliferation of textures, depths, layers, surfacing).
I haven't seen any of the work you're referring to, but it sounds like
"stereolithography" which would be way overkill for Stella's working style.
If you know of any recent publications of those works, I'd love to see
them.
FYI, Stereolithography is commonly known as "3D printing" and its a way to
make 3D solids directly from a computer file (i.e. Autocad). Unlike
computer-controlled milling machines, this is all done with lasers in a
light-sensitive gel, so you can make hollow solids. The only artist's
experiment with stereolith that I can personally confirm was a failed
project by David Hockney. He did a sculpture series for Gemini GEL, but
this was in the early days of stereolith and the results were not to
Hockney's liking so the whole project went into the trash can.
On a vaguely related note, I saw advertisements in a Japanese graphics
magazine, for a new personal computer milling machine made by Roland. For
about $1200, you can get a device that will turn your CAD drawings into
carved objects made from balsa wood. It doesn't make huge images, only
about 6x8x6inches, nor is the device capable of highly detailed work. But
it is really cool. And they have a matching 3D scanner. AFAIK, these
devices aren't available in the US yet. But if anyone wants to buy me a
round-trip ticket to Japan, I'd gladly go over and buy them for you.
It had all the
> > meat I love in a good impastoed/materially worked painting, with the
> > mathematics of computers, a well as generating an expressionist effect
> > from the layers of the textures, and the irregularity of the surface
> > skeins.I have longed for years to get my work into some sort of
> > experimental material-digital-laser etched/cut/formed/cast workshop...this
> > work was a hint at what was possible, given the resources. One would need
> > a real working interface with industry. Anyone have any info on where such
> > work is currently being done? Either from the art related side or the
> > industry related side? With either a more intuitive interface, or grunt
> > worker/technicians/consultants to deal with that side of the process, it
> > seems like a very exciting arena to make art in...a place to wed concerns
> > of trad art with those of digital industry.
>
>
> I am interested in continuing a technical thread here (banishing
> aesthetics and ideology from the conversation) regarding specific digital
> based processes. Anyone care to contribute? Does anyone have experience
> either directly or indirectly with this media?
We haven't confirmed what media, but I keep fairly close track of these
sorts of techno thingies, so I can probably speculate fairly accurately.
But I'll hold off on that until more information on the Stella works
arrives.
If you want to go back to the first artist I know of who did some serious
computer-assisted lithographs was Jasper Johns. He did some huge woodcuts
(I think this was in the early 1970s) made with computer controlled milling
machines, on huge sheets of plywood. The curves were calculated
mathematically, and carved on the plywood with a router bit controlled by
computer. The shapes Johns used remind me a LOT of Stella's sculptural
shapes, I think there was some serious influence on Stella by Johns.
On the other hand, there is a lot of recent work in holographic
foil-stamping, my local university has a famous workshop where they almost
singlehandedly created "foil stamping" as a printmaking artform. It isn't
really a very technological artform, except that the holographic foils are
made from a high-tech material, in various forms (i.e. repeating patterns
vs. birefringent -colorshifting - materials). The artist merely paints or
prints in an ink that the films will adhere to, and then applies the foil
with a high-tech application device. The foil sticks to the image and peels
away from the raw paper. The nice thing about it is that you can build up
layer after layer of these foils, and they all look like they were applied
by hand, since the foil only sticks to the print, as drawn with the
artist's hand.
angu...@my-dejanews.com
him. now picture the next frame.Impeachment trials. next frame Fellatio is a
high crime and misdemeanor and therefore punishable by removal from office.
next picture millions of women throughout the world blackmailing every
elected official,judge lawyer ,clergy doctor garbage man at the threat of
losing their livelihood under the statute since the LAW is APPLIED EQUALLY>
now picture an empty congressional forum,and empty congregations picture
vacant offices throughout the world. wonder why these seats and offices have
been vacated? picture how you can apply the Law equally when a lack of
appendage exists for half of the constituents?
lets make cigars perjury
and felatio obstruction of justice.
remember that the LAW must be applied Equally to all.
where will you be working tomorrow.
have you ever or will you in the future ..ever smoked a cigar.
did you are you or will you be obstructing justice at any time in your life?
consider this post modern picasso can an artist use words anymore or has the
first amendment been overthrown also. So basically what you are telling me is
that there is no US Constitution,never was and never will be.Thank Goodness.I
was afraid I was going to have to remove myself from office for an act of
conscience.
-N.
> I haven't seen any of the work you're referring to, but it sounds like
> "stereolithography" which would be way overkill for Stella's working style.
> If you know of any recent publications of those works, I'd love to see
> them.
Not offhand. I will inquire when I have the time, as too what it was he
was using.
> FYI, Stereolithography is commonly known as "3D printing" and its a way to
> make 3D solids directly from a computer file (i.e. Autocad). Unlike
> computer-controlled milling machines, this is all done with lasers in a
> light-sensitive gel, so you can make hollow solids. The only artist's
> experiment with stereolith that I can personally confirm was a failed
> project by David Hockney. He did a sculpture series for Gemini GEL, but
> this was in the early days of stereolith and the results were not to
> Hockney's liking so the whole project went into the trash can.
A friend has made architectural models that resemble in structure (but not
form) a translucent egg shell. I believe this is the same process you
describe. He has a 3D CAD image, then sends the file to a shop that
generates a laser generated hollow resin form. Expensive though, and price
limits it to small scale forms.
> On a vaguely related note, I saw advertisements in a Japanese graphics
> magazine, for a new personal computer milling machine made by Roland. For
> about $1200, you can get a device that will turn your CAD drawings into
> carved objects made from balsa wood. It doesn't make huge images, only
> about 6x8x6inches, nor is the device capable of highly detailed work. But
> it is really cool. And they have a matching 3D scanner. AFAIK, these
> devices aren't available in the US yet. But if anyone wants to buy me a
> round-trip ticket to Japan, I'd gladly go over and buy them for you.
The same individual mentioned above recently won a grant, and part of it
went to purchasing a similiar machine.
> If you want to go back to the first artist I know of who did some serious
> computer-assisted lithographs was Jasper Johns. He did some huge woodcuts
> (I think this was in the early 1970s) made with computer controlled milling
> machines, on huge sheets of plywood. The curves were calculated
> mathematically, and carved on the plywood with a router bit controlled by
> computer. The shapes Johns used remind me a LOT of Stella's sculptural
> shapes, I think there was some serious influence on Stella by Johns.
I wasn't aware of those works by Johns.
> On the other hand, there is a lot of recent work in holographic
> foil-stamping, my local university has a famous workshop where they almost
> singlehandedly created "foil stamping" as a printmaking artform. It isn't
> really a very technological artform, except that the holographic foils are
> made from a high-tech material, in various forms (i.e. repeating patterns
> vs. birefringent -colorshifting - materials). The artist merely paints or
> prints in an ink that the films will adhere to, and then applies the foil
> with a high-tech application device. The foil sticks to the image and peels
> away from the raw paper. The nice thing about it is that you can build up
> layer after layer of these foils, and they all look like they were applied
> by hand, since the foil only sticks to the print, as drawn with the
> artist's hand.
Interesting.
If you know of any other similiar processes, I would be interested in
hearing about them. I am not in the milieu to access this sort of
technical dialogue and its application to art...but I would like to know
what exists out there and how to go about accessing and applying some of
the technology.
Jonathan W Hendry
> In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
> > On a vaguely related note, I saw advertisements in a Japanese graphics
> > magazine, for a new personal computer milling machine made by Roland. For
> > about $1200, you can get a device that will turn your CAD drawings into
> > carved objects made from balsa wood. It doesn't make huge images, only
> > about 6x8x6inches, nor is the device capable of highly detailed work. But
> > it is really cool. And they have a matching 3D scanner. AFAIK, these
> > devices aren't available in the US yet. But if anyone wants to buy me a
> > round-trip ticket to Japan, I'd gladly go over and buy them for you.
> The same individual mentioned above recently won a grant, and part of it
> went to purchasing a similiar machine.
Apparently there are also synthetic 'balsa' materials available, which
are used for the same purpose (industrial modeling). They're available
with a range of properties (densities, etc.)
<snip>
> > On the other hand, there is a lot of recent work in holographic
> > foil-stamping, my local university has a famous workshop where they almost
> > singlehandedly created "foil stamping" as a printmaking artform. It isn't
> > really a very technological artform, except that the holographic foils are
> > made from a high-tech material, in various forms (i.e. repeating patterns
> > vs. birefringent -colorshifting - materials). The artist merely paints or
> > prints in an ink that the films will adhere to, and then applies the foil
> > with a high-tech application device. The foil sticks to the image and peels
> > away from the raw paper. The nice thing about it is that you can build up
> > layer after layer of these foils, and they all look like they were applied
> > by hand, since the foil only sticks to the print, as drawn with the
> > artist's hand.
> Interesting.
> If you know of any other similiar processes, I would be interested in
> hearing about them. I am not in the milieu to access this sort of
> technical dialogue and its application to art...but I would like to know
> what exists out there and how to go about accessing and applying some of
> the technology.
I wonder how the holographic foil techniques could be used with
Polaroid transfer techniques?
I've thought it might be interesting to compose images on a computer
(using scanned artwork, original 'painted' images, or a combination of
both), transfer them to 35mm slides, then use the slides to make
Polaroid transfers onto unusual surfaces (watercolor paper, fabric,
unglazed tile, etc). One could take that result, scan it, manipulate
the result digitally, and repeat through multiple generations.
It would be interesting to look at how the holographic foil and
the Polaroid pigments might interact.
Andrew Werby
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
> In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
> > FYI, Stereolithography is commonly known as "3D printing" and its a way to
> > make 3D solids directly from a computer file (i.e. Autocad). Unlike
> > computer-controlled milling machines, this is all done with lasers in a
> > light-sensitive gel, so you can make hollow solids. The only artist's
> > experiment with stereolith that I can personally confirm was a failed
> > project by David Hockney. He did a sculpture series for Gemini GEL, but
> > this was in the early days of stereolith and the results were not to
> > Hockney's liking so the whole project went into the trash can.
>
> A friend has made architectural models that resemble in structure (but not
> form) a translucent egg shell. I believe this is the same process you
> describe. He has a 3D CAD image, then sends the file to a shop that
> generates a laser generated hollow resin form. Expensive though, and price
> limits it to small scale forms.
[Stereolithgraphy was the first Rapid Prototyping technique of this type
that found industrial applications. It works by tracing a contour onto
the top of a vat of polymer goo that hardens locally when sensitized by
the light. When the contour is complete, a ram platen submerged in the
viscous gunk sinks a millimeter or so and another contour is
superimposed over the first, adhering to build up a solid shell. This
technique has been supplemented by various others, some of which use
lasers to sinter a thermoplastic powder, and others which use glue to
consolidate the forms in another sort of powder.]
>
> > On a vaguely related note, I saw advertisements in a Japanese graphics
> > magazine, for a new personal computer milling machine made by Roland. For
> > about $1200, you can get a device that will turn your CAD drawings into
> > carved objects made from balsa wood. It doesn't make huge images, only
> > about 6x8x6inches, nor is the device capable of highly detailed work. But
> > it is really cool. And they have a matching 3D scanner. AFAIK, these
> > devices aren't available in the US yet. But if anyone wants to buy me a
> > round-trip ticket to Japan, I'd gladly go over and buy them for you.
[I'm pretty sure these machines are available in the US. They are sold by
jewelry supply companies as the Roland/Picza system. I haven't had a
chance to use it, but I recallthe dimensions are smaller than given above,
and the little mill is only capable of carving balsa wood (which carves
badly), wax, and foam. The scanner is a touch-probe system, which isn't
as accurate a method as laser-scanning, although it is a much cheaper
machine. For less money, you can get a MaxNC mill, which is bigger and
more robust, although you will need additional software to get it to
carve out 3d surfaces. If anybody's interested, I've got more information
about all this on my website at http://www.computersculpture.com ]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools