MACs vs Traditional Art
Ben Cannon
Bobby Henderson wrote:
> Let me get this straight. Are you now arguing your Mac is "better" than
> traditional media? If so, this is one of the silliest apples to oranges
> comparisons I've ever seen! If you want to push the comparison, when
> you are talking about something that "opens to the soul" of the work
> traditional media is impossible to beat.
This is an interesting point, for me at least; the computer
is *the* place for my artwork.
I've never been very good at the drawing of pictures (or
painting wiht oils, or whatever :) I think I don't have the
motor skills for "traditional media"
I see the curves and colours and shading in my mind, but
I can't for the life of me put them down on paper.
With the computer, it's a different story!
I can do anyhting form clicking in Photoshop's GUI, to
writing my own Renderman shaders in C++!
So, for me, at least..... the computer is better than paper!
(I don't have a Mac, can't stand 'em.
my machine of choice is a Silicon Graphics Indy!)
--
| As I sat there, the light changed from red, to |
| green, to yellow, to red again. Was life nothing |
| more than a whole bunch of honking and yelling? |
| Sometimes it seemed that way. |
~~~> http://artherd.wco.com <~~~
Bobby Henderson
From Wizard's post in the -sigh- MACs versus PC debate, Mon 22:50
Wizard wrote:
[snip]
> If I put you in a room with no light, a piece of black paper and a pencil,
> even you might have problems getting great art produced. Using an
> environment that opens to the soul with its intuitive nature, one that
> lets you do what you want rather than what it wants you to do, helps
> create the best artwork.
Let me get this straight. Are you now arguing your Mac is "better" than
traditional media? If so, this is one of the silliest apples to oranges
comparisons I've ever seen! If you want to push the comparison, when
you are talking about something that "opens to the soul" of the work
traditional media is impossible to beat.
Don't get me wrong, I love computer graphics. But I get a bigger thrill
when I complete an oil painting or graphite drawing and know that the
resulting image came entirely from my mind and my hand. I can make the
image as big or small as I want without needing more RAM and a bigger
hard drive. I can look at the canvas and feel the texture of the dried
brush strokes. And my finished piece of art is the only copy. People
who wrote clever programs cannot take any of the credit of my creation.
I must rely on my own talents to make the image great. You can't use
any short cuts, plug ins or multiple steps of undo. Therefore, the
process is more challenging and equally more rewarding.
You talk about putting a traditional media artist in a room with no
light armed only with a piece of black paper and a pencil. With no
light, the artist could tear and fold that piece of paper into a
sculpture. Meanwhile, if I take away your electricity your PowerMac
will be worthless.
Michael M Lawless
I can't say how much I appreciate this response. It is spot on the
money. Good job!
Mary Morrison
>Don't get me wrong, I love computer graphics. But I get a bigger thrill
> when I complete an oil painting or graphite drawing and know that the
> resulting image came entirely from my mind and my hand. I can make the
> image as big or small as I want without needing more RAM and a bigger
> hard drive. I can look at the canvas and feel the texture of the dried
> brush strokes. And my finished piece of art is the only copy. People
> who wrote clever programs cannot take any of the credit of my creation.
> I must rely on my own talents to make the image great. You can't use
> any short cuts, plug ins or multiple steps of undo. Therefore, the
> process is more challenging and equally more rewarding.
Having worked as a fine artist for over twenty years in the traditional
fields of sculpture, collage and drawings. I find part of this statement
a bit off the mark. The computer is a tool as is the piece of canvas,
the oil paints and brushes. As artists we must give credit to whatever
tools we use to create. I love working with the raw sheets of steel and
my welder to create massive shapes for sculpture in the round but I also
love creating with my computer; especially the 3D animation programs. I
have to rely on my talents as an artist to create good computer art in
the same way I do with the welded steel pieces I create. I need electric
power for both and a knowledge of the tools.
As my back is giving way to age and old injuries the Mac is alot easier
to use for my artistic endeavors. I am greatful for it as a tool.
--
Mary
serap...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~seraphonic
Wizard
>From Wizard's post in the -sigh- MACs versus PC debate, Mon 22:50
>
>Wizard wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> If I put you in a room with no light, a piece of black paper and a pencil,
>> even you might have problems getting great art produced. Using an
>> environment that opens to the soul with its intuitive nature, one that
>> lets you do what you want rather than what it wants you to do, helps
>> create the best artwork.
In article <32C570...@sirinet.net>, chen...@sirinet.net wrote:>
>Let me get this straight. Are you now arguing your Mac is "better" than
>traditional media?
Of course not. What I雋 saying is that an artist is affected and effected
by his or her environment.
If you are in a dark room with black paper you will have a hard time
producing art on the paper.
If you have light and a variety of media in your environment you will have
an easier time producing great art.
On a PC you have to do what it tells you. It limits you
A Mac does what you tell it to. It helps you expand.
>You talk about putting a traditional media artist in a room with no
>light armed only with a piece of black paper and a pencil. With no
>light, the artist could tear and fold that piece of paper into a
>sculpture. Meanwhile, if I take away your electricity your PowerMac
>will be worthless.
Exactly. Limit an artist and he or she does the best possible with what is
available. With a Mac, more is available than with the PC.
Wizard
WEH
Wizard wrote:
> =
> >From Wizard's post in the -sigh- MACs versus PC debate, Mon 22:50
> >
> >Wizard wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> If I put you in a room with no light, a piece of black paper and a p=
encil,
> >> even you might have problems getting great art produced. Using an
> >> environment that opens to the soul with its intuitive nature, one th=
at
> >> lets you do what you want rather than what it wants you to do, helps=
> >> create the best artwork.
> =
> In article <32C570...@sirinet.net>, chen...@sirinet.net wrote:>
[inane and nonsensical PC v Mac line deleted for reasons of sanity]
> =
> Of course not. What I=B9m saying is that an artist is affected and effe=
cted
> by his or her environment.
> If you are in a dark room with black paper you will have a hard time
> producing art on the paper.
> If you have light and a variety of media in your environment you will h=
ave
> an easier time producing great art.
[inane and nonsensical PC v Mac line deleted for reasons of sanity]
> =
> >You talk about putting a traditional media artist in a room with no
> >light armed only with a piece of black paper and a pencil. With no
> >light, the artist could tear and fold that piece of paper into a
> >sculpture. Meanwhile, if I take away your electricity your PowerMac
> >will be worthless.
[inane and nonsensical PC v Mac line deleted for reasons of sanity]
> =
> Wizard
Without getting into the inane Mac v PC, it would seem to me that in
order for this to be a fair comparison that the artist in the room
without light and a pencil and paper be compared to an artist using a
Macintosh with the monitor turned off. I imagine that both artists
would find the challenge reasonably similar and incredibly difficult to
use for almost anything. I suspect that given an operating computer and
a modicum of talent that I could hold my own against a professional with
such limitations, but that if you turned my monitor off, I would guess
the truth about my artistic talents would be revealed to all in no time
at all.
Winston
Michael & Michelle
>
> > If I put you in a room with no light, a piece of black paper and a pencil,
> > even you might have problems getting great art produced. Using an
> > lets you do what you want rather than what it wants you to do, helps
> > create the best artwork.
>
>
> when I complete an oil painting or graphite drawing and know that the
> resulting image came entirely from my mind and my hand. I can make the
> image as big or small as I want without needing more RAM and a bigger
> hard drive. I can look at the canvas and feel the texture of the dried
> brush strokes. And my finished piece of art is the only copy. People
> who wrote clever programs cannot take any of the credit of my creation.
> I must rely on my own talents to make the image great. You can't use
> any short cuts, plug ins or multiple steps of undo. Therefore, the
> process is more challenging and equally more rewarding.
________________________________________________________
"Art is a means of consciousness, the end is a token of the
experience."
- Susan Sontag -
Perhaps prior to debating about "good art" - Maybe we ought to define
exactly what "ART" (Oh I hate using such big words) is.
It seems to be that some people regard it as something that "looks"
nice, however, there are others who see it in terms of a creative
process and thus, since each party seems to have different expectations,
one is truly left arguing "apples and oranges"
Since I personally subscribe to the latter, I feel that the tool for
creating "good art" is somewhat irrelevant - I think that it has more to
do with the medium in which the artist articulates himself best.
Michelle Hoffman
(Jerusalem, ISRAEL)
Michael M Lawless
Just a thought to add here. Has anyone noticed the response one gets
from non-artists when showing them your work? When a piece is created
strictly by hand, we get ooohs and aaahhs. Even if it may be a bit
simplistic. When a piece is shown that was created on the computer, it
is, "Oh, how nice. Is that clip art?"
Mike Slocombe
In article <wizard-2812...@ip115.lax.primenet.com>, Wizard
<wiz...@primenet.com> writes
>If you are in a dark room with black paper you will have a hard time
>producing art on the paper.
This has to be one of the feeblest arguments I've encountered in this
newsgroup. What exactly is the *point* you are trying to make here?
And why are you coming up with such a truly ludicrous scenario as this
'dark room with black paper' nonsense to support your 'argument'?
Try coming back with a *credible* comparison - and then you might start
getting taken seriously.
>Exactly. Limit an artist and he or she does the best possible with what is
>available. With a Mac, more is available than with the PC.
Yes. That's right. And the Mac does the art for you, eh?
<sigh>
Mike
--
**urban75 e-zine: http://www.urban75.demon.co.uk **
underground culture - "...combines technical expertise and design
excellence with real, focused energy and great writing" - Time Out
Top 10 website-Internet Mag 11/96 * Featured on BBC GLR/Independent
Jim Nixon
Mary Morrison wrote:
>
> Having worked as a fine artist for over twenty years in the traditional
> fields of sculpture, collage and drawings. I find part of this statement
> a bit off the mark. The computer is a tool as is the piece of canvas,
> the oil paints and brushes. As artists we must give credit to whatever
> tools we use to create.
Exactly! Any tool is nothing more than the artist's "assistant". Without
it, art would be restricted to what can be created with the human body
alone (song, poetry, etc.).
>I love working with the raw sheets of steel and
> my welder to create massive shapes for sculpture in the round but I also
> love creating with my computer; especially the 3D animation programs. I
> have to rely on my talents as an artist to create good computer art in
> the same way I do with the welded steel pieces I create. I need electric
> power for both and a knowledge of the tools.
>
> As my back is giving way to age and old injuries the Mac is alot easier
> to use for my artistic endeavors. I am greatful for it as a tool.
>
You and I both, Mary. Otherwise, I would have had to create "Oh, My
Aching Back" out of folded up pieces of paper. :-)
Since we're both fortunate enough to live in an age when the Mac and
other technological tools are available, we just might have some help
for that bad back of yours on our web site...which also would have been
difficult to create out of folded up pieces of paper.
I'm thankful for the electricity...and for my Mac!
Jim Nixon
InterAction
Publishers of "Oh, My Aching Back" (Mac/Win CD-ROM)
http://www.achingback.com
Wizard
Mike, you may be an excellent artist, but you obviously canšt follow
things such as symbolism, syllogism and a train of thought.
Look at the complete context, Mike! Look at the meaning of the thread!
The entire idea is that an artistšs environment influences him or her. Do
you have a problem with that? If you are elated (part of your
mental/emotional environment) will not your art be different than if you
are depressed? Are you not effected by the difference between a bright,
sunny day and the power of a thunderstorm, and is that effect not
represented in your art?
That was the thrust of the argument. And my contention is that the
computer and its OS is part of your environment if you are working with a
graphics program. Further, I would contend that the Mac and its OS gives a
better environment than a Wintel running Windoze. If you want to debate on
that, fine.
But at least try to understand something before you make stupid comments.
Wizard
In article <lTqPpHAW...@urban75.demon.co.uk>, Mike Slocombe
<mi...@urban75.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <wizard-2812...@ip115.lax.primenet.com>, Wizard
><wiz...@primenet.com> writes
>
>>If you are in a dark room with black paper you will have a hard time
>>producing art on the paper.
>
>This has to be one of the feeblest arguments I've encountered in this
>newsgroup. What exactly is the *point* you are trying to make here?
>
If you had tried to read the entire thread you would know. The point in
YOUR comment is that youšre too lazy or too incapable of following a
thread.
>And why are you coming up with such a truly ludicrous scenario as this
>'dark room with black paper' nonsense to support your 'argument'?
>
>Try coming back with a *credible* comparison - and then you might start
>getting taken seriously.
>
Try putting it in context and you would understand what was going on. If
you did you would see that NOWHERE was I comparing the quality of computer
graphics with traditional media and artwork. I was showing that the
environment is important to an artist.
>>Exactly. Limit an artist and he or she does the best possible with what is
>>available. With a Mac, more is available than with the PC.
>
>Yes. That's right. And the Mac does the art for you, eh?
>
><sigh>
>
>Mike
No, of course not. Perhaps if you read the thread you would post with
understanding instead of sighing in stupidity.
Wizard
Ben Cannon
Wizard wrote:
> COMPUTER TRADITIONAL MEDIA
> Artist = Artist
Ya got this part right! :)
> Program = / The car you drove to the beacn in
> HW/OS = \ to paint the Sunset :)
Ben Cannon
Wizard wrote:
> COMPUTER TRADITIONAL MEDIA
> Artist = Artist
Ya got this part right! :)
Program = / The car you drove to the beach
in...
HW/OS = \ to paint the Sunset :)
Yeish! typos are almost as bad as platform wars!
Patrik Fagard
Mike Slocombe <mi...@urban75.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes. That's right. And the Mac does the art for you, eh?
Hmm, you got a point there, no wonder mac users complain they are less
productive on a pc, they are actually being forced to do something
themselves ;-))))
Greetings from a pc user who wished his computer was creative too,
Patrik
Patrik Fagard
>Of course not. What I雋 saying is that an artist is affected and effected
>by his or her environment.
>producing art on the paper.
You may not know this, but one of the exercises done in drawings
schools is doing blind drawings. Do you know why this is done? To
expand your horizons ofcourse, to learn that there a different ways to
aprouch a problem.
You are very right in stating that environment effects the artist, but
wrong to think that a poor environment will directly lead to poor
results. And if it where true, I don't think Egypt would have ever had
any pyramids.
>If you have light and a variety of media in your environment you will have
>an easier time producing great art.
More is not always beter. Many times it is even the opposite. 9.4
chances out of 10, a brochure with just to simple fonts will look much
beter then a brochure that uses 15 different exotic fonts.
It's usually the simplest things that are the best.
Even in this computer age, most of the art being produced is not worth
writing home about despite the fact we have more advanced tools then
let's say 50 or 100 years ago. As a matter of fact, most of the things
we see today are "copy cat". Rarely do I see something totaly new or
refreshing. Or am I being to critical on this?
One of the ingredients to great art is that you know the basics and
basics have got nothing to do with the tools you use and is hard to
master because you not only have to work very hard to master them, it
takes lots of practice and takes time to achive.
You may be able to install a mac in 5 minutes, but not an artist.
Another ingridient is inspiration and creativity, tools can only
channel these, but not enhance them.
To come back to your example, it's easy to make something on a
computer but to make great art in a black room with a black paper asks
for someone that truelly is very creative.
Onother thing to keep in mind is not to be an oportunist. Don't let
the tools lead you, but let your imagination lead your tools. Even
though computers are great things, doesn't mean they will always
produce the best results. Choose your tools in function of what you
want to achive.
If not, you may risc limiting yourself, but that is your choice to
make.
>On a PC you have to do what it tells you. It limits you
>A Mac does what you tell it to. It helps you expand.
This is not a fact, this is your opinion. I you worked all your life
with a computer and one day some one place a real paintbrush in your
hand, I wouldn't be surprised you would have difficulty painting and
yes, you would feel limited.
But it is not because YOU feel limited by it that others wouldn't be
able to do great things with it?
To come back to your example of your darkroom, most photographers
don't feel limited at all when working in one. :)
>Exactly. Limit an artist and he or she does the best possible with what is
>available. With a Mac, more is available than with the PC.
Even if this where true, it will not automaticly result to great art
as I have stated above. Actually, your whole argument says more about
you then it does about mac's or PC's.
Greetings,
Patrik
Claire Read
I don't think so --that mac art isn't the challenge that traditional art
is. I've done traditional for a lifetime (age 68) I've done mac for
three years. They are just different thats all. On the mac I'm more
apt to use more in the way of repetitions and textures. Traditionally
I've used all media except fresco, oil water color, acrylic egg tempra
serigraph etching lithops, clay mixed media the works...Mac is just
another brush to me.
Additionally the difficulty in achieving an effect is something that an
amatuer or a non artist may appreciate but has nothing to do with the
effectiveness of the image.
Claire
Claire Read
Mary, I couldn't agree more
The art comes from the artists head not from the tool in his hand.
that is just a technical means to an end.
Claire
Thrum
>
> "Art is a means of consciousness, the end is a token of the
> experience."
> - Susan Sontag -
>
> Perhaps prior to debating about "good art" - Maybe we ought to define
> exactly what "ART" (Oh I hate using such big words) is.
"Art is anything you can get away with."
-Marshall McLuhan-
And this entire thread is a load of shite. Whatever medium the artist
uses becomes legitimate by virtue of being used: PC, Mac, Paper, Squished
Rats... IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Anyway, there's my two cents.
Check please!
David
Nathan Young
This thread is called MACs vs traditional art, but it seems to be just
another long winded mac vs pc debate.
If you really don't want to limit yourself, learn both systems!
Now quit prosthelitizing and get back to work. (Or do you is it your job
to advocate religious devotion to an operating system? Who could benefit
from that but a computer company?)
--
Nathan Young N.C.Young Design
nyo...@silcom.com http://www.silcom.com/~nyoung
Travis Butler
In article <32C58D...@pacbell.net>,
Michael M Lawless <law...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Bobby Henderson wrote:
<Snip>
>> Don't get me wrong, I love computer graphics. But I get a bigger thrill
>> when I complete an oil painting or graphite drawing and know that the
>> resulting image came entirely from my mind and my hand. I can make the
>> image as big or small as I want without needing more RAM and a bigger
>> hard drive. I can look at the canvas and feel the texture of the dried
>> brush strokes. And my finished piece of art is the only copy. People
>> who wrote clever programs cannot take any of the credit of my creation.
>> I must rely on my own talents to make the image great. You can't use
>> any short cuts, plug ins or multiple steps of undo. Therefore, the
>> process is more challenging and equally more rewarding.
<Snip>
>I can't say how much I appreciate this response. It is spot on the
>money. Good job!
On the other hand, the Mac and a good graphics program is about the only
thing that lets me create 'art' at all. I'm terrible with traditional tools
-- my pencil lines are wobbly, my pen lines no better, and don't even talk
to me about a paintbrush. However, I've got a decent esthetic sense. Give
me Illustrator and some time, and I can make some pretty good graphics --
some of which might even approach 'art'. I can manipulate Bezier curves
with far more skill and comfort than I could ever handle a pencil.
Travis Butler
(The Professor, formerly of Myth and Magick!, Lawrence, KS;
tbu...@tfs.net, now from the Wandering Powerbook;
<http://www.tfs.net/personal/tbutler/>;
Mac page <http://www.tfs.net/business/tbutler/>)
...Cats are the proof of a higher purpose to the universe.
Hoffman, Stephen
Nathan Young wrote:
>
> This thread is called MACs vs traditional art, but it seems to be just
> another long winded mac vs pc debate.
>
Right on! Mr. Young is absolutely right. This Mac vs. PC thread has
become so tedious that I delete nearly all of the posts that carry this
title without even opening them. Stop wasting bandwidth with this crap.
Does this group have a moderator? If so, how about a little moderating,
please?
Bobby Henderson
Wizard wrote:
[snip]
> In article <32C570...@sirinet.net>, chen...@sirinet.net wrote:>
> >Let me get this straight. Are you now arguing your Mac is "better" than
> >traditional media?
>
> Of course not. What I雋 saying is that an artist is affected and effected
> by his or her environment.
> If you are in a dark room with black paper you will have a hard time
> producing art on the paper.
> If you have light and a variety of media in your environment you will have
> an easier time producing great art.
> On a PC you have to do what it tells you. It limits you
> A Mac does what you tell it to. It helps you expand.
You're back to the PC vs Mac argument, and this time you're saying the
OS is going to have more of a say in what I do than the software
program. Sorry, I use both Macs and PCs frequently. Programs like
Photoshop, Freehand, Pagemaker and Quark Xpress have the same user
interface regardless of platform. Now, I will say the prepress
applications have more plug ins, high end output support and color
management tools on the Mac side. You Give the credit to those tools.
The OS is not the thing that is letting you get the job done.
[snip]
> Exactly. Limit an artist and he or she does the best possible with what is
> available. With a Mac, more is available than with the PC.
It depends on what you're trying to do. If you're talking pre press,
you're right. But if you're talking about 3-D animation, non-linear
digital video editing, multimedia authoring, CAD-CAM
engineering/manufacturing, web page design and even sign making software
--sorry, the PC has a lot more to offer there. The pre press industry
does not encompass the entire computing graphics world, so the broad
statement "the Mac is better for graphics" has many holes in it.
David Frank Kyte
Travis Butler wrote:
> On the other hand, the Mac and a good graphics program is about the only
> thing that lets me create 'art' at all. I'm terrible with traditional tools
> -- my pencil lines are wobbly, my pen lines no better, and don't even talk
> to me about a paintbrush. However, I've got a decent esthetic sense. Give
> me Illustrator and some time, and I can make some pretty good graphics --
> some of which might even approach 'art'. I can manipulate Bezier curves
> with far more skill and comfort than I could ever handle a pencil.
But what is wrong with wobbly pencil or pen lines? The one thing that
bothered me about art on the computer is that it WAS so clean and tight
and lacked a quality you get from pure accident. If I apply a color with
paint, It may not be the exact color I want but I may well look better
than If I had spent a lot of time pondering it or had the option of
going back and changing it as easily as I can on may computer,
I suspect that is why a large number of artist like programs like
Photoshop and Fractal Painter over drawing programs like Illustrator,its
not as easy to change things after you have made a decision to use a
certain color, shape or drawn something with a Wacom tablet. Once the
pixels are set or the paint is dry there is no going back and that can
be a very good thing.
David Kyte
Ben Cannon
Bobby Henderson wrote:
> Windows NT has versions of Strata
> Studio Pro, FormZ/Renderzone, InfiniD, Softimage, Autodesk 3D Studio
> Max, Lightwave 3D, Extreme 3D, TrueSpace, Bryce and on and on. A number
> of these NT apps will run native on DEC Alpha 21164 based systems.
I count one: Lightwave.... :)(though dem little DECs can emulate an x86
pretty fast!)
> With
> speeds up to 500MHz right now these systems will knock the snot out of
> any Mac. Add true symmetric multiprocessing, multithreading and OpenGL
> support, these systems can be competitive with Silicon Graphics and Sun
> Solaris.
Hey, I heard that! DEC's latest and greatest, jammed to the gills with
Intergraph cards, may be able to compeate with a Silicon Graphics R4400
Indigo. A machine which has been obsoleated *twice* (first by the Indy,
then by the new O2)
Did I mention that such a system costs $21,000+? or slightly higher than
a new Indigo^2 R10000 Solid IMPACT machine? :)
Robert Hunt
I am an illustrator/artist working for 16 years, primarily in trad.
media. In my view, the tools are the tools, and the artist is the
artist. Whatever facilitates the artists vision most directly is the
best tool for the individual, given the problem at hand. The computer
is a facilitation tool, like a dictionary or typewriter is to a writer.
Working in illustration, artwork often has to be incorporated into a
digital medium, but the idea that it must be initially created as a
digital image is a misconception. When this mac vs traditional art
ranting dies down, maybe some interesting images will start to be made.
Phil Patiris
I agree completely with that train of thought, Claire, and it's
gratifying to hear, however I would place "heart" and "soul" over "head"
(important as that is). Somehow I suspect you knew anyway.
(end of Claire praise section)
As for Mac vs. PC or whatever, and the general discussion on that as
I've picked up on it (and now dive on in, drop my load & split)...
people keep trotting out the same tedious arguments from five years ago,
but it's all just splitting hairs now. So the real basis of all this
debate, sadly, is apparently people's need to derive some sense of worth
or, worse, declare some kind of competitive superiority by virtue of
which corporate nameplate graces their plastic box full of silicon and
solder. Ultimately it just doesn't matter anymore. And ultimately, with
such a tenuous internal strength (judging from so many tenuous
rationalizations), sanctimonious proselytizers can never succeed as
artists in the essence (though they could still succeed commercially,
because that's a very different thing altogether).
We're talking about Art, not just a subset (graphic) of a subset
(visual). Great art, and the courage of self-expression, comes from
within, not from some external mechanism. Same is true of "environment"
(Wizard) - the only environment that counts is the environment of the
soul - do you generate from within, or merely reflect your surroundings
(and operating system)? Storms *are* painted on sunny days. "Beautiful"
art has been created from lives of misery. Beethoven couldn't even hear
his own music, talk about that proverbial "dark room" (and thus blowing
it away completely). Give a bad violinist a Stradivarius, and they are
still a bad violinist; give a prehistoric human a piece of charcoal and
a cave wall, and they will create the wonder of Lascaux, with nary an
electrical outlet, or Photoshop, in sight.
Great and lasting art is never expedient. If exercising *craft* and
inventiveness with whatever limited tools are at hand is too much time
and work, then the idea probably isn't worth it anyway. If artistic
effectiveness is dependent upon which operating system you're using,
then we're in a lot more trouble as a civilization and culture than even
I thought.
And in this civilization, Time is Money. I work in video primarily, yet
I maintain my perspective, that video was invented, as TV became a
burgeoning business, because film was too time consuming, human
intensive, and expensive - whatever its adaptation since, video had its
beginnings as an anti-artisan commercial (and not aesthetic) medium
designed to enhance profits for those who, by the way, also equate
artistic worthiness with marketability. The same is true of graphics
software. It's designed primarily to churn out more Product in less
time, because the world of Commerce (inherently artist-lethal) demands
it, and most graphic arts, however clever or even pleasing, and despite
intrinsic artistry (e.g. even beloved Toulouse-Lautrec, in a more
"innocent" age), serve the interests of Advertising in some way.
Features and versatility? All the better to generate the constant stream
of new visual gimmicks advertising demands in order to catch the
victim's eye (let us include Premiere, which I also use). The enticement
of more "direct" translation of artistic ideas with the push of a button
is just a sales trick, a mere aside tossed out by those who never could
understand the core urge...
So let's be careful just what it is we glorify.
Artists are born... you've either got it or you don't. No machine, Mac
or PC - or midi synthesizer or digital video system, for that matter -
can alter that. No machine can put inside you what isn't already there.
And no machine - not even Windows - can hold you back when your life's
purpose is to create, by any means necessary, with whatever you have,
with whatever gets the end result, however long it may take.
Finally, one of the supreme rules of art: Break the Rules. Some
partisans in this group seem insistent on establishing them, and fail to
see the gross inappropriateness.
(end of torrent section, back to the core urge)
=================================
Phillip D. Patiris
Modern Television · San Francisco
URL: http://www.moderntv.com
=================================
Wizard
>You're back to the PC vs Mac argument,
Itıs not a questions of being ³back to,² that was the entire point, from
the beginning. Somebody misquoted me and tried to imply that this was a
discussion about the Mac vs Traditional Media. That was never the purpose
and NOBODY has even posted an argument about that.
>and this time you're saying the
>OS is going to have more of a say in what I do than the software
>program.
Are you stupid, insane or are you just incapable of understanding English?
I have NEVER written that, I have NEVER said that, I do NOT believe it.
>Sorry, I use both Macs and PCs frequently. Programs like
>Photoshop, Freehand, Pagemaker and Quark Xpress have the same user
>interface regardless of platform.
And once again I never said anything different. But for youıre pea-brain
Iıll try and spell it out. I send pictures but you porbably couldnıt
figure out how to download them:
COMPUTER TRADITIONAL MEDIA
Artist = Artist
Program = Media
HW/OS = Environment
All three play a part in the creation of art. That is what Iıve said from
the beginning, that is what I am saying now.
And the HW/OS on a PC which gives the Artist the most freedom to explore
his/her abilities is the Mac, not the Wintel.
Wizard:
>> Exactly. Limit an artist and he or she does the best possible with what is
>> available. With a Mac, more is available than with the PC.
chenders:
> If you're talking pre press,
>you're right. But if you're talking about 3-D animation, non-linear
>digital video editing, multimedia authoring, CAD-CAM
>engineering/manufacturing, web page design and even sign making software
>--sorry, the PC has a lot more to offer there. The pre press industry
>does not encompass the entire computing graphics world, so the broad
>statement "the Mac is better for graphics" has many holes in it.
Let us assume your statements are correct (and if youıre talking about
low-quality crap instead of high end quality, you are correct). The
question is then why is far more animation, video editing, multimedia
authoring and web page design done on the Mac than on the PC?
It is because the ENVIRONMENT on the Mac is so far ahead of the Wintel
that the Wintel is a joke.>
For example, letıs just assume that you need a nice network card, a high
quality SCSI adapter and a top-of-the line sound care that needs more than
one interrupt (like one that supports MP401). Well, On a Wintel box
running Win95 it can be impossible to have all three working fully at
once. Many Win '95 sound card drivers are incapable of the configuration
flexibility needed to deal with this problem. Having to diddle these was
SUPPOSED to have been fixed by Plug and Play. It was not. Configuration
management under the MacOS is still vastly superior to anything on an
Intel box.
The Mac, as an artistic environment, is just the superior way to go.
Wizard
Charles Moon
>>And the HW/OS on a PC which gives the Artist the most freedom to >>explore his/her abilities is the Mac, not the Wintel.
The only absolute is "there are no absolutes." Don't be so absolute.
If the Mac were the udeniable best, there would be no debate.
>>The question is then why is far more animation, video editing, >>multimedia authoring and web page design done on the Mac than on the PC?
>>It is because the ENVIRONMENT on the Mac is so far ahead of the Wintel
>>that the Wintel is a joke.>
You are wrong here. The Mac is used more because it was the first
AFFORDABLE PC to offer these abilities to artists/designers. This
enabling technology was adopted by the printing and publishing industry
and people were trained or taught themselves this OS before there was
any real desktop competition. By the time Windows offered a viable
alternative, Mac was so well entrenched in Printshops and ad agencies
that that was were the training and hardware dollars were being spent.
And, since designers and artists generally deal with SB's and printer's
who are slow to adopt other technologies, so are they.
*IF* wintel boxes offered better service or abilities there would be a
slow move in that direction and I'm not sure that's not happening with
NT. Look at the move of Web servers in that direction. But, Windows
does not outperform Macs in graphics. It's parity or a little below
perhaps, but is certainly a viable alternative and should not limit a
user any more than other tools may.
The argument that more artist use Macs becuase they are better is a
common fallacy of logic. You have assumed a conclusion based on an
observation that may or may not be correct, but it certainly is not
proveable.
<<Well, On a Wintel box running Win95 it can be impossible to have all
<<three working fully at once. >>
OK, but it can be possible, too depending on the system. My PowerMac
7200 will not work with a SyQuest, Zip drive and Agfa Arcus II scanner
all on the SCSI bus at once. I've narrowed it down to a conflict
between the scanner and the SyQuest drive, but it took me the better
part of a weekend and it it still unresolved. Macs don't behave
perfectly all the time either.
>>The Mac, as an artistic environment, is just the superior way to go.
The Mac is a computer environment. There is nothing artistic about it.
It was developed prior to the DTP revolution of the mid 80's and has
remained -- in regards to interface -- virtually unchanged. It was
Adobe and PostScript that put the art on the desktop.
And, the personal attacks and name calling really hurt the credibility
of your arguments. (and don't say "he called me a name first", it is up
to "you" to behave like an adult)
Charlie Moon
Ben Cannon
Adrian van der Park wrote:
> Now why some people
> create their (we'll use this as an example) paintings in liquitex
> acrylics or rembrandt oils is their option.
> However, a .tif file is a .tif file, and when printed is *tada* platform
> independant, so how can you really tell? Or care...
The .tiff saving plugin crashes my NT 486, so I guess that's one way
to tell :)
(sorry, I just couldn't resist...)
--
| As I sat there, the light changed from red, to |
| green, to yellow, to red again. Was life nothing |
| more than a whole bunch of honking and yelling? |
| Sometimes it seemed that way. |
~~~> http://cartsys.com <~~~
mog...@band.com
> Bobby Henderson wrote:
> >
> > From Wizard's post in the -sigh- MACs versus PC debate, Mon 22:50
> >
> > Wizard wrote:
> >
> > > environment that opens to the soul with its intuitive nature, one that
> > > lets you do what you want rather than what it wants you to do, helps
> > > create the best artwork.
> >
> > Let me get this straight. Are you now arguing your Mac is "better" than
> > traditional media? If so, this is one of the silliest apples to oranges
> >
> > traditional media is impossible to beat.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I love computer graphics. But I get a bigger thrill
> >
> > I must rely on my own talents to make the image great. You can't use
> >
> > process is more challenging and equally more rewarding.
> >
> >
>
> I can't say how much I appreciate this response. It is spot on the
> money. Good job!
ALL opinions on "what true art is" are absolutely worthless (including
mine. ESPECIALLY mine.). you people's egos are OUT OF CONTROL. art is not
art. no art is art. my art is art. your art is not art. my cat's breath
smells like cat food. whatever.
it is sad to see "artists" who are so goddamn judgemental.
do what you fucking want to do, and live and let live.
Bobby Henderson
Charles Moon wrote:
> >>The question is then why is far more animation, video editing, >>multimedia authoring and web page design done on the Mac than on the PC?
This quote is very wrong. Windows NT is the undisputed top 3D animation
platform now. There is much larger pool of 3D software and hardware
available on NT than any other platform. Electric Image is the only big
name 3D app exclusive to the Mac. Windows NT has versions of Strata
Studio Pro, FormZ/Renderzone, InfiniD, Softimage, Autodesk 3D Studio
Max, Lightwave 3D, Extreme 3D, TrueSpace, Bryce and on and on. A number
of these NT apps will run native on DEC Alpha 21164 based systems. With
speeds up to 500MHz right now these systems will knock the snot out of
any Mac. Add true symmetric multiprocessing, multithreading and OpenGL
support, these systems can be competitive with Silicon Graphics and Sun
Solaris.
There is also more multimedia authoring tools on Windows. Windows 95
has by far the most web design tools and the best one: NetObjects Fusion
(which is exclusive to Windows).
> >>It is because the ENVIRONMENT on the Mac is so far ahead of the Wintel
> >>that the Wintel is a joke.>
>
> You are wrong here. The Mac is used more because it was the first
> AFFORDABLE PC to offer these abilities to artists/designers. This
> enabling technology was adopted by the printing and publishing industry
> and people were trained or taught themselves this OS before there was
> any real desktop competition. By the time Windows offered a viable
> alternative, Mac was so well entrenched in Printshops and ad agencies
> that that was were the training and hardware dollars were being spent.
> And, since designers and artists generally deal with SB's and printer's
> who are slow to adopt other technologies, so are they.
The infrastructure of pre press is the only remaining advantage of the
Mac. Makers of high end scanners, image setters and color control
equipment have only so many dollars to spend on product development.
Their equipment will have few buyers, of whom are primarily Mac based
service bureaus. Few of these companies are in good enough shape of
taking the financial risk of developing for Win 95/NT for now.
In all other graphics areas where the computer itself puts out final
product or doesn't need the Mac based service bureau, such as digital
video, 3-D animation, web design, CAD/CAM etc., Wintel boxes have
already taken the lead.
[snip]
> >>The Mac, as an artistic environment, is just the superior way to go.
>
> The Mac is a computer environment. There is nothing artistic about it.
> It was developed prior to the DTP revolution of the mid 80's and has
> remained -- in regards to interface -- virtually unchanged. It was
> Adobe and PostScript that put the art on the desktop.
Right on.
Fisherman
Bobby Henderson wrote:
>
> Charles Moon wrote:
>
>>The question is then why is far more animation, video editing,
>>multimedia authoring and web page design done on the Mac than on the PC?
>
> This quote is very wrong. Windows NT is the undisputed top 3D animation
> platform now. There is much larger pool of 3D software and hardware
> available on NT than any other platform. Electric Image is the only big
> name 3D app exclusive to the Mac.
Did you say, 'Exclusively for the Mac'? I think their NT version will be
released in the next month or two. Youch, Macophiles.
Regarding solid modeling for industrial design, there's also the
incredible Solidworks, Pro Engineer's PT/Modeler (formerly ProJR, no
longer available even on Unix); Microstation's Intergraph solids
modeler, HP's SolidDesigner, Cadkey, Autocad (another 'so what?'
industry standard, probably not available on Unix much longer), and the
very interesting Rhino 3D modeler, to name a few, which cover more than
99% of the CAD/CAM market. On the Mac? Currently, there is only formZ.
And the very interesting Neoform by Formation Design (kind of
Alias-Designer like), but it's a surface modeler only.
I've lurked this thread for some time. The worst posting was the
horribly written self indulgent pompous Calvinist diatribe stating
'Artists are born, not created'. No doubt, the posting was performed by
one of the elect. OTOH, the best part of the thread concerned
traditional art with the 'squiggly hand' of the artist. I miss it, too,
and all of the personality generated by the artist (especially in
technical journals) himself.
The saddest thing is not which is better, but that one highly aggressive
software company will soon have us all bowing at its altar (or at least,
sending annual checks its way). What's the big difference between one OS
developer or two? The difference between bearable and unbearable. I
agree Apple's management is unbelievably bad, but Microsoft's is only
slightly better.
Sad, but because of all the design software, I'm probably moving over to
the $300 NT package as well.
Regards to all the talent out there;
Chris.
Wizard
>You are wrong here. The Mac is used more because it was the first
>AFFORDABLE PC to offer these abilities to artists/designers.
Then, by your reasoning, they should have flocked to Wintels because they
were cheaper. They didnšt. They still havenšt.
>This
>enabling technology was adopted by the printing and publishing industry
>and people were trained or taught themselves this OS before there was
>any real desktop competition. By the time Windows offered a viable
>alternative, Mac was so well entrenched in Printshops and ad agencies
>that that was were the training and hardware dollars were being spent.
>And, since designers and artists generally deal with SB's and printer's
>who are slow to adopt other technologies, so are they.
Right. Thatšs why nobody has Zip drives and Syquest is still the wave of
the future.
Get real!
>*IF* wintel boxes offered better service or abilities there would be a
>slow move in that direction and I'm not sure that's not happening with
>NT.
Right! As slow as it has taken the Zip to become a standard.
Come on. If there is a better product that is less expensive, people would
jump on it. These are BUSINESS PEOPLE, not idiots.
> Look at the move of Web servers in that direction. But, Windows
>does not outperform Macs in graphics. It's parity or a little below
>perhaps, but is certainly a viable alternative and should not limit a
>user any more than other tools may.
Then why do artists and multimedia developers still prefer the Mac by an
overwheling margin?
>The argument that more artist use Macs becuase they are better is a
>common fallacy of logic. You have assumed a conclusion based on an
>observation that may or may not be correct, but it certainly is not
>proveable.
You canšt prove a negative. But if you check EVERY survey which has been
performed concerning such things as usability, the Mac wins EVERY TIME .
><<Well, On a Wintel box running Win95 it can be impossible to have all
><<three working fully at once. >>
>
>OK, but it can be possible, too depending on the system. My PowerMac
>7200 will not work with a SyQuest, Zip drive and Agfa Arcus II scanner
>all on the SCSI bus at once. I've narrowed it down to a conflict
>between the scanner and the SyQuest drive, but it took me the better
>part of a weekend and it it still unresolved. Macs don't behave
>perfectly all the time either.
There is a difference between impossible and difficult. A Wintel box
running Win95 will not let you run those three cards at the same time. The
three items you named are having a SCSI difficulty. Get an inexpensive
smart SCSI terminator (APS carries them) and your problems should be
resolved.
Wizard
Wizard
>Charles Moon wrote:
>
>> >>The question is then why is far more animation, video editing,
>>multimedia authoring and web page design done on the Mac than on the PC?
>
>This quote is very wrong. Windows NT is the undisputed top 3D animation
>platform now.
You, sir, are 100% wrong. Currently, the leading animation platform for
PROFESSIONALS is SGIs.
> There is much larger pool of 3D software and hardware
>available on NT
<snip>
>There is also more multimedia authoring tools on Windows. Windows 95
>has by far the most web design tools and the best one: NetObjects Fusion
>(which is exclusive to Windows).
All your post said is that you have more tools. You have NOT shown that
more people use Wintels.
>> >>It is because the ENVIRONMENT on the Mac is so far ahead of the Wintel
>> >>that the Wintel is a joke.>
>>
>> You are wrong here. The Mac is used more because it was the first
>> AFFORDABLE PC to offer these abilities to artists/designers.
Then why havenıt people switeched to cheap Wintels?
> By the time Windows offered a viable
>> alternative, Mac was so well entrenched in Printshops and ad agencies
>> that that was were the training and hardware dollars were being spent.
>> And, since designers and artists generally deal with SB's and printer's
>> who are slow to adopt other technologies, so are they.
Right, like theyıre slow to adopt the Zip.
>
>The infrastructure of pre press is the only remaining advantage of the
>Mac.
Balony! Macs lead in Multimedia, Web page design and much more. Call Warner
Brothers and ask why that have THOUSANDS of Macs.
> Makers of high end scanners, image setters and color control
>equipment have only so many dollars to spend on product development.
>Their equipment will have few buyers, of whom are primarily Mac based
>service bureaus. Few of these companies are in good enough shape of
>taking the financial risk of developing for Win 95/NT for now.
Who can blame them? Considering all of the money theyıd lose hiring people
to help Wintel user configure and get rid of conflicts.
>
>In all other graphics areas where the computer itself puts out final
>product or doesn't need the Mac based service bureau, such as digital
>video, 3-D animation, web design, CAD/CAM etc., Wintel boxes have
>already taken the lead.
Wrong. The only lead is currently in CAD/CAM because the most popular
program (not necessarily the best one) remains only available for Wintels.
Even so, most high-end CAD/CAM uses independently designed software and not
off the shelf stuff.
Currently, EVERY survey has shown that Macs hold 60% of the market of Web
Design. Currently, EVERY survey has shown that Mac is the number 2 Web
Server platform after UNIX.
Wizard
nancy johnson
tool, as well as paints etc etc.
For the computer, the platform I don't believe matters as much as it
used to. Each has their strengths and weaknesses I wish that there was
more sharing of ideas between Microsoft, IBM, and Apple. Then, maybe, we
(the consumer) would truly have a great system.
Adrian van der Park
Wizard (wiz...@primenet.com) wrote:
: That was the thrust of the argument. And my contention is that the
: computer and its OS is part of your environment if you are working with a
: graphics program. Further, I would contend that the Mac and its OS gives a
: better environment than a Wintel running Windoze. If you want to debate on
: that, fine.
this is funny. If you feel a need to express your preference for Macs for
the production of your work, all the power to you. Now why some people
create their (we'll use this as an example) paintings in liquitex
acrylics or rembrandt oils is their option.
However, a .tif file is a .tif file, and when printed is *tada* platform
independant, so how can you really tell? Or care...
I like peoples work, and the people talking about what inspired them, not
how they did it as some sort of stupid running shoe endorsement.
: But at least try to understand something before you make stupid comments.
<snicker>
--
___//L'Adder Noir\\__________________________________ _ _ _
Charles Moon
>>Then why havenıt people switeched to cheap Wintels?
Get a cup of coffee, sit back, and relax a moment. Then, re-read the
WHOLE post. you will amazingly find that the very next paragraph stated
that there would be an exodus to Wintel ONLY if if offered a great
improvement over Mac -- which it doesn't.
>> >> By the time Windows offered a viable
>> >> alternative, Mac was so well entrenched in Printshops and ad agencies
>> >> that that was were the training and hardware dollars were being spent.
>> >> And, since designers and artists generally deal with SB's and printer's
>> >> who are slow to adopt other technologies, so are they.
>>Right, like theyıre slow to adopt the Zip.
The Zip is an improvement over other alternatives and there is zero
learning curve to use a Zip. This didn't mean they had to throw away
old systems, learn a new OS or upgrade other things to use them. Look
at how the SyQuest EZ-135 failed. That is because it came out AFTER the
Zip even though it offered vast improvements in performance, but the PC
community rejected it initially because the only model they had required
SCSI which is not automatically in the box.
>> Balony! Macs lead in Multimedia, Web page design and much more. Call Warner
>> Brothers and ask why that have THOUSANDS of Macs.
Warner Bros. has thousands of PCs, too, but more artists and animators
are trained on Macs and the people costs are by far the biggest expense
in any project. It is therefore in their best interest to provide the
artists with the tools they are familiar with. It's business, not
religion.
Watch your logic. That would mean that because there are 10 times as
manys PCs as Macs that the PC must be 10 times better. A ridiculous
conclusion. In both cases.
>> Currently, EVERY survey has shown that Mac is the number
>> 2 Web Server platform after UNIX.
Is not NT being used in new servers twice as much as MacOS? It should
not be long before the MacOS is eclipsed by NT in this market.
Charlie Moon
Charles Moon
> Right. Thatıs why nobody has Zip drives and Syquest is still the wave of
> the future.
> Get real!
I am real. A Zip is not a Platform switch. It does not require trashing
anything or learning anything new. It was a technology whose time had
come. By the same token. If Mac was such a great technology, it would
have replaced the Wintel PC long ago. If I recall my statistics, Mac
has had the same Market share for the past 5 or 6 years.
> >*IF* wintel boxes offered better service or abilities there would be a
> >slow move in that direction and I'm not sure that's not happening with
> >NT.
>
> Right! As slow as it has taken the Zip to become a standard.
>
> Come on. If there is a better product that is less expensive, people would
> jump on it. These are BUSINESS PEOPLE, not idiots.
Again, the Zip is a poor analogy. By switching to Wintel most shops
would have to bear the burden of retraining the staff and suufer lower
productivity while they go up to speed with the new OS. And, in the
long run, there would be no improvement in the quality or production
speed of the artwork. They would be idiots if they did retool for no
gain.
> > Look at the move of Web servers in that direction. But, Windows
> >does not outperform Macs in graphics. It's parity or a little below
> >perhaps, but is certainly a viable alternative and should not limit a
> >user any more than other tools may.
>
> Then why do artists and multimedia developers still prefer the Mac by an
> overwheling margin?
One more time . . . THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE TRAINED ON. They prefer it
because the *know* it. Why do most Americans prefer English to French?
Could it be that it's a better language? Nonsense. It's because that's
the language we know and learning French would not let us say anything
that we could not say in English.
> >The argument that more artist use Macs becuase they are better is a
> >common fallacy of logic. You have assumed a conclusion based on an
> >observation that may or may not be correct, but it certainly is not
> >proveable.
>
> You canıt prove a negative. But if you check EVERY survey which has been
> performed concerning such things as usability, the Mac wins EVERY TIME .
Look at the Surveys. Since most artist use Macs it would seem obvious
that most artists would evaluate their tools in a positive light. Show
me a survey of artists who use both Mac and PC regularly using the same
software on machines with similar power and peripherals. Then maybe it
might have some value.
> There is a difference between impossible and difficult. A Wintel box
> running Win95 will not let you run those three cards at the same time. The
> three items you named are having a SCSI difficulty. Get an inexpensive
> smart SCSI terminator (APS carries them) and your problems should be
> resolved.
So I should *buy* more to get it to work, right? Maybe buying a
different sound or network card would solve the PC problem, too. (You
*can* get a network card, sound card and all the rest to behave in a PC
if you get compatible brands) The point is you shouldn't have to in
either case.
The whole point that everyone seems to be missing is not about
separatism -- "My computer rules, yours drools", but that we should be
more focused on exploiting the proficiencies of each. I have both Macs
and PCs and don't want to get rid of either.
Charlie
> Wizard
Charles Henderson
Wizard wrote:
> You, sir, are 100% wrong. Currently, the leading animation platform for
> PROFESSIONALS is SGIs.
Lets see. Every major DOS 3D app has either died or ported to Win NT.
With Electric Image added, every major Mac 3D app has ported versions to
Win NT. 3D apps from the SGI and Sun Solaris platforms have ported to
NT. Lightwave 3D has moved from Amiga and Video Toaster to Win NT.
Apple has ported its entire QuickDraw API, including QuickDraw 3D to
NT. Silicon Graphics has ported OpenGL to WindowsNT, and it turns out
its on the way to Windows 95 as well.
There is no question NT is the largest and fastest growing 3D platform.
It may not necessarily be the best on performance like Silicon Graphics,
but it has at least moved way ahead of the Mac.
[snip]
> All your post said is that you have more tools. You have NOT shown that
> more people use Wintels.
The PC has more web design tools and the best ones at that. A web
designer does not need a Mac based service bureau to publish a web page.
[snip]
> >The infrastructure of pre press is the only remaining advantage of the
> >Mac.
>
> Balony! Macs lead in Multimedia, Web page design and much more. Call Warner
> Brothers and ask why that have THOUSANDS of Macs.
What killer multimedia app does the Mac have that Windows does not? I
already proved my point about the web design issue. If you're going to
measure the greatness of a platform by the number of users, then you
sound much like the PC snobs who talk about the landslide majority of
all PCs running Windows.
> > Makers of high end scanners, image setters and color control
> >equipment have only so many dollars to spend on product development.
> >Their equipment will have few buyers, of whom are primarily Mac based
> >service bureaus. Few of these companies are in good enough shape of
> >taking the financial risk of developing for Win 95/NT for now.
>
> Who can blame them? Considering all of the money theyąd lose hiring people
> to help Wintel user configure and get rid of conflicts.
This statement is nothing but pure Mac propaganda. These companies
haven't developed their products on Win95/NT simply because they haven't
seen a big enough market there yet. Dollars and marketing decisions
drive that, not OS cheerleading. Considering Adobe is showing record
sales of Photoshop on the Windows platform, it won't be long before the
PC gets access to lots of high end pre press tools.
> >In all other graphics areas where the computer itself puts out final
> >product or doesn't need the Mac based service bureau, such as digital
> >video, 3-D animation, web design, CAD/CAM etc., Wintel boxes have
> >already taken the lead.
>
> Wrong. The only lead is currently in CAD/CAM because the most popular
> program (not necessarily the best one) remains only available for Wintels.
> Even so, most high-end CAD/CAM uses independently designed software and not
> off the shelf stuff.
Let's see, the Mac has MiniCAD 6 and what else? What CAD/CAM program
does the Mac have that is better than AutoCAD or MicroStation? The PC
platform has the most and the best CAD/CAM apps. UNIX is the only
platform providing any real competition to Windows in this area, but
then that is because they have some of the same apps.
> Currently, EVERY survey has shown that Macs hold 60% of the market of Web
> Design. Currently, EVERY survey has shown that Mac is the number 2 Web
> Server platform after UNIX.
Specifically which surveys are you quoting? UNIX is number one on the
server side but fading. Most of the news I've read talks about NT being
number two. NT systems are even selling well as file servers for Mac
based networks.
Ben Cannon
Wizard wrote:
> So the question is, under what conditions can you produce the best possible
> product?
>
> If you are using a computer, the answer is the Macintosh.
Or SGI.
Wizard
>Specifically which surveys are you quoting? UNIX is number one on the
>server side but fading. Most of the news I've read talks about NT being
>number two. NT systems are even selling well as file servers for Mac
>based networks.
As I said, you continually say, łWeąve got better software!˛ Although that
is only your opinion, the facts are simple: people have not jumped over to
use it. I was talking numbers of people using the product. I even said that
and you IGNORED it completely. In short, sir, you are a total incompetent,
who canąt even read English. I hope you donąt program because youąd
certainly not be able to work with things like syntax, assuming you even
know the meaning of the word.
However, in spite of your stupidity, here are some of the sources and quotes:
76 percent of color prepress customers use Macs (Griffin Dix Research
Associates)
63 percent of all multimedia applications are written on a Mac (Dataquest)
63 Percent of the computers in U.S. schools (K-12) come from Apple (QED)
47 percent of commercial publishing customers and 50 percent of scientifi
and engineering customers use Macs (Apple)
29 percent of full-time college students with computers have Macs‹11percent
more than have the nearest competitor (Roper College Track)
19 percent of PCs purchased by higher education institutions are Macs
(Computer Intelligence InfoCorp)
Apple is the #1 U.S. computer vendor in Japan (IDC and Dataquest)
Apple is the #1 computer company in Australian business, education and
consumer markets (IDC)
Apple is the #1 computer company in Canada (A.C. Neilsen)
The Mac is the #1 WWW authoring machine, and 41 percent of Web graphics are
created on the Mac (Mirai Consulting)
The Mac is the second most popular computer for WWW servers, topped only by
UNIX (Georgia Institute of Technology.
25 percent of all Web browsing is done from a Mac (META Group).
Wizard
Jee Hoon Lee
> > There is a difference between impossible and difficult. A Wintel box
> > running Win95 will not let you run those three cards at the same time. The
> > three items you named are having a SCSI difficulty. Get an inexpensive
> > smart SCSI terminator (APS carries them) and your problems should be
> > resolved.
>
> So I should *buy* more to get it to work, right? Maybe buying a
> different sound or network card would solve the PC problem, too. (You
> *can* get a network card, sound card and all the rest to behave in a PC
> if you get compatible brands) The point is you shouldn't have to in
> either case.
With the Mac SCSI example, in most cases having to purchase extra
equipment is unnecessary. Most desktop situations with short SCSI chains
should hook up in minutes with minimal hassle. I had never hooked up a
SCSI device until I went out and bought a scanner and a Zip drive (and
installed an internal HD). A decent manufacturer includes all necessary
cabling and terminators.
Being a novice, I forgot and even ran the system without terminating the
last device and it worked fine. When I realized my error later I hooked up
the terminator, just in case.
Having to add an inexpensive smart terminater to resolve an uncommon
problem isn't very comparible to having to install extra internal cards on
a PC box.
--
Jee Hoon Lee
E-Mail:do...@accessnv.com
Web: http://coyote.accessnv.com/dorok
Paine
Dear Wizard,
I have been reading this thread develop (and I'm sure you'll correct me
if I'm wrong) which started from a boring thread about Mac-vs-PC. I am
completely amazed that you can go on and on so passionately about what's
inside the box sitting on your desk and how superior and fantastic it
is. And all those statistics and articles you quote...I can't help but
think do you actually have a life? In the real world of commercial
graphic design, it's more important to the client that the final output
(however it was produced) satisfies the brief. To most graphic
designers or illustrators or anyone else working in a creative field, if
the output fails to fit the objective, you've failed whatever machine
you use. If your client is happy with the job produced, then you have
succeeded (you don't even have to like it yourself). If you've failed
to come up with the goods, then you have personally failed, you don't
blame your computer platform or software. The bottom line is, it's
irrelevant what machine you use to produce your art. It's whether it
works or not, which translates as talent. You've either got it or you
haven't.
Wendy.
Charles Moon
> With the Mac SCSI example, in most cases having to purchase extra
> equipment is unnecessary. Most desktop situations with short SCSI chains
> should hook up in minutes with minimal hassle. I had never hooked up a
> SCSI device until I went out and bought a scanner and a Zip drive (and
> installed an internal HD). A decent manufacturer includes all necessary
> cabling and terminators.
>
> Being a novice, I forgot and even ran the system without terminating the
> last device and it worked fine. When I realized my error later I hooked up
> the terminator, just in case.
>
> Having to add an inexpensive smart terminater to resolve an uncommon
> problem isn't very comparible to having to install extra internal cards on
> a PC box.
A smart terminator costs about $60 US, while I can get a NIC or sound
card for around $100. Not much of a difference. The point is that my
Mac will not work with scanner, zip AND SyQuest all on the same chain --
and that is after trying every possible combinations of cables,
extensions, drivers and order of the devices. And, these are brand name
items -- Agfa, Iomega and SyQuest -- not no-name brands.
So you might say I don't understand the Mac enough to get it to work.
That same conclusion was a criticism of Windows PC's. It works both
ways. Doncha think?
The Mac world is not as harmonius as you might wish it to be.
Charlie
Charles Moon
> Dear Wizard,
> I have been reading this thread develop (and I'm sure you'll correct me
> if I'm wrong) which started from a boring thread about Mac-vs-PC. I am
I have found that it is futile to argue with anyone who is so polarized
on any subject. Fun, but fultile. Especially if they think they are a
"wizard"
Charlie
Eric Larson
On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 10:40:23 -0500, Charles Moon <cm...@epix.net>
wrote:
>> Having to add an inexpensive smart terminater to resolve an uncommon
>> problem isn't very comparible to having to install extra internal cards on
>> a PC box.
>
>A smart terminator costs about $60 US,
Maybe where you shop, but I bought one at a computer show yesterday
for $9.95.
> while I can get a NIC or sound
>card for around $100. Not much of a difference. The point is that my
>Mac will not work with scanner, zip AND SyQuest all on the same chain --
>and that is after trying every possible combinations of cables,
>extensions, drivers and order of the devices. And, these are brand name
>items -- Agfa, Iomega and SyQuest -- not no-name brands.
Yawn. Scanners are well known to be problematical on SCSI chains. If
you don't use good cables and a good terminator, you can have
problems. And I don't care whose scanner you use.
>So you might say I don't understand the Mac enough to get it to work.
PC's have exactly the same SCSI chain problems, and worse because of
their poor BIOS support of SCSI. I have the same fits, and worse every
time I try to get an external SCSI chain to work on a PC.
In addition PC's have legions of ills that Macs *DON'T* have,
including IRQ and DMA conflicts, IDE master/slave conflicts, PnP
idiocy, Windows deinstallation woes, multiple incompatable disk
formats (FAT, VFAT32 and HFAT), and so on.
>That same conclusion was a criticism of Windows PC's. It works both
>ways. Doncha think?
>
>The Mac world is not as harmonius as you might wish it to be.
All computers have problems. PC's just have many more of them.
Bruno Fernandes
wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
>On a PC you have to do what it tells you. It limits you
>A Mac does what you tell it to. It helps you expand.
You poor little computer-illeterate fool. Your knowledge of either paltform and
of the genre can be summeed up by writing on the back of a postage stamp with a
crayon.
Please use both platforms on a regular basis like many people in this newgroup
before uttering such complete bullshit.
Bruno
(Salaried to work on Macintosh Quality Assurance, more time day in and out on
any number of Macintosh machines and clones than most people in the newsgroup.
Machine choice and machine used at home: Windows 95/NT box. I can do anything
and everything on one machine or the other without batting an eye. If you know
what you're doing, you don't get limited.)
WEH
Agreed, Wizard has lost all perspective respecting this message string,
so much that he even isn't fun to poke with a sharp stick once in awhile
just to set him off. I think maybe he ought to get outside in the sun
and fresh air a little more often and stop worshipping false idols.
Winston
Wizard
In article <32CFE6...@griffin.bis.net.au>, Paine
<pla...@griffin.bis.net.au> wrote:
>Dear Wizard,
>I have been reading this thread develop (and I'm sure you'll correct me
>if I'm wrong) which started from a boring thread about Mac-vs-PC. I am
>completely amazed that you can go on and on so passionately about what's
>inside the box sitting on your desk and how superior and fantastic it
>is. And all those statistics and articles you quote...I can't help but
>think do you actually have a life? In the real world of commercial
>graphic design, it's more important to the client that the final output
>(however it was produced) satisfies the brief. To most graphic
>designers or illustrators or anyone else working in a creative field, if
>the output fails to fit the objective, you've failed whatever machine
>you use. If your client is happy with the job produced, then you have
>succeeded (you don't even have to like it yourself). If you've failed
>to come up with the goods, then you have personally failed, you don't
>blame your computer platform or software. The bottom line is, it's
>irrelevant what machine you use to produce your art. It's whether it
>works or not, which translates as talent. You've either got it or you
>haven't.
>Wendy.
Wendy, I partially agree with you and partially disagree with you.
You are absolutely correct that the goal of a professional in the graphics
field is to fulfill his or her clientšs desires. However, if that is ALL a
person does, then why hire that person at all?
Good advertising agencies fulfill a clientšs desires AND, if possible,
improve upon them. Merely because a client accepts crap doesnšt mean that
you have to supply your client with crap. As a graphic professional it is
my goal to supply my client with the BEST POSSIBLE PRODUCT that fulfills
his or her needs.
So the question is, under what conditions can you produce the best possible
product?
If you are using a computer, the answer is the Macintosh.
And as professionals know, the product has to be to the client ON TIME.
Which files are most likely to be output as they appear on the monitor?
The answer is: the ones that come from the Macintosh. And donšt take MY
word for that, call a dozen service bureaus and ask what type of files they
prefer.
Wizard
Wizard
In article <32d4f009...@news.interlog.com>, Bruno Fernandes
<hyb...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
>You poor little computer-illeterate fool. Your knowledge of either
paltform and
>of the genre can be summeed up by writing on the back of a postage stamp with a
>crayon.
Claims are easy, back them up. Show me where Iąm wrong.
>
>Please use both platforms on a regular basis like many people in this newgroup
>before uttering such complete bullshit.
I do. And so far you havenąt indicated one thing which is łbullshit.˛ In
short, youąre all talk and no action.
>
>Bruno
>
>(Salaried to work on Macintosh Quality Assurance, more time day in and out on
>any number of Macintosh machines and clones than most people in the newsgroup.
>Machine choice and machine used at home: Windows 95/NT box. I can do anything
>and everything on one machine or the other without batting an eye. If you know
>what you're doing, you don't get limited.)
Never said you or anybody else couldnąt. The question is, where can it be
done faster, better and more elegantly. Where does the environment lead to
the most creativity?
Wizard
Wizard
>Agreed, Wizard has lost all perspective respecting this message string,
>so much that he even isn't fun to poke with a sharp stick once in awhile
>just to set him off. I think maybe he ought to get outside in the sun
>and fresh air a little more often and stop worshipping false idols.
>
>Winston
Winny, I donšt think you could find a sharp stick if you knew what one
looked like.
And I regret to tell you that I donšt worship false idols, although I do
enjoy smashing the one you seem to worship: stupidity.
Wizard
nkshivan
Charles Henderson wrote:
>
>
> What killer multimedia app does the Mac have that Windows does not?
mTropolis
Patrik Fagard
wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
>So the question is, under what conditions can you produce the best possible
>product?
I think this is where our opinions differ, I don't need the best
possible conditions to produce the best possible art, as a matter of
fact.
My question is simply, why do you even care if we choose to use
something else to do our work on other then the holy mac? Has it not
accured to you yet that we may have other reasons, that despite all
the great things about the mac, we don't feel as comfortable with them
as we would with another system, despite all the horror stories you
have told us about working with a pc, we hardly encounter them on a
daily basis? Despite the fact you worship your computer, we only see
it as a tool, a means to achieve our goals? And that we can do this
just as fast and efficient as anybody else?
Oh yes, and my other question was, how long has it already been when
did actually go out and stood under the sun? Or would this too effect
the perfect conditions you work under when creating great works of
art? :)
Greetings,
Patrik
Patrik Fagard
>Never said you or anybody else couldnšt. The question is, where can it be
>done faster, better and more elegantly. Where does the environment lead to
>the most creativity?
1. this differs from person to person, some people work better in a
clean room, others when it's very messy, some prefer wild raging music
while yet others are distracted by the slightest sound.
2. Creativity comes through problem solving. If you really are stating
that your creativity comes from the moment you sit behind the mac and
start playing around with some brushes and filters to see what cool
effect you might achieve, I'm sorry, but I don't think I can take you
serieously. Anybody can do that.
Greetings,
Patrik
Jee Hoon Lee
> So you might say I don't understand the Mac enough to get it to work.
> That same conclusion was a criticism of Windows PC's. It works both
> ways. Doncha think?
>
> The Mac world is not as harmonius as you might wish it to be.
No, I don't think it works both ways in that case and the world isn't
very harmonious in general. Sure,things go wrong and screw up or have
manufacturing defects. The point I and others were making is regarding the
relative levels of hassles and cost. Many Mac and PC users have had simple
and successful upgrade experiences overall, but having to open up a case
to install a card is a little more involved compared to hooking up a
terminater gizmo on a SCSI line when necessary.
Anyways, I hope you fare well in figuring out why your set-up is having
problems. With electronics of any kind, one can never know all the wierd
things that can effect these gadgets we love and hate to use.
Spider
>
> wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
>
> >So the question is, under what conditions can you produce the best possible product?
>
the product *the great ART*. Surely, before you can talk about processes
and methods, you have to have a product definition, i.e. what is art?
Charles moon
>>but having to open up a case
>>to install a card is a little
>>more involved compared to hooking up a
>>terminater gizmo on a SCSI line
>>when necessary.
A couple of the PC's I have with tower cases need to have all the cables
removed to open the case and then cover plates and six or eight screws
must come out. Then you have to fight with the covers themselves. I
agree, it's a pain in the you-know-where. My new Micron Millenia has
one thumb screw and two clips and the cover's off with no cable
fussing. This is truly a well designed case.
My Mac 7200 case is equally well designed. The only pain is moving the
monitor off the top to open it. On the other hand, I've also got a
Quadra 840 AV. Whoever "designed" (and I use the term loosly) That case
should be tied up with ols SCSI cables. It is truly a nightmare. The
face panels are constantly falling off, the big screws to open the case
jam all the time and you need 6" fingers about the diameter of 20 guage
wire that can see around corners to install SIMMs on the mainboard.
Nasty Piece of work.
Where can I get a smart active terminator for $10?
Charlie
Wizard
In article <32D161...@griffin.bis.net.au>, Spider
<pla...@griffin.bis.net.au> wrote:
Whew! I purposely didnšt define it because everyonešs definition is
different. Or at least, that should be on a different thread. I know my
definition isnšt the same as Strom Thurmondšs! :)
So, assuming you have your own definition and one of the ways to achieve
something which fits that definition is to use a computer, do you use a
computer which gives you far more rules and restrictions to follow or one
that you can *easily* configure as you desire? Which does an artist prefer:
limitations set by an external force or attempting to stretch all personal
boundaries?
I know where I stand.
Wizard
rode...@intouch.bc.ca
Charles Moon <cm...@epix.net> wrote:
>The only absolute is "there are no absolutes." Don't be so absolute.
>If the Mac were the udeniable best, there would be no debate.
>>>The question is then why is far more animation, video editing, >>multimedia authoring and web page design done on the Mac than on the PC?
>>>It is because the ENVIRONMENT on the Mac is so far ahead of the Wintel
>>>that the Wintel is a joke.>
>You are wrong here. The Mac is used more because it was the first
>AFFORDABLE PC to offer these abilities to artists/designers. This
>enabling technology was adopted by the printing and publishing industry
>and people were trained or taught themselves this OS before there was
>any real desktop competition. By the time Windows offered a viable
>alternative, Mac was so well entrenched in Printshops and ad agencies
>that that was were the training and hardware dollars were being spent.
>And, since designers and artists generally deal with SB's and printer's
>who are slow to adopt other technologies, so are they.
>*IF* wintel boxes offered better service or abilities there would be a
>slow move in that direction and I'm not sure that's not happening with
>NT. Look at the move of Web servers in that direction. But, Windows
>does not outperform Macs in graphics. It's parity or a little below
>perhaps, but is certainly a viable alternative and should not limit a
>user any more than other tools may.
>The argument that more artist use Macs becuase they are better is a
>common fallacy of logic. You have assumed a conclusion based on an
>observation that may or may not be correct, but it certainly is not
>proveable.
><<Well, On a Wintel box running Win95 it can be impossible to have all
><<three working fully at once. >>
>OK, but it can be possible, too depending on the system. My PowerMac
>7200 will not work with a SyQuest, Zip drive and Agfa Arcus II scanner
>all on the SCSI bus at once. I've narrowed it down to a conflict
>between the scanner and the SyQuest drive, but it took me the better
>part of a weekend and it it still unresolved. Macs don't behave
>perfectly all the time either.
>>>The Mac, as an artistic environment, is just the superior way to go.
>The Mac is a computer environment. There is nothing artistic about it.
>It was developed prior to the DTP revolution of the mid 80's and has
>remained -- in regards to interface -- virtually unchanged. It was
>Adobe and PostScript that put the art on the desktop.
>And, the personal attacks and name calling really hurt the credibility
>of your arguments. (and don't say "he called me a name first", it is up
>to "you" to behave like an adult)
>Charlie Moon
Brovo Charlie! Well put!!
james-
Geo H
Hey Gang, I USED to be one of those DIEHARD "computer art is fake art"
guys, but after getting a comp and all the noir tool, I have made ART
that i never could have made otherwise...BUT...that is simply because i
CANT paint with a brush worth a damn!...so for all you NON painters out
there, comp art (not necessarily Mac, I use a PC myself and am damn
proud of it...less crashes) is definetly the way to go
Wilhelm Wirén
Charles Henderson wrote:
>
> Let's see, the Mac has MiniCAD 6 and what else? What CAD/CAM program
> does the Mac have that is better than AutoCAD or MicroStation? The PC
> platform has the most and the best CAD/CAM apps. UNIX is the only
> platform providing any real competition to Windows in this area, but
> then that is because they have some of the same apps.
>
was as full of bugs as r13 for Windows, I am not surprised that AutoCAD
didn't make it in the Mac market . It comes as no surprise to me that
AutoDesk's list of Acad13 fixes is a mile long (bet they still missed a
few). In my opinion MiniCAD4 that I tried out eons ago was a better
program than Acad13 is now. Probably MS microserfs told an AutoDesk
jockey that the more toolbars an application has the better it gets and
he took their Word6 for it.
Wilhelm Wirén
Dave L.
> Charles Henderson wrote:
> >
> > Let's see, the Mac has MiniCAD 6 and what else? What CAD/CAM program
> > does the Mac have that is better than AutoCAD or MicroStation?
That's easy... MiniCAD 6 :-) By the way, Microstation is also available for
the Mac. Architrion is also an amazing CAD program. The newest version has
both NURBS and Polygons. I'm not sure if any Mac programs offer CAM (as in
computer aided Manufacturing right?). I've never really used Microstation.
I got a chance to play with it once and was extremely un-impressed.
--
______________________________
Dave Lewis
lew...@tuns.ca
www.tuns.ca/~lewisda
______________________________
Wizard
>Wizard wrote:
>
>> So the question is, under what conditions can you produce the best possible
>> product?
>>
>> If you are using a computer, the answer is the Macintosh.
In article <32CD26...@a.crl.com>, Ben Cannon <art...@a.crl.com> wrote:>
>Or SGI.
>
Absolutely, as long as you only need the apps that are available for SGI.
Wizard
Gordon Graber
In article Geo H, king...@earthlink.net writes:
>but after getting a comp and all the noir tool, I have made ART
>that i never could have made otherwise...
In article Wizard, wiz...@primenet.com writes:
>So the question is, under what conditions can you produce the best possible
>product?
Which many Great Artists will argue is the exact antithesis of Great Art.
They would say the more your Art becomes a "product" the less chance it
has of ever being great. ( Some notable artists of late have made
distiction for themselves toying with this idea )
I have been grappling with this problem for some time now, as I am an
artist who is using the computer as a tool in the production my work.
Being brainwashed in a fine art school that produces thoughts such as my
first statement above, I have had a hard time philosophically with the
fact that I use the computer as a tool, and I make my living as a
macintosh/pc guru.
I think it was the sculptor Rhodin that said "a media cannot be used
to produce Art until it is as easy to obtain as pencil and paper". I
think there is something to that. Some truth about a method of producing
art not being understood until the average person can appreciate how
difficult it is to use. People know how hard it is to use a pencil, but
a computer they don't understand. They think, "wow you just press a
button and something creative comes out."
(Totally untrue.) I think this somehow is a barier to the computer being
used as a tool to create "Great Art". The computer is still to
expensive, still too inaccessable to the average person, ( the vast
majority of people have never touched a computer ).
Now, as to the "platform wars": It was five years working and
programming on PCs before I ever touched a Mac. As a
programmer/trainer/support person/user of both macs and pcs I would
recomend using Mac to new users, dependant on their situatuion. I use
Mac systems consistently in my own work. I could very well be that a
graphic desingner would benefit from buying a PC. That would depend on
what they need to do, what support services are available in their area
had what the production houses they may use have for systems. It all
depends.
All these "platform wars" are rediculous. Use the best tool for the
job. Remember the in Art, it's not what media you use, it's what you say
with the media. Those who are bigotted about one media or one tool over
the other probably have very little to say with any media or tool.
Of course, Th ese are my opinions, and I throw them out for debate...
Cheers,
Gordon Graber-- programmer UofI --ggr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
M. B. Gajria
Wizard wrote:
>
> In article <32C85F...@sirinet.net>, chen...@sirinet.net wrote:
>
> >You're back to the PC vs Mac argument,
>
> Itıs not a questions of being ³back to,² that was the entire point, from
> the beginning. Somebody misquoted me and tried to imply that this was a
> discussion about the Mac vs Traditional Media. That was never the purpose
> and NOBODY has even posted an argument about that.
>
> >and this time you're saying the
> >OS is going to have more of a say in what I do than the software
> >program.
>
> Are you stupid, insane or are you just incapable of understanding English?
> I have NEVER written that, I have NEVER said that, I do NOT believe it.
>
> >Sorry, I use both Macs and PCs frequently. Programs like
> >Photoshop, Freehand, Pagemaker and Quark Xpress have the same user
> >interface regardless of platform.
>
> And once again I never said anything different. But for youıre pea-brain
> Iıll try and spell it out. I send pictures but you porbably couldnıt
> figure out how to download them:
>
> COMPUTER TRADITIONAL MEDIA
> Artist = Artist
> Program = Media
> HW/OS = Environment
>
> All three play a part in the creation of art. That is what Iıve said from
> the beginning, that is what I am saying now.
>
> And the HW/OS on a PC which gives the Artist the most freedom to explore
> his/her abilities is the Mac, not the Wintel.
>
> Wizard:
> >> Exactly. Limit an artist and he or she does the best possible with what is
> >> available. With a Mac, more is available than with the PC.
>
> chenders:
> > If you're talking pre press,
> >you're right. But if you're talking about 3-D animation, non-linear
> >digital video editing, multimedia authoring, CAD-CAM
> >engineering/manufacturing, web page design and even sign making software
> >--sorry, the PC has a lot more to offer there. The pre press industry
> >does not encompass the entire computing graphics world, so the broad
> >statement "the Mac is better for graphics" has many holes in it.
>
> Let us assume your statements are correct (and if youıre talking about
> low-quality crap instead of high end quality, you are correct). The
> question is then why is far more animation, video editing, multimedia
> authoring and web page design done on the Mac than on the PC?
>
> It is because the ENVIRONMENT on the Mac is so far ahead of the Wintel
> that the Wintel is a joke.>
> quality SCSI adapter and a top-of-the line sound care that needs more than
> one interrupt (like one that supports MP401). Well, On a Wintel box
> running Win95 it can be impossible to have all three working fully at
> flexibility needed to deal with this problem. Having to diddle these was
> SUPPOSED to have been fixed by Plug and Play. It was not. Configuration
> management under the MacOS is still vastly superior to anything on an
> Intel box.
>
> The Mac, as an artistic environment, is just the superior way to go.
>
Hi Mac fans,
sorry to disappoint you guys. Its not that I dont like macs. Even I like
macs. But the thing about SCSI cards, network cards, and sound card with
MPU-401. I am running all at the same time on my comp without any
fiddling. I agree that its a problem managing cards on a PC. But its
worth the problem as its more widely supported than macs. There are more
devices available for the PC. With macs you are struck with a few
vendors who make some stuff and almost enjoy the monopoly.
regards,
Manish Gajria.
<http://mansih.home.ml.org>
David Frank Kyte
Wizard wrote:
>
> In article <32CFE6...@griffin.bis.net.au>, Paine
> <pla...@griffin.bis.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Dear Wizard,
> >I have been reading this thread develop (and I'm sure you'll correct me
> >if I'm wrong) which started from a boring thread about Mac-vs-PC. I am
> >completely amazed that you can go on and on so passionately about what's
> >inside the box sitting on your desk and how superior and fantastic it
> >is.
I am with you Wendy, All this PC, Mac, scsi, SGI, mulitasking crap is
very boring and has nothing to do with the original idea of this tread
of “Computer Vs Traditional Art”. I am starting to wonder if any of
these ”Technogeek” actually create art or just brag about how fast they
could make art on there favorite machine if they made art.
David Kyte
Eric Mills
Wendy:
> about what's inside the box sitting on your desk and how superior
> I can't help but think do you actually have a life?
This is at least the third time someone's written essentially this message
in this thread. I guess you have some time on your hands.
Wizard
In article <5b0ff5$9...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Gordon Graber
<ggr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>In article Geo H, king...@earthlink.net writes:
>>but after getting a comp and all the noir tool, I have made ART
>>that i never could have made otherwise...
>
>In article Wizard, wiz...@primenet.com writes:
>>So the question is, under what conditions can you produce the best possible
>>product?
>
>Which many Great Artists will argue is the exact antithesis of Great Art.
> They would say the more your Art becomes a "product" the less chance it
>has of ever being great. ( Some notable artists of late have made
>distiction for themselves toying with this idea )
I agree with you completely if we are talking about FINE ART. But if you
are talking about graphic arts, then the product is important. And I think
you will admit that there are some great graphic images and poor ones.
> I have been grappling with this problem for some time now, as I am an
>artist who is using the computer as a tool in the production my work.
>Being brainwashed in a fine art school that produces thoughts such as my
>first statement above, I have had a hard time philosophically with the
>fact that I use the computer as a tool, and I make my living as a
>macintosh/pc guru.
> I think it was the sculptor Rhodin that said "a media cannot be used
>to produce Art until it is as easy to obtain as pencil and paper". I
>think there is something to that. Some truth about a method of producing
>art not being understood until the average person can appreciate how
>difficult it is to use. People know how hard it is to use a pencil, but
>a computer they don't understand. They think, "wow you just press a
>button and something creative comes out."
>(Totally untrue.)
This is totally true! Similarly, people think that using PageFaker or Quack
Xpress makes them experts in typography.
Preposterous!
> I think this somehow is a barier to the computer being
>used as a tool to create "Great Art". The computer is still to
>expensive, still too inaccessable to the average person, ( the vast
>majority of people have never touched a computer ).
> Now, as to the "platform wars": It was five years working and
>programming on PCs before I ever touched a Mac. As a
>programmer/trainer/support person/user of both macs and pcs I would
>recomend using Mac to new users, dependant on their situatuion. I use
>Mac systems consistently in my own work. I could very well be that a
>graphic desingner would benefit from buying a PC. That would depend on
>what they need to do, what support services are available in their area
>had what the production houses they may use have for systems. It all
>depends.
I agree completely. For example, if a person is going to use a program that
was custom designed for a similar business and programmed for a DOS
platform it is foolish to suggest that the person get a Mac or a
PentiumPro.
> All these "platform wars" are rediculous. Use the best tool for the
>job. Remember the in Art, it's not what media you use, it's what you say
>with the media. Those who are bigotted about one media or one tool over
>the other probably have very little to say with any media or tool.
>
>Of course, These are my opinions, and I throw them out for debate...
>Cheers,
>Gordon Graber-- programmer UofI --ggr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Well, Gordon, this gets back to my orignal point. Is the computer simply
the artist零 media or is it also part of the artist零 environment. I would
claim that it is the latter. Hence, choosing a better environment is, IMO,
important. And for art, I would contend that the better environment for an
artist comes with the Mac OS.
Wizard
Ben Cannon
love...@good.bad wrote:
> I've been following this and the *other* thread and I notice one
> thing. Opinions are okay and the points are taken, by ommitting the
> last line of this post, this might even erupt into a useful discussion
> about and artist's environment rather than an artist's platform.
>
> Mac's are cool, PC's are cool, but I'll tell you one thing, I think
> some of the stuff I've done with my machine's pretty nice and
> expressive of myself.
>
> But I ain't gonna tell you what I use and you're not entitled to
> guess! =) Isn't _that_ all that matters?!
LOL!!!!! You PDP-11 users :)
--
| As I sat there, the light changed from red, to |
| green, to yellow, to red again. Was life nothing |
| more than a whole bunch of honking and yelling? |
| Sometimes it seemed that way. |
~~~> http://cartsys.com <~~~
Wizard
In article <32D3E0...@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in>,
mst...@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in wrote:
>Hi Mac fans,
>
>sorry to disappoint you guys. Its not that I dont like macs. Even I like
>macs. But the thing about SCSI cards, network cards, and sound card with
>MPU-401. I am running all at the same time on my comp without any
>fiddling.
>I agree that its a problem managing cards on a PC.
Thank you.
>But its
>worth the problem as its more widely supported than macs.
Yes, the problem IS more widely supported than Macs . We donąt have those
problems.
>There are more
>devices available for the PC.
Really? Such as..
>With macs you are struck with a few
>vendors who make some stuff and almost enjoy the monopoly.
>
We have hundreds of vendors and thousands of products. ThatŚs hardly a monoply.
Nick Robertshaw
Gordon Graber wrote:
> I think it was the sculptor Rhodin that said "a media cannot be used
> to produce Art until it is as easy to obtain as pencil and paper".
Well, Gordon. Where I live it is much easier (and probably cheaper)
to obtain a Macintosh than it is to obtain an 8 cubic yard chunk of
white marble.
Glad to know we would thereby have Rodin's endorsement of our tool.
(assuming we can agree that The Caryatid and The Kiss are 'Art')
Gordon Graber
In article <32D512...@archwaytech.com> Nick Robertshaw,
at...@archwaytech.com writes:
>Well, Gordon. Where I live it is much easier (and probably cheaper)
>to obtain a Macintosh than it is to obtain an 8 cubic yard chunk of
>white marble.
>
>Glad to know we would thereby have Rodin's endorsement of our tool.
for free.
Still not like a paint brush, or a pencil though. Don't you think Rhodin
was questioning the validity of his own media?
What is "Great Art" (or is there is such a thing)?
Is there anything true to Rodin's statement?
What is "creativity" in graphic art?
How has the computer affected/effected the production of art?
I don't have an answer to any of these, but I feel they are worth
exploring. I have been doing this in my "fine" art for some time. ( I
am primarily a painter. I got into computing in 1980 because of my
fascination with computer graphics. At that time one had to learn to
program to do anything. When you gain a skill you find yourself in demand
and it pays the bills). I have done "comercial work" though that is not
where my interest lies. I have been exploiting the computer as a tool in
my painting. But I think it is very difficult to produce anything
approaching "great art" with a computer as the sole medium.
I'd like to know what others think sincerely about these issues.
Nick, You take a cheap shot. Speak to the point(s). I know you can do
better!
Cheers,
Gordon
Wizard
>Wizard wrote:
>>
>> In article <32CFE6...@griffin.bis.net.au>, Paine
>> <pla...@griffin.bis.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >Dear Wizard,
>> >I have been reading this thread develop (and I'm sure you'll correct me
>> >if I'm wrong) which started from a boring thread about Mac-vs-PC. I am
>> >completely amazed that you can go on and on so passionately about what's
>> >inside the box sitting on your desk and how superior and fantastic it
>> >is.
>
>I am with you Wendy, All this PC, Mac, scsi, SGI, mulitasking crap is
>very boring and has nothing to do with the original idea of this tread
>of “Computer Vs Traditional Art”. I am starting to wonder if any of
>these ”Technogeek” actually create art or just brag about how fast they
>could make art on there favorite machine if they made art.
>
>David Kyte
Oh, but David, itąs not just me who says that the Mac is aesthetically better.
From the PC Magazine site:
January 7, 1997
PC Aesthetics Suck
By John C. Dvorak
Hereąs one of the final mysteries of the PC versus
Mac battle: No
matter how you look at it, the Mac still wins in the
good-taste
department. This became clearer to me over the
weekend as I
put up a little Web site for myself on AOL using
PC-based tools.
In the process, I went back and forth to various
other pages for
ideas and tools and back and forth between Netscape
Navigator
and Microsoft Internet Explorer more times than I care to
remember. Even at the browser level, you find taste
discrepancies. Internet Explorer doesn't display type
as well as
Navigator. The irony of all this is that the threat
of bad taste in
design began when fonts were first available on the Mac.
Everyone said that we'd see all sorts of gosh-awful
newsletters
coming from everywhere. We didn't. This is because most of
these flyers and brochures were done on the Mac,
where good
taste seems to be inherent in the machine. Now that the PC
dominates, we have more sickening design than ever. I
honestly
believe this stems from the relative tastes of Steve
Jobs (the guy
behind the Mac) and Microsoftąs Bill Gates. Steve
always had a
"thing" about good taste and would mock Bill about
it. He still
does.
Iąd say that my own page is pretty funky, but I've
seen worse. Of
course, I did it on the PC. It's comforting to know
that it's the
machine itself at fault, not me. I only spent an hour
on it to prove
the point that you can get a decent page up in no
time with few
tools. The weirdest thing I observed was that when I
viewed it
with Internet Explorer, it actually looked worse than
that it did in
Navigator. Internet Explorer handled the fonts poorly
and spaced
them poorly.
Dave L.
wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
> mst...@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in wrote:
> >With macs you are struck with a few
> >vendors who make some stuff and almost enjoy the monopoly.
> >
> We have hundreds of vendors and thousands of products. That茎 hardly a
monoply.
Well, this is just another tired old Mac myth that PC users have been
taught. 99% of the time it's pure Myth. To be fair however, I can think of
*ONE* case where the 'monopoly' argument is true and that is in the case
*high end* professional of sound cards. I'm not talking soundwanker crap
here, but truly professional eqiupment. The built in sound on most Macs is
far better than anything you get with a SoundWanker card. In the case of
the Mac, ProTools pretty much has a monopoly. However, they also make the
best cards on the market for *any* platform. I do not know of a single
professional musician or sound recording studio in town that uses PC's.
Charles Moon
> By the way, part of the Mac environment which is far superior to the PC is
> mouse movement. I am surprised that this has not been mentioned. Mouse
> movement on a PC's running a Microsoft OS (say Win95 on a Pentium) is
> simply horrendous!!! Jerky, unsmooth, ghosting etc. Aweful. I cannot
> imagine using Photoshop or Illustrator in such an 'environment.' One
> question, does this inferior mouse movement thing extend to the use of
> tablets on PC's as well?
>
Gee Dave, I guess you didn't realize that you can adjust the speed and
acceleration of the mouse in Windows very easily. Look in the control
panel for the mouse icon. And Tablets work exactly the same on either
Mac or PC (at least my WACOM's do.)
Charlie
Wizard
Gee, Charlie, I guess you canıt read.
Nowhere did the previous poster say anything about the speed or
acceleration of the mouse.
He said that it appears jerky, unsmooth and there is ghosting.
The reason for this, as I understand it, is the terrible quality of
Windowıs mouse drivers.
Wizard
Charles Moon
> Gee, Charlie, I guess you canıt read.
> Nowhere did the previous poster say anything about the speed or
> acceleration of the mouse.
> He said that it appears jerky, unsmooth and there is ghosting.
>
> The reason for this, as I understand it, is the terrible quality of
> Windowıs mouse drivers.
>
> Wizard
Gee, Wizard, you're right.
It's just that the most common complaint I hear from Mac users who sit
in from a a PC is that the mouse is to fast, and vice versa from PC
users who try Macs. As for the jerky, unsmooth ghosting, I have never
noticed a difference in pointer quality between the machines. It may
have more to do with cheap video cards than the mouse drivers.
Charlie
Dave L.
wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
> Well, Gordon, this gets back to my orignal point. Is the computer simply
> the artist零 media or is it also part of the artist零 environment. I would
> claim that it is the latter. Hence, choosing a better environment is, IMO,
> important. And for art, I would contend that the better environment for an
> artist comes with the Mac OS.
By the way, part of the Mac environment which is far superior to the PC is
mouse movement. I am surprised that this has not been mentioned. Mouse
movement on a PC's running a Microsoft OS (say Win95 on a Pentium) is
simply horrendous!!! Jerky, unsmooth, ghosting etc. Aweful. I cannot
imagine using Photoshop or Illustrator in such an 'environment.' One
question, does this inferior mouse movement thing extend to the use of
tablets on PC's as well?
--
lindonp
First I took out photoshop and pakemaker and the mac hardware groups
from this post, I'm being presumptious here but I think this is more
"off topic" for them than the remaining groups...
Gordon Graber wrote:
>
[snip some..].
> Nick, I suspect if you knew where to go you could fine your own marble
> for free.
> Still not like a paint brush, or a pencil though. Don't you think Rhodin
> was questioning the validity of his own media?
Maybe, maybe not, I think he was expressing a bit of self-concious guilt
about being an artist who used an expensive medium(marble)
> What is "Great Art" (or is there is such a thing)?
Well, probably, but I'm defining art as something the aritist and the
consumer both agree to confer value to, so great art is probably that
which the artist and a mass of consumers ascribe value to...
> Is there anything true to Rodin's statement?
Given the above definition of art then no...
> What is "creativity" in graphic art?
Grief! no idea, a wild guess is that which other graphic artists see
as new and interesting..
> How has the computer affected/effected the production of art?
..its another medium and another environment(both or either)
> I don't have an answer to any of these, but I feel they are worth
[snip]
> my painting. But I think it is very difficult to produce anything
> approaching "great art" with a computer as the sole medium.
Why? The above suggested definition of great art would allow the
development of it using any medium...TV, Radio, Computer, Multimedia,
computer graphics(say on a Mac), house paint, two wooden sticks, a
theatre, etc. you get the picture....phew I managed to get multimedia
and mac.graphics back into the post....
[snip]
regards,
LP
Gordon Graber
I'm not sure my questioning of Computers vs traditional art is off topic.
I think the original posts were along this line. The thread has split
off into the usual "paltform war" though.
to continue:
In article <32D5DC...@utc.com.au> lindonp, lin...@utc.com.au writes:
In response to my question ( Don't you think Rhodin was questioning the
validity of his own media? )
>Maybe, maybe not, I think he was expressing a bit of self-concious guilt
>about being an artist who used an expensive medium(marble)
Why do you seem to think that sculpture is so inaccessable? Marble may
be expensive today, but you can sculpt in some very accessable and cheap
media: clay, wood, limestone, concrete. Anyone can get a hold of these,
they cost next to nothing. And anyone who has tried to sculpt can
appreciate the difficutly of it.
This not necessarily true for computers:
There was a previous post in this thread I'll try to paraphrase ( from
memory, it was an earlier one I think my news reader deleted ): "I can
do things with this drawing program I could never do with a brush" This
person understands the difficulty of using a brush to create art. I
sense they missunderstand the computer though.
All this may still not speak to what art or "Great art is". Like I
said, I'm looking.
>> What is "Great Art" (or is there is such a thing)?
>Well, probably, but I'm defining art as something the aritist and the
>consumer both agree to confer value to, so great art is probably that
>which the artist and a mass of consumers ascribe value to...
By this definition anything could be "art". I don't think this gets us
closer to the truth. (What ever that may be. ) We don't often see
everyday objects/or advertising from 100 years ago hanging in musuems as
"Great Art". I think time has something to do with determining whether
something is art or "great art". It may not have anything to do with
mass appreaction of a particular work. Is there something about mass
appreciation of the difficulty of a "craft", that is the use of a media?
This is what Rodin was speaking to? What do you think?
Any artist who tries to equate working with a computer and traditional
media is going to make a philosophical stretch. That is what I am trying
to explore. When I went back to my art school to tell them I was working
with computers, and show my art, they laughed at me. These are some of
the most learned and intellegent people, and artists, I have ever met. I
must respect that maybe the know something I have not yet learned, or at
least I must explore where the line between what they do and what I
attempt to do is.
Thanks for any of your ideas or thoughts,
Gordon Graber
Dave L.
> > By the way, part of the Mac environment which is far superior to the PC is
> > mouse movement. I am surprised that this has not been mentioned. Mouse
> > movement on a PC's running a Microsoft OS (say Win95 on a Pentium) is
> > simply horrendous!!! Jerky, unsmooth, ghosting etc. Aweful. I cannot
> > imagine using Photoshop or Illustrator in such an 'environment.' One
> > question, does this inferior mouse movement thing extend to the use of
> > tablets on PC's as well?
> >
> Gee Dave, I guess you didn't realize that you can adjust the speed and
> acceleration of the mouse in Windows very easily. Look in the control
> panel for the mouse icon. And Tablets work exactly the same on either
> Mac or PC (at least my WACOM's do.)
Hi Charlie. Yes I do realize that but it has nothing to do with what I am
refering to. Changing the speed and acceleration do not help unfortunately.
Windows used a different algorithm for mouse movement which is what results
in the jerky movement that I am refering to. The only way to really tell
this difference if to actually use both systems for awhile. I am not simply
imagining this, there is a noticable difference in mouse movement
regardless of the speed/acceleration settings. Mac mouse movement is just
much smoother and more precice.
Charles moon
> Hi Charlie. Yes I do realize that but it has nothing to do with what I am
> refering to. Changing the speed and acceleration do not help unfortunately.
> Windows used a different algorithm for mouse movement which is what results
> in the jerky movement that I am refering to. The only way to really tell
> this difference if to actually use both systems for awhile. I am not simply
> imagining this, there is a noticable difference in mouse movement
> regardless of the speed/acceleration settings. Mac mouse movement is just
> much smoother and more precice.
>
Sorry Dave. I use both all the time and never really noticed much of a
difference.
Charlie
Wizard
Having used both systems continually for over a decade, I know exactly what
Dave means. Windows mouse movements have always been jerkey and subject to
ghosting from the time that IBM was forced into including them while at the
same time passing out łReal men donąt use mice˛ buttons.
Wizard
Wizard
In article <lewisda-ya0235800...@news.dal.ca>,
lew...@tuns.ca (Dave L.) wrote:
>wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
>
>> mst...@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in wrote:
>> >With macs you are struck with a few
>> >vendors who make some stuff and almost enjoy the monopoly.
>> >
>> We have hundreds of vendors and thousands of products. ThatŚs hardly a
>monoply.
>
>Well, this is just another tired old Mac myth that PC users have been
>taught. 99% of the time it's pure Myth. To be fair however, I can think of
>*ONE* case where the 'monopoly' argument is true and that is in the case
>*high end* professional of sound cards. I'm not talking soundwanker crap
>here, but truly professional eqiupment. The built in sound on most Macs is
>far better than anything you get with a SoundWanker card. In the case of
>the Mac, ProTools pretty much has a monopoly. However, they also make the
>best cards on the market for *any* platform. I do not know of a single
>professional musician or sound recording studio in town that uses PC's.
>Dave Lewis
Dave, youąre absolutely right. But for most people the pro-cards are
unneeded. As you know, I can do 16-bit sound on my 7500 right out of the
box with SoundEdit 16.
Wizard
Bruce H. Liu
Charles moon wrote:
>
> > Hi Charlie. Yes I do realize that but it has nothing to do with what I am
> > refering to. Changing the speed and acceleration do not help unfortunately.
> > Windows used a different algorithm for mouse movement which is what results
> > in the jerky movement that I am refering to. The only way to really tell
> > this difference if to actually use both systems for awhile. I am not simply
> > imagining this, there is a noticable difference in mouse movement
> > regardless of the speed/acceleration settings. Mac mouse movement is just
> > much smoother and more precice.
> >
>
> Sorry Dave. I use both all the time and never really noticed much of a
> difference.
>
> Charlie
I can't say I can tell the difference. Dave may have a bad mouse for his PC.
--
Bruce H. Liu "When it comes to the Web, my friends, people
bl...@htmlcom.com check in... they do not check out." --Gil Schwartz
http://www.htmlcom.com
Brian Mardirosian
> By the way, part of the Mac environment which is far superior to the PC is
> mouse movement.
> Dave Lewis
Yea, they are really smooth when your almost finished selecting an
object and they stop short because a bit of dirt.
Phil Patiris
lindonp wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> Gordon Graber wrote:
> >
> [snip some..].
> > Nick, I suspect if you knew where to go you could fine your own marble
> > for free.
> > was questioning the validity of his own media?
> about being an artist who used an expensive medium(marble)
It's only expensive because of human artifice & meddling, otherwise it's
there for the taking, raw material provided by nature.
Computers aren't. They're provided by business, because there's profit
in them, because they make business run more efficiently, because they
don't have to bother with an inconvenient, time-consuming thing like
craft when designing magazine ads.
(just to be fair, the same is true of my beloved video decks)
> > What is "Great Art" (or is there is such a thing)?
> Well, probably, but I'm defining art as something the aritist and the
> consumer both agree to confer value to, so great art is probably that
> which the artist and a mass of consumers ascribe value to...
Comrade Zhdanov said much the same thing in Stalinist times... Prokofiev
and Shostakovich, among many others, paid the price for it. Few things
in this thread have been so off the mark and just plain ignorant and
downright *dangerous* as the above statement. Your mind is apparently
mired in consumerist mentality; your definition of value is the dollar
bill and the lowest common denominator. You will do well in Soviet
America (yes, it is). Your art will "speak to the people". Expression of
your inner soul is just a manifestation of anti-social selfishness. The
personal life is dead. The artist's job is to follow, not to lead, to
provide product, not to enhance and challenge spirit. You will do well
indeed.
> > What is "creativity" in graphic art?
> Grief! no idea, a wild guess is that which other graphic artists see
> as new and interesting..
To quote Dominique Francon to Peter Keating... "do you need to take a
poll to find out if you like it?".
Find out what book that comes from. Read it. Soon.
Creativity, and great art, has absolutely nothing to do with the
consensus of others. Nothing. It's done without them, and whether they
like it or not (most great art is unliked at the time it's created).
Consensus comes after the fact of creation, and is primarily useful for
marketability, which also has *nothing* to do with art.
The first thing I learned, when I stopped being an accountant and
started creating, was to not care what people thought about my work. If
they do like it, once finished, that's gratifying of course. But the
greatest artists in history have always been those who were not only
adept, but the most uncompromising and unique, whatever form or medium
was used. The hunk of marble is rare and hard to obtain (and undo-able
once chiseled); the computer is mass-produced, one of millions that run
the same software. You tell me... aside from possibility (and anything
is), which one is more likely to result in something uncompromising and
unique? Which requires the greater investment (pardon the phrase) of
effort and soul (and therefore, given the effort required, more personal
authenticity)?
So far as the mass consumer market goes, it is an unfortunate fact of
life for genuine artists, "good" or "bad", that those they often must
seek backing or employment from (if they even bother) can never
understand - this world is run, more and more, by Zhdanovs. And some
artists allow themselves to get sucked in, opt for marketability, and
lose their souls - and so lose their art. How sad. For them and this
brave new digital world that isn't questioned nearly enough.
Happy rendering, Comrade. Be loved by the masses.
Phil
=================================
Phillip D. Patiris
Modern Television · San Francisco
URL: http://www.moderntv.com
=================================
love...@good.bad
On 8 Jan 1997 15:41:02 -0700, wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) issued
forth:
>*SNIP*
>
>Well, Gordon, this gets back to my orignal point. Is the computer simply
>the artist零 media or is it also part of the artist零 environment. I would
>claim that it is the latter. Hence, choosing a better environment is, IMO,
>important. And for art, I would contend that the better environment for an
>artist comes with the Mac OS.
>
>Wizard
I've been following this and the *other* thread and I notice one
thing. Opinions are okay and the points are taken, by ommitting the
last line of this post, this might even erupt into a useful discussion
about and artist's environment rather than an artist's platform.
Mac's are cool, PC's are cool, but I'll tell you one thing, I think
some of the stuff I've done with my machine's pretty nice and
expressive of myself.
But I ain't gonna tell you what I use and you're not entitled to
guess! =) Isn't _that_ all that matters?!
Later bro'
Aaron Whiteman
> > in the jerky movement that I am refering to. The only way to really tell
> > this difference if to actually use both systems for awhile. I am not simply
> > imagining this, there is a noticable difference in mouse movement
> > regardless of the speed/acceleration settings. Mac mouse movement is just
> > much smoother and more precice.
> >
> Sorry Dave. I use both all the time and never really noticed much of a
> difference.
>
> Charlie
Odd. I used my High School yearbook's windows machine for publishing (I
know i know... I was a PC bigot at the time) It took me all year to be
able to freely use the mouse on the PC, but my "new" mac (it isnt) was
smooth from day one. I have to agree with Dave here, Windows does not feel
as precise.
Aaron
Jerry Kindall
In article <32d6eaeb...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>,
love...@good.bad wrote:
>But I ain't gonna tell you what I use and you're not entitled to
>guess! =) Isn't _that_ all that matters?!
You gave it away with the X-Newsreader header.
>Later bro'
--
Jerry Kindall <kin...@manual.com>
Manual Labor <http://www.manual.com/>
Technical Writing; Internet & WWW Consulting
Play Java Solitaire at the HouseMaster HOME Page:
http://www.housemaster.com/~hm/
Patrik Fagard
>Hi Charlie. Yes I do realize that but it has nothing to do with what I am
>refering to. Changing the speed and acceleration do not help unfortunately.
>Windows used a different algorithm for mouse movement which is what results
>in the jerky movement that I am refering to. The only way to really tell
>this difference if to actually use both systems for awhile. I am not simply
>imagining this, there is a noticable difference in mouse movement
>regardless of the speed/acceleration settings. Mac mouse movement is just
>much smoother and more precice.
I would imagine that if you are used to working in high resolution and
then switched to a very low one, it might seem jaggier, or your doing
something far beyond the capabilities of your physical ram and windows
has to relly heavily on virtual memory, the mouse won't respond as
flewently anymore to your own movements.
But a common mistake most users make is the fact that they don't feed
their mice on a regular basis. I know, because I've already killed
three. ;-)
Greetings,
Patrik
alec east
I often feel that the mac pc arguement is redundant the same as saying Red
vs Green, which is better?
Have a look at:
"computers as theatre" by brenda laurel isbn 0-201-55060-1
or
"Mediamatic" magazine (info on http://www.mediamatic.com)
for an entirely different view point.
The computer as medium, not simply the computer as tool.
With that in mind take a look at Marshall McLuhan again and see the relevance.
There are a lot more conotations than you might think.
We haven't even scratched the surface of computer generated/aided art.
Al.
In article <wizard-ya02408000...@news.primenet.com>,
wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
--In article <5b0ff5$9...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Gordon Graber
--<ggr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
--
-->In article Geo H, king...@earthlink.net writes:
-->>but after getting a comp and all the noir tool, I have made ART
-->>that i never could have made otherwise...
-->
-->In article Wizard, wiz...@primenet.com writes:
-->>So the question is, under what conditions can you produce the best possible
-->>product?
-->
-->Which many Great Artists will argue is the exact antithesis of Great Art.
--> They would say the more your Art becomes a "product" the less chance it
-->has of ever being great. ( Some notable artists of late have made
-->distiction for themselves toying with this idea )
--
--I agree with you completely if we are talking about FINE ART. But if you
--are talking about graphic arts, then the product is important. And I think
--you will admit that there are some great graphic images and poor ones.
--
--
--> I have been grappling with this problem for some time now, as I am an
-->artist who is using the computer as a tool in the production my work.
-->Being brainwashed in a fine art school that produces thoughts such as my
-->first statement above, I have had a hard time philosophically with the
-->fact that I use the computer as a tool, and I make my living as a
-->macintosh/pc guru.
--> I think it was the sculptor Rhodin that said "a media cannot be used
-->to produce Art until it is as easy to obtain as pencil and paper". I
-->think there is something to that. Some truth about a method of producing
-->art not being understood until the average person can appreciate how
-->difficult it is to use. People know how hard it is to use a pencil, but
-->a computer they don't understand. They think, "wow you just press a
-->button and something creative comes out."
-->(Totally untrue.)
--
--This is totally true! Similarly, people think that using PageFaker or Quack
--Xpress makes them experts in typography.
--
--Preposterous!
--
--
--> I think this somehow is a barier to the computer being
-->used as a tool to create "Great Art". The computer is still to
-->expensive, still too inaccessable to the average person, ( the vast
-->majority of people have never touched a computer ).
--> Now, as to the "platform wars": It was five years working and
-->programming on PCs before I ever touched a Mac. As a
-->programmer/trainer/support person/user of both macs and pcs I would
-->recomend using Mac to new users, dependant on their situatuion. I use
-->Mac systems consistently in my own work. I could very well be that a
-->graphic desingner would benefit from buying a PC. That would depend on
-->what they need to do, what support services are available in their area
-->had what the production houses they may use have for systems. It all
-->depends.
--
--I agree completely. For example, if a person is going to use a program that
--was custom designed for a similar business and programmed for a DOS
--platform it is foolish to suggest that the person get a Mac or a
--PentiumPro.
--
--
--> All these "platform wars" are rediculous. Use the best tool for the
-->job. Remember the in Art, it's not what media you use, it's what you say
-->with the media. Those who are bigotted about one media or one tool over
-->the other probably have very little to say with any media or tool.
-->
-->Of course, These are my opinions, and I throw them out for debate...
-->Cheers,
-->Gordon Graber-- programmer UofI --ggr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
--
--
--Well, Gordon, this gets back to my orignal point. Is the computer simply
--the artist零 media or is it also part of the artist零 environment. I would
--claim that it is the latter. Hence, choosing a better environment is, IMO,
--important. And for art, I would contend that the better environment for an
--artist comes with the Mac OS.
--
--Wizard
Dave L.
wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
> lew...@tuns.ca (Dave L.) wrote:
>>I do not know of a single
> >professional musician or sound recording studio in town that uses PC's.
>
> Dave, youąre absolutely right. But for most people the pro-cards are
> unneeded. As you know, I can do 16-bit sound on my 7500 right out of the
> box with SoundEdit 16.
Yup. As I said, "professional musician or sound recording studio(s)." They
are pretty much the only ones that use the high end cards like ProTools
AudioMedia. The built in sound on a PowerMacs is excellent and more than
good enough for the rest of us.
Dave L.
Patrik...@ping.be (Patrik Fagard) wrote:
> I would imagine that if you are used to working in high resolution and
> then switched to a very low one, it might seem jaggier, or your doing
> something far beyond the capabilities of your physical ram and windows
> has to relly heavily on virtual memory, the mouse won't respond as
> flewently anymore to your own movements.
Why would switching to a lower res result in jaggy movement? In any case, I
imagine that all PC's are not created equally, perhaps they're just
notorious for bundling really poor quality mice. 9 times out of 10 however
I do notice a difference. This difference is is not related to speed,
acceleration or dirt.
Bruce H. Liu
Dave L. wrote:
>
> Patrik...@ping.be (Patrik Fagard) wrote:
>
> > I would imagine that if you are used to working in high resolution and
> > then switched to a very low one, it might seem jaggier, or your doing
> > something far beyond the capabilities of your physical ram and windows
> > has to relly heavily on virtual memory, the mouse won't respond as
> > flewently anymore to your own movements.
>
> Why would switching to a lower res result in jaggy movement? In any case, I
> imagine that all PC's are not created equally, perhaps they're just
> notorious for bundling really poor quality mice. 9 times out of 10 however
> I do notice a difference. This difference is is not related to speed,
> acceleration or dirt.
>
Is there anything else Mac better than PC other than mouse? There got to be
something else. Otherwise, Apple is really in trouble.
Wizard
In article <lewisda-ya0235800...@news.dal.ca>,
>are pretty much the only ones that use the high end cards like ProTools
>AudioMedia. The built in sound on a PowerMacs is excellent and more than
>good enough for the rest of us.
>
Iąm very glad!
:-)
Wizard
Adrian van der Park
Wizard (wiz...@primenet.com) wrote:
^^^^^^
you misspelled 'troll'
: I do. And so far you havenąt indicated one thing which is łbullshit.˛ In
: short, youąre all talk and no action.
that's all you can do on usenet.
most of us prefer to spend most of our time creating rather than posting.
: Never said you or anybody else couldnąt. The question is, where can it be
: done faster, better and more elegantly. Where does the environment lead to
: the most creativity?
one possible answer:
certainly not usenet, especially a thread where *ahem* Wizard is concerned.
--
___//L'Adder Noir\\__________________________________ _ _ _
the retro80s-artdeco-vanilla-loving-industrialdesigner-goth
_____________________________________________________ _ _ _
love...@good.bad
On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 08:56:00 -0800, Ben Cannon <art...@a.crl.com>
spewed forth:
>love...@good.bad wrote:
>
>> I've been following this and the *other* thread and I notice one
>> thing. Opinions are okay and the points are taken, by ommitting the
>> last line of this post, this might even erupt into a useful discussion
>> about and artist's environment rather than an artist's platform.
>>
>> Mac's are cool, PC's are cool, but I'll tell you one thing, I think
>> some of the stuff I've done with my machine's pretty nice and
>> expressive of myself.
>>
>> But I ain't gonna tell you what I use and you're not entitled to
>> guess! =) Isn't _that_ all that matters?!
>
>LOL!!!!! You PDP-11 users :)
Heh heh, Ben... At least we had THE original Colossal
Caves/Adventure!!!
Peace bro'
>
>--
>| As I sat there, the light changed from red, to |
>| green, to yellow, to red again. Was life nothing |
>| more than a whole bunch of honking and yelling? |
>| Sometimes it seemed that way. |
> ~~~> http://cartsys.com <~~~
Kym ap Rhys
> > > movement on a PC's running a Microsoft OS (say Win95 on a Pentium) is
> > > simply horrendous!!! Jerky, unsmooth, ghosting etc. Aweful. I cannot
> > > imagine using Photoshop or Illustrator in such an 'environment.' One
> > > question, does this inferior mouse movement thing extend to the use of
> > > tablets on PC's as well?
> > >
> > Gee Dave, I guess you didn't realize that you can adjust the speed and
> > acceleration of the mouse in Windows very easily. Look in the control
> > panel for the mouse icon. And Tablets work exactly the same on either
> > Mac or PC (at least my WACOM's do.)
>
> refering to. Changing the speed and acceleration do not help unfortunately.
> Windows used a different algorithm for mouse movement which is what results
> in the jerky movement that I am refering to. The only way to really tell
> this difference if to actually use both systems for awhile. I am not simply
> imagining this, there is a noticable difference in mouse movement
> regardless of the speed/acceleration settings. Mac mouse movement is just
> much smoother and more precice.
>
> ______________________________
> Dave Lewis
> lew...@tuns.ca
> www.tuns.ca/~lewisda
> ______________________________
Hi,
Agreed the two systems must use a different algorithm, but having tried
a number of different computer systems over the years (including SGs and
Suns) I long ago came to the conclusion that the mouse itself (the
physical lump of plastic with the works in) makes the most difference -
some are brilliant to use, and some are terrible - and it's not always
the expensive mice that are the best. I must admit I haven't seen much
difference between the mouse on my friend's PowerMac and the one on my
own PC - except the number of buttons :-) - both seemed quite usable.
Best regards
Kym ap Rhys
Dave L.
"Bruce H. Liu" <bl...@htmlcom.com> wrote:
> Is there anything else Mac better than PC other than mouse? There got to be
> something else. Otherwise, Apple is really in trouble.
Of course. I just mentioned the mouse thing as I cannot imagine using
Photoshop with such a sloppy tool. Of course, if you want to paint, you
should have a tablet anyway.
--
گگگگگگگگگگگگگگگگگ
David Lewis
lew...@tuns.ca
www.tuns.ca/~lewisda