For Charles... Is it acceptable if Todai embraces anime?
Travers Naran
<http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fd20040516t1.htm>
:-)
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>"Doraemonology is no Mickey Mouse course"
>
><http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fd20040516t1.htm>
You are confusing Toyama with Todai. Todai is teaching
computer programming. In the past, I have made a few
futile attempts to get otaku to do something practical
with their obsession, if they're so interested in anime,
why not learn to MAKE it instead of just READING it.
I even taught some lessons in Maya and offered to set
up a free edu version of Maya for anyone who wanted it.
But to no avail. They are only interested in rotting their
brains, not in improving them.
necoandjeff
news:c8b1a...@drn.newsguy.com...
It's not clear to me that he's confusing anything. Todai can certainly be
thought of as "embracing" anime if it puts together a graphic arts course
that is specifically geared toward those who want to do anime related work.
And I'm not sure "computer programming" is the right description for the
kind of course that Todai is apparently offering. Computer programming is a
much more mathematical/logic course that deals with abstract problem solving
techniques. It sounds like the Todai course is more of an "art" type of
course. I realize there is necessarily a certain amount of overlap, but
learning how to use software to render computer animation is a far cry from,
for example, learning to program in C++ or Perl.
Jeff
Sceadu
Anyone can download the learning edition of Maya for free. Did it occur to you some students might
already have a 3D package in their dorm room? Reading Game Developer or Computer Graphics World, I
never see a bio on anyone who suddenly decided to learn animation without already being an animation
fan.
Sceadu
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>"Charles Eicher" <cei...@inav.net> wrote in message
>news:c8b1a...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <5b5263db.04051...@posting.google.com>, Travers
>Naran
>> says...
>> >
>> >"Doraemonology is no Mickey Mouse course"
>> >
>> ><http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fd20040516t1.htm>
>>
>> You are confusing Toyama with Todai. Todai is teaching
>> computer programming. In the past, I have made a few
>> futile attempts to get otaku to do something practical
>> with their obsession, if they're so interested in anime,
>> why not learn to MAKE it instead of just READING it.
>> I even taught some lessons in Maya and offered to set
>> up a free edu version of Maya for anyone who wanted it.
>> But to no avail. They are only interested in rotting their
>> brains, not in improving them.
>
>It's not clear to me that he's confusing anything. Todai can certainly be
>thought of as "embracing" anime if it puts together a graphic arts course
>that is specifically geared toward those who want to do anime related work.
Either you, or the author is confused. Todai doesn't do graphic arts.
Tokyo University of Technology does. Todai and Tokyo Tech are not
affiliated.
>And I'm not sure "computer programming" is the right description for the
>kind of course that Todai is apparently offering.
But that's exactly what they're doing. Just check their website. I'll even
give you the English site to make it easy for you:
http://nis-lab.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index-e.html
There are anime-ish images but they're all demos for "SIGGRAPH
Presentations," which are research papers presented to the annual
meeting of the ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery,
Special Interest Group-Graphics.
There's no art department at Todai, just the Dept of Arts and
Sciences, which if you look at their curriculum, is the Todai
equivalent of a General Studies department. If you want arts
courses you go to Tokyo Geijutsu Daigaku.
>Computer programming is a
>much more mathematical/logic course that deals with abstract problem solving
>techniques. It sounds like the Todai course is more of an "art" type of
>course. I realize there is necessarily a certain amount of overlap, but
>learning how to use software to render computer animation is a far cry from,
>for example, learning to program in C++ or Perl.
CG is much harder than computer programming. You must have all the
skills of a programmer, plus all the talent and skills of an artist. That
sort of person is extremely rare, which is why most CG is such crap.
It is easier to make an artist into a computer graphics expert, than to
turn a computer geek into an artist.
But I had to laugh at the serious "doraemonologist." He wants to draw
conclusions about something (he doesn't know what yet) by doing
statistical analysis of how often the characters perform certain actions
and how they behave. Instead of doing tedious statistics, why doesn't
he just ASK the animators? They'd probably be glad to give him the
data, it's on all their worksheets and goes in the trash when the
product is finished. But I can already tell him why the characters
do what they do: it's because some author or animator decided that
they would do it that way.
necoandjeff
Here's the passage:
And then there's the University of Tokyo.
Todai? The ultrastaid, hypercerebral molder of past, present and presumably
future elite bureaucrats? Yes indeed, says Sunday Mainichi. Beginning this
fall, the venerable Todai will offer a program for budding creators of anime
and computer games. The world has changed, and this is as good a measure of
it as any.
I haven't taken the time to seek out the original Japanese article but I'll
take the author's word for it unless proven otherwise. Perhaps it is more of
a technical course rather than a graphic arts but, in any event, the
implication that Todai is at least embracing anime with the creation of this
course remains.
Jeff
Sceadu
> There are anime-ish images but they're all demos for "SIGGRAPH
> Presentations," which are research papers presented to the annual
> meeting of the ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery,
> Special Interest Group-Graphics.
> There's no art department at Todai, just the Dept of Arts and
> Sciences, which if you look at their curriculum, is the Todai
> equivalent of a General Studies department. If you want arts
> courses you go to Tokyo Geijutsu Daigaku.
A sizeable part of SIGGRAPH's annual convention is student artwork. Graphics programming and
graphic design are related when it comes to computers, but it is possible to study one without
mastering the other.
> CG is much harder than computer programming. You must have all the
> skills of a programmer, plus all the talent and skills of an artist. That
> sort of person is extremely rare, which is why most CG is such crap.
> It is easier to make an artist into a computer graphics expert, than to
> turn a computer geek into an artist.
Actually, there's no reason why a CG artist needs to have "all the skills of a programmer." A
modeler, marionette rigger, texture painter, lighting designer, etc. need not also know scripting or
the inner mechanics of raytracing, although that might be helpful if one is designing procedural
shaders or some kind of fractal model. It's more important for a CG artist to have real-media art
skills such as sculpture or paint. As a matter of fact, PIXAR's jobs page for their studio division
stated this explicitly (last time I checked): They want people who have art skill, not necessarily
people who know how to program or have mastered a specific 3D program. At that time, they were
mainly using their proprietary Marionette so they'd have to reteach new recruits no matter what...
that might be different now that they've started using Maya for some things, but I digress. What
are we arguing about anyway?
Srin Tuar
> CG is much harder than computer programming. You must have all the
> skills of a programmer, plus all the talent and skills of an artist. That
> sort of person is extremely rare, which is why most CG is such crap.
> It is easier to make an artist into a computer graphics expert, than to
> turn a computer geek into an artist.
If your talking about standard scripting and minor programming, sure.
Personally I think everyone should be taught such rudiments, not just
c-g artists.
But being an artist is not "harder" than being a programmer. They are
just different types of art. Programs however are functional artworks,
and your drawings dont crash when they have minor flaws. So in that
sense, programming is harder.
necoandjeff
news:40a94097$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
First law of slj: If more than 10% of the messages in a given thread have
the name Charles Eicher attached to them, the thread is primarily an
argument about manga.
Second law of slj: If more than 10% of the messages in a given thread have
the name Jed Rothwell attached to them, the thread is primarily about how
kanji should be abolished.
Third law of slj: If more than 10% of the messages in a given thread have
the name Cindy attached to them, nobody will ever be able to figure out what
the messages are about.
Fourth law of slj: If more than 10% of the messages in a given thread have
the name necoandjeff attached to them, it doesn't matter what the thread is
about, he generally doesn't know what the hell he's talking about anyway
(and for a nice little dive into recursivity, that includes this one.)
Jeff
Travers Naran
> In article <5b5263db.04051...@posting.google.com>, Travers Naran
> says...
>
>>"Doraemonology is no Mickey Mouse course"
>>
>><http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fd20040516t1.htm>
>
>
> You are confusing Toyama with Todai. Todai is teaching
> computer programming.
Ah, you skimmed the article. I understand.
"And then there's the University of TOKYO.
TODAI? The ultrastaid, hypercerebral molder of past, present and presumably
future elite bureaucrats? Yes indeed, says Sunday Mainichi. Beginning this
fall, the venerable Todai will offer a program for BUDDING CREATORS OF
ANIME..."
(emphasis mine)
> In the past, I have made a few
> futile attempts to get otaku to do something practical
> with their obsession, if they're so interested in anime,
> why not learn to MAKE it instead of just READING it.
> I even taught some lessons in Maya and offered to set
> up a free edu version of Maya for anyone who wanted it.
> But to no avail. They are only interested in rotting their
> brains, not in improving them.
I used to be a video game programmer and could barely stand anime & manga
at that time. Now, I'm in a more coprorate environment, and I like anime &
manga. What can I say? :-)
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>
>> CG is much harder than computer programming. You must have all the
>> skills of a programmer, plus all the talent and skills of an artist. That
>> sort of person is extremely rare, which is why most CG is such crap.
>> It is easier to make an artist into a computer graphics expert, than to
>> turn a computer geek into an artist.
>
>If your talking about standard scripting and minor programming, sure.
>Personally I think everyone should be taught such rudiments, not just
>c-g artists.
No, I'm talking about common CG programs like Maya Expressions. Go read this
whole tutorial and then tell me you think this is simple and rudimentary.
http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/info/maya/manual/UserGuide/Express/
>But being an artist is not "harder" than being a programmer.
It most certainly is. A programmer works within a limited world, defined by his
target platform. The artist must know the entire world of ideas, and how to push
the envelope with those ideas. He must know not only his own ideas, but how they
are expressed, and how human perception will recieve them. This is far more
difficult than you could possible know.
>They are
>just different types of art.
No. Computer programming is engineering. Computer Science is mathematics.
Engineering and mathematics can be used in the employ of Art, but they are not
Art.
>Programs however are functional artworks,
No. Programs are functional engineering. Programs written by Artists might be
Art, but only insofar as they surpass mere engineering and science.
>and your drawings dont crash when they have minor flaws. So in that
>sense, programming is harder.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. A minor flaw can make even a
perfect image fall apart. Leonardo used a bit too much linseed oil and The Last
Supper peeled right off the wall, less than 15% of the original image remains.
If La Gioconde's eyes or nose was off-center, nobody would go to the Louvre to
see it. Even a tiny flaw can destroy the coherency of an image. I recall trying
to explain this to a computer geek who was designing a CD cover, he was
compositing two images, one had a picture of a man lit from the left, he was
inserting it in a room that was lit from the left. He had no idea that the image
wasn't working because the shadows betrayed the single light source in the
image. But this is a lesson taught on Day 1 of Drawing 101 in art school, look
at the shadows and highlights on an object and make sure they work with the
light source that illuminates the image. But the computer geek just couldn't
understand this basic principle, and was baffled why he couldn't make the image
work.
So do NOT, in your extreme ignorance, presume to tell an artist what Art is, or
that you are an artist. An artist can take a lump of mud and with their bare
hands, produce an object that is revered for centuries, a modern artist can do
it just as easily as it was done in the prehistoric era. A computer programmer
merely needs sand, plus an army of technicians toiling in multibillion-dollar
factories to produce chips, thousands of engineers writing compilers and
software, even before he can sit down and write his lame Visual Basic toys.
Charles Eicher
>
>"Charles Eicher" <cei...@inav.net> wrote:
>> There are anime-ish images but they're all demos for "SIGGRAPH
>> Presentations," which are research papers presented to the annual
>> meeting of the ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery,
>> Special Interest Group-Graphics.
>> There's no art department at Todai, just the Dept of Arts and
>> Sciences, which if you look at their curriculum, is the Todai
>> equivalent of a General Studies department. If you want arts
>> courses you go to Tokyo Geijutsu Daigaku.
>
>A sizeable part of SIGGRAPH's annual convention is student artwork. Graphics
>programming and
>graphic design are related when it comes to computers, but it is possible to
>study one without
>mastering the other.
SIGGRAPH is mostly GRAD student work, but the presentation papers are usually
the work of professionals from Pixar, ILM, PDI, R&H, MSFT, etc etc. You can
produce sample images demonstrating your math and science, but nobody would call
them art. In fact, most demos deliberately avoid any artistry, to avoid drawing
attention away from the effect being demonstrated.
Pixar has always been primarily a Renderman shop, heavy on the Maya. Marionette
was abandoned long ago. FYI, one of Pixar's key products is MtoR, a Maya to
Renderman converter. I can tell you haven't ever touched Maya, it's extremely
hard to use, it is merely a GUI wrap around raw programming. When you use Maya,
you are programming. But you have to approach it as an artist, not a programmer,
or else the results suck. Like I said (and as Pixar also believes) it is easier
to teach an artist to be a programmer, than to turn a programmer into an artist.
Charles Eicher
>
>Charles Eicher wrote:
>> In article <5b5263db.04051...@posting.google.com>, Travers Naran
>> says...
>>
>>>"Doraemonology is no Mickey Mouse course"
>>>
>>><http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fd20040516t1.htm>
>>
>>
>> You are confusing Toyama with Todai. Todai is teaching
>> computer programming.
>
>Ah, you skimmed the article. I understand.
No, I read it carefully, which is more than I can say of YOU.
You read the words, but not the subtext.
>
>"And then there's the University of TOKYO.
>
>TODAI? The ultrastaid, hypercerebral molder of past, present and presumably
>future elite bureaucrats? Yes indeed, says Sunday Mainichi. Beginning this
>fall, the venerable Todai will offer a program for BUDDING CREATORS OF
>ANIME..."
>
>(emphasis mine)
And the words were from an anime-addled writer, who willfully
mischaracterized Todai's program. Go read the Todai website,
no program related to anime exists in their curriculum. You
would think they'd have this listed in their curriculum, if they
are trying to attract new students to their new program.
Srin Tuar
> It most certainly is. A programmer works within a limited world, defined by his
> target platform.
You reveal your ignorance.
Computer science may displace physics as the fundamental building blocks
of the universe. (via category theory) If all of creation in a "limited
world", then yea, sure, that.
> No. Computer programming is engineering. Computer Science is mathematics.
> Engineering and mathematics can be used in the employ of Art, but they are not
> Art.
This idea has been the downfall of far too many managers. The concept
that design and implementation are separable turns out to a fallacy.
Computer Science is living art, one where ideas can be turned directly
into machines. Engineering techniques, and mathematics are certainly
usefull to a programmer. But they alone are not programming.
> You don't have a clue what you're talking about. A minor flaw can make even a
> perfect image fall apart.
and yet the majority of flawed images work good enough. Unless your job
is to produce counterfeits, or do airbrush images for intelligence
agencies, noones going to complain too much if your images are a bit
off. Hell, havent you ever seen any contemporary art? That crap is just
meanings splotches of paint one of your kind of "artists" squirted out
his rectum at a canvas for a live audience.
The majority of what passes for visual art is just "good enough" to get
its idea across. The vast majority of CG is really not that impressive,
but there certainly is degree of skill involved. But picking up the UI
of a single program is not something that would be considered impressive
to a programmer, your lopsided VB geek example notwithstanding.
(anyone who seriously uses basic is most likely not a programmer)
> So do NOT, in your extreme ignorance, presume to tell an artist what Art is, or
> that you are an artist. An artist can take a lump of mud and with their bare
> hands, produce an object that is revered for centuries, a modern artist can do
> it just as easily as it was done in the prehistoric era.
They are "revered" because the are old and rare. wow. If you found one
such at thing in your garage you'd likely through it out. Its a piece of
baked mud. Next youll try to convince me that basket weaving is much
harder than calculus, and more revered.
Dale Walker
wrote:
>In article <Htbqc.4854$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Srin Tuar
>says...
>>
>>
>>> CG is much harder than computer programming. You must have all the
>>> skills of a programmer, plus all the talent and skills of an artist. That
>>> sort of person is extremely rare, which is why most CG is such crap.
>>> It is easier to make an artist into a computer graphics expert, than to
>>> turn a computer geek into an artist.
>>
>>If your talking about standard scripting and minor programming, sure.
>>Personally I think everyone should be taught such rudiments, not just
>>c-g artists.
>
>No, I'm talking about common CG programs like Maya Expressions. Go read this
>whole tutorial and then tell me you think this is simple and rudimentary.
>
>http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/info/maya/manual/UserGuide/Express/
>
>>But being an artist is not "harder" than being a programmer.
>
>It most certainly is. A programmer works within a limited world, defined by his
>target platform. The artist must know the entire world of ideas, and how to push
>the envelope with those ideas. He must know not only his own ideas, but how they
>are expressed, and how human perception will recieve them. This is far more
>difficult than you could possible know.
>
>>They are
>>just different types of art.
>
>No. Computer programming is engineering. Computer Science is mathematics.
>Engineering and mathematics can be used in the employ of Art, but they are not
>Art.
I totally disagree. Programming is a lot more fluid than engineering.
With engineering there's usually only one or two ways to achieve a
certain project. With programming, there's almost an infinite number
of ways to achieve a certain task. It's up to the designer to either
stick to (or not) rules that 'engineers' require. It often takes much
more than just learned skill to create programs. There's more often
than not a lot of intuition, lateral thinking and experimentation
required. I would also argue that good programmers also need to know
"not only his own ideas, but how they are expressed, and how human
perception will receive them". It's not good creating a program that
only one person knows how to use. There's a lot of scope for going
into how people think, what the current fashion is with user
interface, etc.
If not an art, it's certainly a 'craft' (useful art) as the end
results usually have to do something rather than just sit there
looking pretty.
There's a separate field of computer programming that is software
engineering which does have rigid 'safe' ways to program and
discourages 'creativity' in programming.
Why do many people think that science and art are two totally separate
identities? to me, some of the best engineering projects are pure art.
Just look at The Pyramids, Taj Mahal, Clifton Suspension Bridge, etc.
I recently visited the Familia de Sagrada in Barcelona and I could not
work out where the mathematics & engineering ended and the art
started. To me, a good functional *AND* aesthetic design is far more
beautiful and thought provoking than some purely aesthetic object.
To me, elegant code pushes those same buttons. OK, most of it may be
hidden from view but it's effects are often very visible.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko!
da...@sorted.org lon...@sorted.org sa...@sorted.org
London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org
Travers Naran
> In article <Htbqc.4854$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Srin Tuar
> says...
>
>
> It most certainly is. A programmer works within a limited world, defined by his
> target platform. The artist must know the entire world of ideas, and how to push
> the envelope with those ideas. He must know not only his own ideas, but how they
> are expressed, and how human perception will recieve them. This is far more
> difficult than you could possible know.
Now I have seen everything. This has got to be the most pretentious
statement I have read in a long time.
>>They are
>>just different types of art.
>
> No. Computer programming is engineering.
No it isn't. Ask an engineer.
> Computer Science is mathematics.
It's the creative application of mathematics, but you're pretty much on
track there.
> Engineering and mathematics can be used in the employ of Art, but they are not
> Art.
Ah, the Portrait of an Artist as an arrogant prick.
>>Programs however are functional artworks,
>
> No. Programs are functional engineering. Programs written by Artists might be
> Art, but only insofar as they surpass mere engineering and science.
What's this? "Mere" engineering and science? Oh man... This is why I
find it hard to take your judgements seriously. To respect a judgement I
have to respect the judge.
>>and your drawings dont crash when they have minor flaws. So in that
>>sense, programming is harder.
>
> You don't have a clue what you're talking about. A minor flaw can make even a
> perfect image fall apart. Leonardo used a bit too much linseed oil and The Last
> Supper peeled right off the wall, less than 15% of the original image remains.
> If La Gioconde's eyes or nose was off-center, nobody would go to the Louvre to
> see it. Even a tiny flaw can destroy the coherency of an image. I recall trying
> to explain this to a computer geek who was designing a CD cover, he was
> compositing two images, one had a picture of a man lit from the left, he was
> inserting it in a room that was lit from the left. He had no idea that the image
> wasn't working because the shadows betrayed the single light source in the
> image. But this is a lesson taught on Day 1 of Drawing 101 in art school, look
> at the shadows and highlights on an object and make sure they work with the
> light source that illuminates the image. But the computer geek just couldn't
> understand this basic principle, and was baffled why he couldn't make the image
> work.
I learned that in high school art class, Drawing "101" (Drawing I as it was
called) and Computer Graphics Programming 351.
Art and "engineering" (as you call it) are orthogonal to each other.
Neither is superior or inferior to the other in terms of skill or
importance. Any human endeavour has an artistic dimension as well as a
technical dimension. Some artists appreciate that; all the engineers and
computer scientists & programmers I have ever worked with know it inside
and out.
I've worked with some amazing artists who were classically trained
sculptors and animators. My code had to make their art look and sound
great. I had to know why it's important to match shadows, I know why it's
important to add digital sound processing to an effect to convey a sense of
space and direction. It's a fusion of engineering & art.
You've spoken like a true professional arts student.
> So do NOT, in your extreme ignorance, presume to tell an artist what Art is, or
> that you are an artist. An artist can take a lump of mud and with their bare
> hands, produce an object that is revered for centuries, a modern artist can do
> it just as easily as it was done in the prehistoric era. A computer programmer
> merely needs sand, plus an army of technicians toiling in multibillion-dollar
> factories to produce chips, thousands of engineers writing compilers and
> software, even before he can sit down and write his lame Visual Basic toys.
And don't you presume to know it takes to be a "lowly" engineer or computer
programmer. You claim to have a mind open to the world, but it seems to be
more like a narrow slit in a darkened room.
Travers Naran
> Pixar has always been primarily a Renderman shop, heavy on the Maya. Marionette
> was abandoned long ago. FYI, one of Pixar's key products is MtoR, a Maya to
> Renderman converter. I can tell you haven't ever touched Maya, it's extremely
> hard to use, it is merely a GUI wrap around raw programming. When you use Maya,
> you are programming. But you have to approach it as an artist, not a programmer,
> or else the results suck. Like I said (and as Pixar also believes) it is easier
> to teach an artist to be a programmer, than to turn a programmer into an artist.
Nope. The old company I worked at tried to teach artists to be programmers
(to work on artist tools, etc.) It was easier to teach the programmers
art. But I have also met many talented artists who were or are programmers.
But to be fair, I did once meet a Maya artist who could create a human
figure from scratch in several days. Amazing artist. Clasically trained
sculptor who was "slumming" in video games. Didn't know the first thing
about programming, but that didn't mean he couldn't learn Maya. From the
other artists I still talk to in the industry, they don't consider Maya to
be "programming" compared to say 3D-Studio Max. Some even said they found
Maya easier to use than 3D-Studio Max.
Sean Holland
sp...@schrepfer.com wrote on 5/17/04 4:07 PM:
> Fourth law of slj: If more than 10% of the messages in a given thread have
> the name necoandjeff attached to them, it doesn't matter what the thread is
> about, he generally doesn't know what the hell he's talking about anyway
> (and for a nice little dive into recursivity, that includes this one.)
>
> Jeff
How Wittgensteinian of you.
Proposition 6.34 of the Tractatus:
"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who
understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used
them ãas stepsã to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away
the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
"He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world
aright."
---
pantssea...@telus.pants.net Remove pants to email me.
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>
>>It most certainly is. A programmer works within a limited world, defined by his
>> target platform.
>
>You reveal your ignorance.
>
>Computer science may displace physics as the fundamental building blocks
>of the universe. (via category theory) If all of creation in a "limited
>world", then yea, sure, that.
It is such a pity that your world is limited to finite states. I feel sorry
for you.
>> No. Computer programming is engineering. Computer Science is mathematics.
>>Engineering and mathematics can be used in the employ of Art, but they are not
>> Art.
>
>This idea has been the downfall of far too many managers. The concept
>that design and implementation are separable turns out to a fallacy.
>Computer Science is living art, one where ideas can be turned directly
>into machines. Engineering techniques, and mathematics are certainly
>usefull to a programmer. But they alone are not programming.
There is no art in programming. You can pretend to see aesthetic
beauty in code, but it is an illusion. Elegance and simplicity are not
equal to aesthetic beauty.
>> You don't have a clue what you're talking about. A minor flaw can make even a
>> perfect image fall apart.
>
>and yet the majority of flawed images work good enough. Unless your job
>is to produce counterfeits, or do airbrush images for intelligence
>agencies, noones going to complain too much if your images are a bit
>off. Hell, havent you ever seen any contemporary art? That crap is just
>meanings splotches of paint one of your kind of "artists" squirted out
>his rectum at a canvas for a live audience.
This is the same tedious argument I hear from philistines everywhere.
Let me tell you a story. I once attended a retrospective of one of my
favorite painters, Ad Reinhart. He is famous for his "black paintings,"
which are widely derided as nothing but black paint. So I'm at the
LACMA and there are dozens of seemingly-identical black paintings
on display. I sat down to contemplate a pair of particularly good
paintings, and as I sat there on the very nice Mies VandeRohe couch,
a man wearing bib overalls and a plaid shirt came up to me and asked,
"excuse me, I wanted to ask you just what you are looking at in those
paintings, they're just black, aren't they?" So I invited him to sit down
beside me and I explained. These aren't just black paint on canvas.
Ad Reinhart was a meticuous painter. He ground his own pigments.
These particular paintings were probably 20 or 30 layers deep of
carefully deposited pigments, each layer was carefully painted on
to his specific requirements, so light would interpenetrate each
layer and reflect back out. So if you just look quickly at them, you'll
just see black. But if you stop and look at them slowly, for about 5
minutes or so, you will notice that they are distinctly red or blue
or purple or whatever, and that they begin to glow with a radiant
light. So I invited Mr. Philistine to slowly gaze at the painting. After
a minute or so, he said, "hey, I see it, the painting on the right
is glowing blue, and the left one is red!"
The difference between art and engineering is that only an
engineer can see the "art" in the work, but a work of art
can be seen and understood by anyone. Engineers may
call each other's work "art" but they are merely doing the usual
mutual admiration society crap. I often quote Frank Gehry, who
said "I used to hang out with engineers because they knew all
the answers. But answers are boring. I decided to hang out with
artists because they knew all the good questions."
>The majority of what passes for visual art is just "good enough" to get
>its idea across. The vast majority of CG is really not that impressive,
>but there certainly is degree of skill involved. But picking up the UI
>of a single program is not something that would be considered impressive
>to a programmer, your lopsided VB geek example notwithstanding.
>(anyone who seriously uses basic is most likely not a programmer)
>
>
>>So do NOT, in your extreme ignorance, presume to tell an artist what Art is, or
>> that you are an artist. An artist can take a lump of mud and with their bare
>>hands, produce an object that is revered for centuries, a modern artist can do
>> it just as easily as it was done in the prehistoric era.
>
>They are "revered" because the are old and rare. wow. If you found one
>such at thing in your garage you'd likely through it out. Its a piece of
> baked mud. Next youll try to convince me that basket weaving is much
>harder than calculus, and more revered.
I just saw an exhibit of contemporary stoneware chawan, made from mere
mud. They were going for about 150000Y each. They were beautiful. You'd
love to drink tea from one. You'd feel privileged to own one.
You really ought to read Lost Japan by Alex Kerr. He describes at some length
how he can't get Americans to understand pottery when he teaches them how
to make a stoneware chawan. They always want to get it perfect and symmetrical,
the can not see how the imperfections make it an individual artwork.
Charles Eicher
>
>Charles Eicher wrote:
>> In article <Htbqc.4854$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Srin Tuar
>> says...
>>
>>>But being an artist is not "harder" than being a programmer.
>>
>>It most certainly is. A programmer works within a limited world, defined by his
>>target platform. The artist must know the entire world of ideas, and how to push
>>the envelope with those ideas. He must know not only his own ideas, but how they
>> are expressed, and how human perception will recieve them. This is far more
>> difficult than you could possible know.
>
>Now I have seen everything. This has got to be the most pretentious
>statement I have read in a long time.
Just because it's beyond your comprehension doesn't mean it is
pretentious.
>
>>>They are
>>>just different types of art.
>>
>> No. Computer programming is engineering.
>
>No it isn't. Ask an engineer.
>
>> Computer Science is mathematics.
>
>It's the creative application of mathematics, but you're pretty much on
>track there.
Applied Mathematics is called Engineering. Ask any Engineer.
>
>>Engineering and mathematics can be used in the employ of Art, but they are not
>> Art.
>
>Ah, the Portrait of an Artist as an arrogant prick.
>
>>>Programs however are functional artworks,
>>
>> No. Programs are functional engineering. Programs written by Artists might be
>> Art, but only insofar as they surpass mere engineering and science.
>
>What's this? "Mere" engineering and science? Oh man... This is why I
>find it hard to take your judgements seriously. To respect a judgement I
>have to respect the judge.
Art is something that cannot be expressed with mere technicalities, which
is why I use the terms "mere engineering and science." It transcends the
limits of its medium. A lump of clay can be described in detail by a ceramic
engineer but that won't make it a chawan.
>>>and your drawings dont crash when they have minor flaws. So in that
>>>sense, programming is harder.
>>
>> You don't have a clue what you're talking about. A minor flaw can make even a
>>perfect image fall apart. Leonardo used a bit too much linseed oil and The Last
>>Supper peeled right off the wall, less than 15% of the original image remains.
>>If La Gioconde's eyes or nose was off-center, nobody would go to the Louvre to
>>see it. Even a tiny flaw can destroy the coherency of an image. I recall trying
>> to explain this to a computer geek who was designing a CD cover, he was
>> compositing two images, one had a picture of a man lit from the left, he was
>>inserting it in a room that was lit from the left. He had no idea that the image
>> wasn't working because the shadows betrayed the single light source in the
>>image. But this is a lesson taught on Day 1 of Drawing 101 in art school, look
>> at the shadows and highlights on an object and make sure they work with the
>> light source that illuminates the image. But the computer geek just couldn't
>>understand this basic principle, and was baffled why he couldn't make the image
>> work.
>
>I learned that in high school art class, Drawing "101" (Drawing I as it was
>called) and Computer Graphics Programming 351.
>
>Art and "engineering" (as you call it) are orthogonal to each other.
>Neither is superior or inferior to the other in terms of skill or
>importance. Any human endeavour has an artistic dimension as well as a
>technical dimension. Some artists appreciate that; all the engineers and
>computer scientists & programmers I have ever worked with know it inside
>and out.
And that is the difference between artists and engineers. Artists go beyond
the limits of technology. Artists always anticipate the questions that
scientists will be asking 30 years later. For example, it was Muybridge
and Eakins, a painter and a photographer, that set the stage for
Edison's modern motion picture camera because they wanted to settle
a bet about how to paint the legs of a race horse in motion, whether
all four feet left the ground at once. The artists may not get all the
technical details perfectly correct, but they are the ones breaking the
new ground.
>I've worked with some amazing artists who were classically trained
>sculptors and animators. My code had to make their art look and sound
>great. I had to know why it's important to match shadows, I know why it's
>important to add digital sound processing to an effect to convey a sense of
>space and direction. It's a fusion of engineering & art.
I hear this sort of blather from filmmakers most often, they hork on
about how their artform is the ultimate artform because it can represent
any other medium, it can make the best possible presentation of painting,
sculpture, dance, music, etc etc. It is the ultimate pretension.
>You've spoken like a true professional arts student.
>
>>So do NOT, in your extreme ignorance, presume to tell an artist what Art is, or
>> that you are an artist. An artist can take a lump of mud and with their bare
>>hands, produce an object that is revered for centuries, a modern artist can do
>>it just as easily as it was done in the prehistoric era. A computer programmer
>> merely needs sand, plus an army of technicians toiling in multibillion-dollar
>> factories to produce chips, thousands of engineers writing compilers and
>> software, even before he can sit down and write his lame Visual Basic toys.
>
>And don't you presume to know it takes to be a "lowly" engineer or computer
>programmer. You claim to have a mind open to the world, but it seems to be
>more like a narrow slit in a darkened room.
I was a lowly computer programmer and engineer before you were even born.
Paul Blay
> Charles Eicher wrote:
> > In article <Htbqc.4854$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Srin Tuar
> > says...
> >
> >>But being an artist is not "harder" than being a programmer.
> >
> > It most certainly is. A programmer works within a limited world, defined by his
> > target platform. The artist must know the entire world of ideas, and how to push
> > the envelope with those ideas. He must know not only his own ideas, but how they
> > are expressed, and how human perception will recieve them. This is far more
> > difficult than you could possible know.
>
> Now I have seen everything. This has got to be the most pretentious
> statement I have read in a long time.
I think I should submit it to Private Eye's Pseud's Corner.
Brandon Berg
> So I invited him to sit
> down beside me and I explained. These aren't just black paint on
> canvas.
> Ad Reinhart was a meticuous painter. He ground his own pigments.
> These particular paintings were probably 20 or 30 layers deep of
> carefully deposited pigments, each layer was carefully painted on
> to his specific requirements, so light would interpenetrate each
> layer and reflect back out. So if you just look quickly at them,
> you'll
> just see black. But if you stop and look at them slowly, for about 5
> minutes or so, you will notice that they are distinctly red or blue
> or purple or whatever, and that they begin to glow with a radiant
> light. So I invited Mr. Philistine to slowly gaze at the painting.
> After
> a minute or so, he said, "hey, I see it, the painting on the right
> is glowing blue, and the left one is red!"
That's quite clever, but is it art? What ideas does it express? Where is the
enduring value?
Granted, I haven't seen these paintings, but what you are describing to me
is gimmickry devoid of content. An optical illusion arising from a trick of
chemical engineering is nifty, but it's not art. It's ironic that you would
bring this up to illustrate the distinction between engineering and art.
> The difference between art and engineering is that only an
> engineer can see the "art" in the work, but a work of art
> can be seen and understood by anyone. Engineers may
> call each other's work "art"...
I have no such illusions, for just that reason. I have no end of respect for
masterpieces of engineering, but I appreciate them for what they
are--masterpieces of craftmaship that require specialized technical
knowledge to appreciate.
If a work of art can be seen and understood by anyone, then why did you have
to explain the Ad Reinhart paintings? For that matter, would you have
figured them out if no one had told you?
Artists, I think, often suffer from the same sort of myopia of which you
accuse engineers. There are two components to art--craftsmanship and
artistry--and great art requires both. I can tell a real purty picture from
a not so purty picture, but I can't truly appreciate the craftmanship of
either one like you can. I just don't have the specialized technical
knowledge that it requires. Too many modern artists are trying to substitute
craftmanship for artistry.
There are two major differences between engineers and artists with illusions
about the artistic value of their creations:
1. A building devoid of artistic value is still useful.
2. Engineers have, so far as I know, not yet coined a term for the purpose
of deriding those who do not appreciate their "art."
> ...but they are merely doing the usual
> mutual admiration society crap.
It is precisely that which many so-called philistines see and revile in the
modern art world.
> I often quote Frank Gehry, who
> said "I used to hang out with engineers because they knew all
> the answers. But answers are boring. I decided to hang out with
> artists because they knew all the good questions."
The value of asking questions is contingent upon someone finding the
answers.
>>> An artist can take a lump
>>> of mud and with their bare hands, produce an object that is revered
>>> for centuries, a modern artist can do it just as easily as it was
>>> done in the prehistoric era.
Perhaps modern artists can do it, but are they? Who among us today is
creating art that will be revered for centuries?
> You really ought to read Lost Japan by Alex Kerr. He describes at
> some length how he can't get Americans to understand pottery when he
> teaches them how
> to make a stoneware chawan. They always want to get it perfect and
> symmetrical, the can not see how the imperfections make it an
> individual artwork.
I thought you said that the slightest imperfection could ruin a work of art.
Art is hard!
Travers Naran
> In article <_3fqc.18642$0e6.3652@clgrps13>, Travers Naran says...
>
>>Charles Eicher wrote:
>>
>>>In article <Htbqc.4854$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Srin Tuar
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>But being an artist is not "harder" than being a programmer.
>>>
>>>It most certainly is. A programmer works within a limited world, defined by his
>>>target platform. The artist must know the entire world of ideas, and how to push
>>>the envelope with those ideas. He must know not only his own ideas, but how they
>>>are expressed, and how human perception will recieve them. This is far more
>>>difficult than you could possible know.
>>
>>Now I have seen everything. This has got to be the most pretentious
>>statement I have read in a long time.
>
> Just because it's beyond your comprehension doesn't mean it is
> pretentious.
Beyond my comprehension?? Oh dear, Lord. The boy has airs...
>>It's the creative application of mathematics, but you're pretty much on
>>track there.
>
> Applied Mathematics is called Engineering. Ask any Engineer.
I have. None of them consider it applied mathematics; they all consider it
applied physics. The ones I went to school with and hung out with called
computing science applied mathematics.
>>What's this? "Mere" engineering and science? Oh man... This is why I
>>find it hard to take your judgements seriously. To respect a judgement I
>>have to respect the judge.
>
> Art is something that cannot be expressed with mere technicalities, which
> is why I use the terms "mere engineering and science." It transcends the
> limits of its medium. A lump of clay can be described in detail by a ceramic
> engineer but that won't make it a chawan.
You say that, but then in another post it does become about understanding
the technicalities.
>>Art and "engineering" (as you call it) are orthogonal to each other.
>>Neither is superior or inferior to the other in terms of skill or
>>importance. Any human endeavour has an artistic dimension as well as a
>>technical dimension. Some artists appreciate that; all the engineers and
>>computer scientists & programmers I have ever worked with know it inside
>>and out.
>
> And that is the difference between artists and engineers. Artists go beyond
> the limits of technology. Artists always anticipate the questions that
> scientists will be asking 30 years later. For example, it was Muybridge
> and Eakins, a painter and a photographer, that set the stage for
> Edison's modern motion picture camera because they wanted to settle
> a bet about how to paint the legs of a race horse in motion, whether
> all four feet left the ground at once. The artists may not get all the
> technical details perfectly correct, but they are the ones breaking the
> new ground.
So let me get this straight: engineers cannot break new ground because they
are not artists? I.e., engineers have no imagination. Uh-huh...
> I hear this sort of blather from filmmakers most often, they hork on
> about how their artform is the ultimate artform because it can represent
> any other medium, it can make the best possible presentation of painting,
> sculpture, dance, music, etc etc. It is the ultimate pretension.
I didn't say it was the utlimate artform. I was pointing out that modern
"engineering" cannot operate in a vacuum without an appreciation of
aesthetics, and vice-versa.
>>And don't you presume to know it takes to be a "lowly" engineer or computer
>>programmer. You claim to have a mind open to the world, but it seems to be
>>more like a narrow slit in a darkened room.
>
>
> I was a lowly computer programmer and engineer before you were even born.
And when was I born, pray tell?
Sceadu
> SIGGRAPH is mostly GRAD student work, but the presentation papers are usually
> the work of professionals from Pixar, ILM, PDI, R&H, MSFT, etc etc. You can
> produce sample images demonstrating your math and science, but nobody would call
> them art. In fact, most demos deliberately avoid any artistry, to avoid drawing
> attention away from the effect being demonstrated.
Regardless, the end result of any sort of computer graphics is for entertainment purposes, 99.9% of
the time. Even if Pixar's main purpose is to support Renderman as middleware, that is sold to other
studios like ILM, which exist solely for work on movies. The central point you seem to be making is
that "professional" computer graphics, or the only respectable kind a university can teach, is for a
sterile purpose such as showing what math and science is capable of. Isn't that why, in your mind,
the stupid manga readers shun classes on how to make 3D renders, while the serious programmers take
these classes without really caring about the end product?
David Chien
>>>skills of a programmer, plus all the talent and skills of an artist. That
Not true. The two use totally different skill sets -- the CG builds
items out of what features the tools have, but cannot write new tools
with features not yet available -- yet a programmer can.
CG Scripting and the various similar chores are definitely closer to
programming than CG work, however, it is not a 'necessary' skill in
order to become an excellent CG person/animator/creator/etc. In fact,
there are tons of jobs available in the animation, graphics, games, etc.
industry which only require good CG skills (modeling, color, lighting,
texture mapping, etc) using the tools built into most CG/animation
programs, which don't require you to script/program anything at all.
(sometimes, this is actually two different jobs at a company -- one
person creates the CG models, another person does any custom script
programming)
Whether one is more 'difficult' or 'harder' than another is
definitely not something you can say as a blanket statement due to the
variety of skill levels and work performed by various people employed in
each category. However, you can say that the programmers of the CG
programs have a tougher time creating solid programs for the CG industry
than the CG users who simply create work from them -- here, you have got
to see the thousands/millions of lines of complex 3D codes that go into
such programs that handle the sophisticated radiosity lighting,
surfacing algorithms, motion path, etc. etc. elements that are taken for
'granted' as a basic feature and understand that a whole nother level of
'thinking' and 'creation' was requried to come up with these tools and
solutions. Many of these elements in the CG program require that
everything works exactly right, precisely coded, and have absolutely no
errors in them -- with CG, nobody really cares on a big screen if that
one pixel of some CG model is just one pixel off - you simply won't
notice it or care when the whole thing is playing back that fast.
Still, from an artistic and not technical standpoint, the CG users
have the harder time coming up with good looking models and animations
that can win Oscars, etc.
That said, it's not a good comparison to make since the two cannot be
compared fairly without limiting the scope of the argument.
Curt Fischer
>>>> They are
>>>> just different types of art.
>>>
>>> No. Computer programming is engineering.
>>
>> No it isn't. Ask an engineer.
As an engineer, let me say that computer programming is sometimes
engineering and sometimes not.
>>> Computer Science is mathematics.
>>
>> It's the creative application of mathematics, but you're pretty much
>> on track there.
>
> Applied Mathematics is called Engineering. Ask any Engineer.
As an engineer, let me say that Charles Eicher is wrong. Not a big surprise
to most of you out there, I'm sure, but I felt compelled to weigh in for the
record.
I know engineers who do nothing but program computers. I know engineers who
never program computers. I know engineers who spend all their time doing
applied mathematics. I know engineers that never do mathematics beyond
simple arithmetic.
Now, what exactly is at dispute here? Mr. Eicher's ability to make
outrageous statements?
--
Curt Fischer
Paul Blay
> I know engineers who do nothing but program computers. I know engineers who
> never program computers. I know engineers who spend all their time doing
> applied mathematics. I know engineers that never do mathematics beyond
> simple arithmetic.
>
> Now, what exactly is at dispute here? Mr. Eicher's ability to make
> outrageous statements?
Surely nobody is disputing that.
Travers Naran
> Charles Eicher wrote:
>
>
>>>>>They are
>>>>>just different types of art.
>>>>
>>>>No. Computer programming is engineering.
>>>
>>>No it isn't. Ask an engineer.
>
> As an engineer, let me say that computer programming is sometimes
> engineering and sometimes not.
The provincial engineering council would take legal action against me if I
called myself a "software engineer". As you said, sometimes computer
programming is engineering, but a lot of times (alas) it is not...
> As an engineer, let me say that Charles Eicher is wrong. Not a big surprise
> to most of you out there, I'm sure, but I felt compelled to weigh in for the
> record.
>
> I know engineers who do nothing but program computers. I know engineers who
> never program computers. I know engineers who spend all their time doing
> applied mathematics. I know engineers that never do mathematics beyond
> simple arithmetic.
>
> Now, what exactly is at dispute here? Mr. Eicher's ability to make
> outrageous statements?
The dispute is whether or not Marmite is superior to Vegimite. ;-)
Charles Eicher
>
>Charles Eicher wrote:
>> So I invited him to sit
>> down beside me and I explained. These aren't just black paint on
>> canvas.
>> Ad Reinhart was a meticuous painter. He ground his own pigments.
>> These particular paintings were probably 20 or 30 layers deep of
>> carefully deposited pigments, each layer was carefully painted on
>> to his specific requirements, so light would interpenetrate each
>> layer and reflect back out. So if you just look quickly at them,
>> you'll
>> just see black. But if you stop and look at them slowly, for about 5
>> minutes or so, you will notice that they are distinctly red or blue
>> or purple or whatever, and that they begin to glow with a radiant
>> light. So I invited Mr. Philistine to slowly gaze at the painting.
>> After
>> a minute or so, he said, "hey, I see it, the painting on the right
>> is glowing blue, and the left one is red!"
>
>That's quite clever, but is it art? What ideas does it express? Where is the
>enduring value?
>
>Granted, I haven't seen these paintings, but what you are describing to me
>is gimmickry devoid of content. An optical illusion arising from a trick of
>chemical engineering is nifty, but it's not art. It's ironic that you would
>bring this up to illustrate the distinction between engineering and art.
It's a bit late to jump back into this argument, since I was abruptly called
away to other things for a few days. But I thought this msg was worth a
serious response.
It is terribly difficult to explain Ad Reinhart's work when you have not seen
them. Let me just say that they are about exploring the boundaries between
what you can see and can't see. If you looks hastily, you see black. If you
look with a meditative mood, you see colors. This effect can be seen by
anyone, I didn't really need to explain about the layers of pigments, I would
merely need to say "sit and look for 60 seconds" and you would see the
effect. It is the preconception of the viewer that prevents himself from seeing
the colors, you rush past and see only black, but if you look, you see the
effect.
But ultimately, the painting's expression is what happens when you look
at the painting. If Reinhart could have expressed it in writing, he would
have been a writer. This is a very sophisticated approach, something
unknown until the modern era, it is known as "non-literal painting" because
it refers to no narrative or literal concepts, it is pure abstraction. Words
cannot describe nonliteral painting, it literally cannot be put into words.
>> The difference between art and engineering is that only an
>> engineer can see the "art" in the work, but a work of art
>> can be seen and understood by anyone. Engineers may
>> call each other's work "art"...
>
>I have no such illusions, for just that reason. I have no end of respect for
>masterpieces of engineering, but I appreciate them for what they
>are--masterpieces of craftmaship that require specialized technical
>knowledge to appreciate.
>
>If a work of art can be seen and understood by anyone, then why did you have
>to explain the Ad Reinhart paintings? For that matter, would you have
>figured them out if no one had told you?
Actually, I did figure them out on my own, long before anyone told
me about the detailed craftsmanship. Our local art museum had
one of his early paintings, I was looking at it one day when I noticed
the optical effects.
>Artists, I think, often suffer from the same sort of myopia of which you
>accuse engineers. There are two components to art--craftsmanship and
>artistry--and great art requires both.
Art has been divorced from craftsmanship for quite some time. Sure, many
great works of art are fine pieces of craftsmanship. But that is no longer
required. Oftentimes, just the idea is sufficient.
>I can tell a real purty picture from
>a not so purty picture, but I can't truly appreciate the craftmanship of
>either one like you can. I just don't have the specialized technical
>knowledge that it requires. Too many modern artists are trying to substitute
>craftmanship for artistry.
Art isn't about creating pretty pictures. Some great works of art are hideously
ugly things. Art is about ideas, and how to express abstractions in different
media (amongst many other things).
>There are two major differences between engineers and artists with illusions
>about the artistic value of their creations:
>
>1. A building devoid of artistic value is still useful.
A piece of pure kitch bronze sculpture is still useful as a paperweight. It
might
even serve as an example to other art students as a learning exercise.
>2. Engineers have, so far as I know, not yet coined a term for the purpose
>of deriding those who do not appreciate their "art."
You don't know any real engineers, do you? You don't read slashdot, do you?
There are heaps of derision piled onto "norms" who don't understand the
intricacies of engineering.
>> ...but they are merely doing the usual
>> mutual admiration society crap.
>
>It is precisely that which many so-called philistines see and revile in the
>modern art world.
>
>> I often quote Frank Gehry, who
>> said "I used to hang out with engineers because they knew all
>> the answers. But answers are boring. I decided to hang out with
>> artists because they knew all the good questions."
>
>The value of asking questions is contingent upon someone finding the
>answers.
No, the value of asking questions is in the exploration of the world of
ideas, and in seeking the NEXT good question. There are plenty of really
great questions like "how did the universe begin?" that cannot be answered
but have lead to many interesting questions that DID end up with useful
results.
>>>> An artist can take a lump
>>>> of mud and with their bare hands, produce an object that is revered
>>>> for centuries, a modern artist can do it just as easily as it was
>>>> done in the prehistoric era.
>
>Perhaps modern artists can do it, but are they? Who among us today is
>creating art that will be revered for centuries?
I'll let you know in a few centuries. You've probably seen some of their
works. History will judge.
>> You really ought to read Lost Japan by Alex Kerr. He describes at
>> some length how he can't get Americans to understand pottery when he
>> teaches them how
>> to make a stoneware chawan. They always want to get it perfect and
>> symmetrical, the can not see how the imperfections make it an
>> individual artwork.
>
>I thought you said that the slightest imperfection could ruin a work of art.
>Art is hard!
Important concept: "could." It depends on the artist's intent. An artist is
at his best when he surpasses the limitations of his medium. For example,
stoneware clay is full of little bumps and lumps, trying to eliminate them
is impossible, integrating them into the look of the chawan makes it art.
Brett Robson
>
>So do NOT, in your extreme ignorance, presume to tell an artist what Art is, or
>that you are an artist. An artist can take a lump of mud and with their bare
>hands, produce an object that is revered for centuries, a modern artist can do
>it just as easily as it was done in the prehistoric era. A computer programmer
>merely needs sand, plus an army of technicians toiling in multibillion-dollar
>factories to produce chips, thousands of engineers writing compilers and
>software, even before he can sit down and write his lame Visual Basic toys.
>
There are several other differences between programmers and artists.
+ programmers don't take themselves too seriously
+ programmers know their work is important and don't try to convince others
+ programmers don't care about other peoples' opinions
+ programmers wear colours other than black
+ programmers stop working at McDonalds after they have graduated and can pay
their rent
The sorry state of most corporate web sites is because of designers who are
aspiring artists and want their work to be noticed.
..
----
Triangle Man hates Person Man
They have a fight,
Triangle wins.
Paul Blay
Artists will know the medium they use, but Art is not the medium they use.
To attempt to restict which mediums may be used in Art and which may not
is to undervalue human capacity for creativity.
Ross Klatte
>Date: 2004-05-30 06:45 Eastern Daylight Time
>There are several other differences between programmers and artists.
>+ programmers don't take themselves too seriously
>+ programmers know their work is important and don't try to convince others
>+ programmers don't care about other peoples' opinions
>+ programmers wear colours other than black
>+ programmers stop working at McDonalds after they have graduated and can pay
>their rent
After 24 years as a programmer, I sit in slack-jawed
amazement at this image of programmers.
The first three are so wrong that they are probably more
applicable to artists than to programmers.
The dress code for programmers and artists is, in fact,
quite different. Perhaps that's because artists have a vague
hunch that green striped shirts do not go with orange-checked
trousers.
The fact that programmers can start earning money immediately
after graduation certainly reinforces the Philistine accusation
of programmers as equivalent to vocational school mechanics.
If you are trying to speak in praise of programmers, you should
omit this detail.
Ross
Vontay, Virginia
http://community.webshots.com/user/ross_klatte
http://www.geocities.com/foundlingfather/
Charles Eicher
I cannot add anything to your statement, except this:
Brett Robson
>
>>From: Brett Robson jet...@deja.com
>>Date: 2004-05-30 06:45 Eastern Daylight Time
>
>>There are several other differences between programmers and artists.
>>+ programmers don't take themselves too seriously
>>+ programmers know their work is important and don't try to convince others
>>+ programmers don't care about other peoples' opinions
>>+ programmers wear colours other than black
>>+ programmers stop working at McDonalds after they have graduated and can pay
>>their rent
>
>After 24 years as a programmer,
Someone who starts a post like that probably suffers from the same insecurities
as Eicher. (Actually the similarities are strong, you both think you are still
cool because you listen to the same music as you did when you were young).
> I sit in slack-jawed
>amazement at this image of programmers.
>The first three are so wrong that they are probably more
>applicable to artists than to programmers.
>
Do you regale civilians with humorous ancedotes of how you and your posse worked
all weekend to find a bug in the accounts receivable system just before balance
day? Or how you single handedly fixed a database by editing the datafiles with a
text editor? Or do you go for a more serious emacs vs vi argument?
>The dress code for programmers and artists is, in fact,
>quite different. Perhaps that's because artists have a vague
>hunch that green striped shirts do not go with orange-checked
>trousers.
On the otherhand you can't go wrong with black. A couple of safety pins gives a
nasty on the edge feeling.
>The fact that programmers can start earning money immediately
>after graduation certainly reinforces the Philistine accusation
>of programmers as equivalent to vocational school mechanics.
>If you are trying to speak in praise of programmers, you should
>omit this detail.
If you can remember back 24 years you'll remember the extensive apprenticeship
you did. Perhaps 3 years of fixing COBOL reports?
Dale Walker
>If you can remember back 24 years you'll remember the extensive apprenticeship
>you did. Perhaps 3 years of fixing COBOL reports?
It was Fortran for me :(
Dale Walker
wrote:
>>From: Brett Robson jet...@deja.com
>>Date: 2004-05-30 06:45 Eastern Daylight Time
>
>>There are several other differences between programmers and artists.
>>+ programmers don't take themselves too seriously
>>+ programmers know their work is important and don't try to convince others
>>+ programmers don't care about other peoples' opinions
>>+ programmers wear colours other than black
>>+ programmers stop working at McDonalds after they have graduated and can pay
>>their rent
>
>The dress code for programmers and artists is, in fact,
>quite different. Perhaps that's because artists have a vague
>hunch that green striped shirts do not go with orange-checked
>trousers.
You wouldn't say that if you lived around Hoxton/Shoreditch in London.
Green striped shirts & orange-checked trousers seems to be de-rigueur
around here. Most of the 'artists' around here really have no idea
about fashion sense, music sense or any other kind of sense for that
matter.
Travers Naran
> On 30 May 2004 18:25:44 -0700, Brett Robson <jet...@deja.com> wrote:
>
>>If you can remember back 24 years you'll remember the extensive apprenticeship
>>you did. Perhaps 3 years of fixing COBOL reports?
>
> It was Fortran for me :(
My first "work" languages were:
- A reporting language based loosely on COBOL.
- Classic C programmed like FORTRAN
After that, VB seemed luxurious. :-)
necoandjeff
news:sRyuc.3857$pX3.1832@clgrps12...
My first was Intel 8085A machine language...
jim_...@idontreadhotmail.com
>If you can remember back 24 years you'll remember the extensive apprenticeship
>you did. Perhaps 3 years of fixing COBOL reports?
The first code I cut, and I mean that literally as it was done on paper tape,
was in an Algol short course in 1964. I was in high school at the time.
The first "real" programming was as an undergraduate in 1967. We did
Fortran on an IBM 7044. The following year I did a full-time programming
course and we added Cobol and couple of assemblers. (We were told at
the start of the course we were lucky, because in a couple of years
they wouldn't need any more programmers - all the programs that were needed
would be written by then!)
I haven't touched any assembler for years, but I think I used about
11 or 12 of them along the way. In the olde days that's what systems
people did. Of course, programmers were *real* programmers in those
days. Not the Perl/Python/VB/etc. ponces you find these days.....
--
Jim Breen http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/
Computer Science & Software Engineering,
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
ジム・ブリーン@モナシュ大学
Brett Robson
>
> Not the Perl/Python/VB/etc. ponces you find these days.....
>
Thanks Professor Breen, is that a professional opinion? ;)
I cut my teeth writing 10s of thousands of lines of COBOL and several assemblers
but I've ended up as a Perl ponce. My mother would be horrified.
Travers Naran
>
> I haven't touched any assembler for years, but I think I used about
> 11 or 12 of them along the way. In the olde days that's what systems
> people did. Of course, programmers were *real* programmers in those
> days. Not the Perl/Python/VB/etc. ponces you find these days.....
You had an assembler!?
Seriously. In my digital hardware class, they made us hand-code machine
code and enter it into the firmware by a primitive machine language
monitor. I guess we should have been grateful that we had a keyboard and
screen to use because just two years prior, they still had to use the bank
of switches for data entry. And this was the early 90's we're talking about
too!
Of course, nowadays, my alma mater uses a nice GUI hardware _simulator_. Bah!
I still admire the guys who had to hardwire ENIAC.
Charles Eicher
>
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 05:40:48 GMT, jim_...@idontreadhotmail.com ...
>>
>> Not the Perl/Python/VB/etc. ponces you find these days.....
>>
>
>Thanks Professor Breen, is that a professional opinion? ;)
>
>I cut my teeth writing 10s of thousands of lines of COBOL and several assemblers
>but I've ended up as a Perl ponce. My mother would be horrified.
Bah, you newbies. When I first fiddled with computers, we didn't have
no fancy programming languages, just cogs and gears and levers.
We didn't have no fancy "syntax errors" or "abends," just bent rods
and stripped gears.
http://ceicher.homeunix.com/archives/000522.html
Then when I started to get serious and did real work, computer time
was too expensive, so I did most of the expensive runtime tasks (like
sorting) manually with one of these:
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/attic3/attic3_136.html
Sure it was slow, sure it was made in the 1920s, but it was free to use,
and the mainframes weren't. Once the deck was presorted, we didn't need
no fancy software, we just stuck JCL header cards on the deck to tell the
card monkeys what to do. Nobody was allowed to run their own programs,
so you just picked an app that existed on the mainframe, submitted your
card deck as the data set, and came back the next day to pick up the
printouts and bitch at the cardmonkeys for screwing everything up. In
them olden days, our only worry was that someone might fold, spindle,
or mutilate.
Brett Robson
>
>In article <c9ehv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Brett Robson says...
>>
>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 05:40:48 GMT, jim_...@idontreadhotmail.com ...
>>>
>>> Not the Perl/Python/VB/etc. ponces you find these days.....
>>>
>>
>>Thanks Professor Breen, is that a professional opinion? ;)
>>
>>I cut my teeth writing 10s of thousands of lines of COBOL and several assemblers
>>but I've ended up as a Perl ponce. My mother would be horrified.
>
>Bah, you newbies. When I first fiddled with computers, we didn't have
>no fancy programming languages, just cogs and gears and levers.
>We didn't have no fancy "syntax errors" or "abends," just bent rods
>and stripped gears.
>
>http://ceicher.homeunix.com/archives/000522.html
I'm a bit slow so let me check I have this right. Just like waiters/waitresses
in Sydney cafes are really actors, computer salesmen are really artists?
Charles Eicher
>
>jim_...@idontreadhotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I haven't touched any assembler for years, but I think I used about
>> 11 or 12 of them along the way. In the olde days that's what systems
>> people did. Of course, programmers were *real* programmers in those
>> days. Not the Perl/Python/VB/etc. ponces you find these days.....
>
>You had an assembler!?
>
>Seriously. In my digital hardware class, they made us hand-code machine
>code and enter it into the firmware by a primitive machine language
>monitor. I guess we should have been grateful that we had a keyboard and
>screen to use because just two years prior, they still had to use the bank
>of switches for data entry. And this was the early 90's we're talking about
>too!
You had hardware?
Back in my assembly language class, we had to "execute" code on paper,
writing out the contents of registers and memory, stepping through each
operation, before they would EVER dare to let us run it on the IBM360.
I don't recall that we ever got permission to run our crappy ASM360 code
on the real hardware. IIRC, they saved that for second semester ASM. I
switched to the FORTRAN class.
Chris Kern
>Brett Robson <jet...@deja.com> dixit:
>
>>If you can remember back 24 years you'll remember the extensive apprenticeship
>>you did. Perhaps 3 years of fixing COBOL reports?
>
>The first code I cut, and I mean that literally as it was done on paper tape,
>was in an Algol short course in 1964.
I started with BASIC on a VIC-20.
PRESS PLAY ON TAPE is something that will stay with me for my whole
life.
-Chris
Dan Rempel
> Brett Robson <jet...@deja.com> dixit:
>
>
>>If you can remember back 24 years you'll remember the extensive apprenticeship
>>you did. Perhaps 3 years of fixing COBOL reports?
>
>
> The first code I cut, and I mean that literally as it was done on paper tape,
> was in an Algol short course in 1964. I was in high school at the time.
> The first "real" programming was as an undergraduate in 1967. We did
> Fortran on an IBM 7044. The following year I did a full-time programming
> course and we added Cobol and couple of assemblers. (We were told at
> the start of the course we were lucky, because in a couple of years
> they wouldn't need any more programmers - all the programs that were needed
> would be written by then!)
>
> I haven't touched any assembler for years, but I think I used about
> 11 or 12 of them along the way. In the olde days that's what systems
> people did. Of course, programmers were *real* programmers in those
> days. Not the Perl/Python/VB/etc. ponces you find these days.....
Do I get any points for PDP-8 machine language?
Dan
Dan Rempel
> In article <c9ehv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Brett Robson says...
>
>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 05:40:48 GMT, jim_...@idontreadhotmail.com ...
>>
>>>Not the Perl/Python/VB/etc. ponces you find these days.....
>>>
>>
>>Thanks Professor Breen, is that a professional opinion? ;)
>>
>>I cut my teeth writing 10s of thousands of lines of COBOL and several assemblers
>>but I've ended up as a Perl ponce. My mother would be horrified.
>
>
> Bah, you newbies. When I first fiddled with computers, we didn't have
> no fancy programming languages, just cogs and gears and levers.
> We didn't have no fancy "syntax errors" or "abends," just bent rods
> and stripped gears.
>
> http://ceicher.homeunix.com/archives/000522.html
Yup; I had one of those. Didn't quite understand it at the time, but it
was fun to play with.
Dan
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Brett Robson <jet...@deja.com> dixit:
>
>
>>If you can remember back 24 years you'll remember the extensive apprenticeship
>>you did. Perhaps 3 years of fixing COBOL reports?
>
>
> The first code I cut, and I mean that literally as it was done on paper tape,
> was in an Algol short course in 1964.
Algol-58 or Algol-60? I started out with Algol-60, myself. A few years
later, though: 1975.
KWW
Travers Naran
> In article <V0Buc.4575$pX3.1645@clgrps12>, Travers Naran says...
> >
> >
> >Seriously. In my digital hardware class, they made us hand-code machine
> >code and enter it into the firmware by a primitive machine language
> >monitor. I guess we should have been grateful that we had a keyboard and
> >screen to use because just two years prior, they still had to use the bank
> >of switches for data entry. And this was the early 90's we're talking about
> >too!
>
> You had hardware?
>
> Back in my assembly language class, we had to "execute" code on paper,
> writing out the contents of registers and memory, stepping through each
> operation, before they would EVER dare to let us run it on the IBM360.
> I don't recall that we ever got permission to run our crappy ASM360 code
> on the real hardware. IIRC, they saved that for second semester ASM. I
> switched to the FORTRAN class.
I am half-expecting a Pythonesque "You had paper!?" response.
Paul Blay
> Charles Eicher <cei...@inav.net> wrote ...
> > In article <V0Buc.4575$pX3.1645@clgrps12>, Travers Naran says...
> > >
> > >You had an assembler!?
> > >
> > >Seriously. In my digital hardware class, they made us hand-code machine
> > >code and enter it into the firmware by a primitive machine language
> > >monitor.
> >
> >
> > Back in my assembly language class, we had to "execute" code on paper,
>
You had Monty Python?
Back in my days we had to make do with That Was The Week That Was.
Travers Naran
My first machine language was 6510, but since I was doing that as a
hobby at the time, it doesn't count as a "work" language.
necoandjeff
news:5b5263db.0405...@posting.google.com...
The 6510 was Motorola right? I've only done it as a hobby. I learned 8085A
from a book I had when I was a kid about how to build a robot. I wrote tons
of programs but never actually built the damn thing. It wasn't until I got
my Sinclair ZX81 that I learned BASIC and actually started programming a
real computer.
Jeff
--
文明とは、道の普く行わるるを賛称せる言にして、宮室の荘厳、衣服の美麗、外観の
浮華を言うには非ず。世人の唱うる所、何が文明やら、何が野蛮やら、些とも分から
ぬぞ。予嘗て或人と議論せしこと有り。西洋は野蛮じゃと云いしかば、否な文明ぞと
争う。否な否な、野蛮じゃと畳みかけしに、何とて夫れ程に申すにやと推しゆえ、実
に文明ならば、未開の国に対しなば慈愛を本とし、懇々説論して開明に導く可きに、
左は無くして、未開朦昧の国に対する程むごく残忍の事を致し、己れを利するは野蛮
じゃと申せしかば、其人口を噤めて、言無かりとて、笑われける。 ― 西郷隆盛
Kevin Wayne Williams
> The 6510 was Motorola right?
National Semi.
KWW
jim_...@idontreadhotmail.com
>Do I get any points for PDP-8 machine language?
Nice machine. The only one that let you create your own micro-code
and write into into control store, ISTR.
jim_...@idontreadhotmail.com
>jim_...@idontreadhotmail.com wrote:
>> The first code I cut, and I mean that literally as it was done on paper tape,
>> was in an Algol short course in 1964.
>Algol-58 or Algol-60? I started out with Algol-60, myself. A few years
>later, though: 1975.
It was an Elliot 803, and according to
http://www.sli-institute.ac.uk/~bob/elliott803.htm it used
a subset of Algol-60. There's a page about the compiler at
http://bil.members.beeb.net/algolcomp.html
Another good page is http://bil.members.beeb.net/elliott.html
Ernest Schaal
wrote on 5/31/04 5:12 PM:
> You had hardware?
>
> Back in my assembly language class, we had to "execute" code on paper,
> writing out the contents of registers and memory, stepping through each
> operation, before they would EVER dare to let us run it on the IBM360.
> I don't recall that we ever got permission to run our crappy ASM360 code
> on the real hardware. IIRC, they saved that for second semester ASM. I
> switched to the FORTRAN class.
You are bringing tears to my eyes, as I remember taking my punched cards
carefully to the drop off point so that the high priests of computing could
take the cards into the inner sanctum for processing they the mammoth
computer that served our university.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Dan Rempel <hurty@flurty> dixit:
>
>
>>Do I get any points for PDP-8 machine language?
>
>
> Nice machine. The only one that let you create your own micro-code
> and write into into control store, ISTR.
>
Most Burroughs machines allowed this as well.Had to have supervisor
privilege allocated to your task, though.
Their Fortran, Cobol, and Algol compilers all ran on different virtual
machines, with an instruction set that was tailored to the output of the
compiler.
KWW
Louise Bremner
Youngster--we had to make do with The Goons on the radio.
________________________________________________________________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!
Dale Walker
wrote:
My mum bought me a ZX81 for my 16th birthday with 16k wobble pack.
Travers Naran
> "Travers Naran" <tna...@direct.ca> wrote in message
> news:5b5263db.0405...@posting.google.com...
> > "necoandjeff" <sp...@schrepfer.com> wrote in message
> news:<R0zuc.76666$Hu6....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> > My first machine language was 6510, but since I was doing that as a
> > hobby at the time, it doesn't count as a "work" language.
>
> The 6510 was Motorola right? I've only done it as a hobby. I learned 8085A
Close. It was a cheaper knock off of Motorolla's 6809 processor from
Commodore's chip foundry (Anyone remember the name of Commodore's chip
fabrication division?) IIRC, the 6809 was a popular chip in stand-up
video arcade machines like Donkey Kong.
Ahh, the good old days... Three registers: a,x and y. No
multiplication, division or f-p support. Little-endian 16-bit
addresses. When I learned R/3000 assembly, I felt today's assembly
programmers were spoiled. 16 registers!? HW F-P and
multiplication-division!?
> from a book I had when I was a kid about how to build a robot. I wrote tons
> of programs but never actually built the damn thing. It wasn't until I got
> my Sinclair ZX81 that I learned BASIC and actually started programming a
> real computer.
*shudder* I remember the ZX81...
Travers Naran
> "Travers Naran" wrote ...
> >
> > I am half-expecting a Pythonesque "You had paper!?" response.
>
> You had Monty Python?
>
> Back in my days we had to make do with That Was The Week That Was.
You poor, poor benighted Englishman. Forced to grow up on David Frost. :-P
Kevin Wayne Williams
>
> Youngster--we had to make do with The Goons on the radio.
I still listen to the Goons on CD. BBC Radio released about 80 episodes
on 20 CDs.
KWW
Charles Eicher
You had punched cards?
Back when I first started doing FORTRAN, we used Mark Sense cards
that you filled in with a #2 pencil. No kidding. They only held about
20 chars per card, with a little dot you filled in that meant "continued
on next card."
Of course this is merely a local quirk, due to our university being the
world center for optical reading, ACT and ITED forms were processed
in our computer center. AFAIK optical scanning was patented at that
time and nobody else in the world did it except under license (which
was granted to almost nobody). If you ever filled out a dot with a #2
pencil, now you know who to blame.
necoandjeff
news:afenb0do7tseb3rqr...@4ax.com...
You must be a couple years older than me then. I think I was about 14 when I
got my ZX81 but I had to wait a few more months to save my money before I
was able to get that 16K expansion pack. Man, I was so excited to get that
thing. It actually allowed me to write programs more than about 20 lines
long...
Travers Naran
>
> Do I get any points for PDP-8 machine language?
Not bad... That's getting there.
Travers Naran
There was a local post-secondary educational institution in my neck of the
woods that was using punched cards and "batch" computing up into the early
90s. I shall not name it, but I am told they finally got rid of the beast
a few years back.
Dan Rempel
> Dan Rempel <hurty@flurty> dixit:
>
>
>>Do I get any points for PDP-8 machine language?
>
>
> Nice machine. The only one that let you create your own micro-code
> and write into into control store, ISTR.
Never got that far; about all I did was make the accumulator lights
flash in interesting patterns.
Dan