The Rise Of The Artist
Picture a writer. You've seen him countless times in tv shows and movies. Brow furrowed, pencil gripped tight between teeth, hunched over a typewritter, tearing pages out and throwing them into an overflowing waste basket, staring at the ceiling praying for inspiration.
Picture a developer. Brow furrowed, hunched over a keyboard, the room is dark but he glows from the light of the monitor, a pile of empty mountain dew cans littering his waste basket, slamming his fist on the desk in frustation.
Creativity is noticing the absence of something and knowing how to bring from the void into reality. You sketch it. You poke it and prod it. You shape it until it is just so. You love it until you hate it enough to call it done.
Sounds a lot like coding, at least if you are doing it right.
Please, learn how to code. Learn how to draw. Learn how to think. Learn how to write. Learn how to solve problems. Learn how to do everything until something sticks. Not until you find something that you 'love', but until you find something that you just can't not do. And when you grow tired of it, do something else.
I'm an artist.
Honestly I'm not gonna hold my breath for this GIANT SOCIAL CHANGE where ART IS IMPORTANT!!!! to happen. Right now pretty much all creative media that are digitizable are passed around online. Music, movies, comics, still art - if it's not painfully obscure, you can probably get it for free on the bittorrents.
Hell, if it's painfully obscure, you can also probably get it for free. Maybe you'll tell your friends about it, the thinking goes, and maybe eventually a friend of a friend will feel like buying a book or a t-shirt or pay for a download or otherwise put money in the artist's pocket and give us some faint hope of (a) making enough money to keep a roof over our heads while making the stuff we want to make and (b) actually having people beyond our immediate peers reading/watching/listening to/whatever our stuff.
If we DO actually manage to get to a place where enough people are well off enough in general to be able to spend a lot of their time making art instead of scrambling for enough to live on in a dark caricature of a capitalist nightmare, then it'll only get worse. Because then there will be a LOT more people vying for your attention with their creative work.
Meanwhile, right now? If you're an artist you pretty much have to engage in a constant scramble to look for work to do for other people unless you are at the very top of the food chain. If you're a halfway decent programmer you just have to announce that you're unemployed on LinkedIn and you get spammed by headhunters.
I dunno, maybe I'm just feeling especially valueless because I've just spent all day sitting in a lonely corner of a comics convention, watching maybe a couple hundred people wander by out of the several thousand who are attending the con, and having exactly one person buy something. (If you're in Seattle and doing ECCC this weekend, stop by booth 2503 and say hi!)
This talk of "right-brain" revolution has become so popular that no one even realizes the fundamental irony of it all. The fallacy that the "creative" arts have been under appreciated in society is the largest piece of bollocks I've ever heard. I voluntarily teach math at a school here in MN, so i get some insight into what's going on at the schools and the fact is, while the politicians and corporations are sounding off about STEM, at schools people are still talking more about funding "the arts". Before the rise of the "geek billionaires" guess the largest form of cultural philanthropy: "the arts" (probably still is). We have more people who graduate with degrees in dance than we do people who graduate with degrees in mathematics. Hollywood probably has more failed actors than the valley has failed entrepreneurs. We have more art and history museums than we have science and engineering museums. Unless you've made a lot of money and you've been on the cover of Forbes, or you put an autonomous vehicle on Mars while wearing a Mohawk, telling people you're a programmer/mathematician/scientist is more likely to get them to presumptuously assume you're some mechanistic robot than for them to say "wow, interesting stuff". This new wave of complaining about the lack of attention to "the creative arts" reminds me of that good old cultural phenomenon known as mansplaining. But these are "the arts" so I guess they're artsplaining (badum-bam)
That "left brain/right brain" business is the stupidest, most egregious display of a lack of understanding of basic neuroscience. It is a metaphor. You know, that thing the "creatives" love so much. it is a metaphor used to explain different psychological states. There is no physical hemispheric dominance (edit: with regard to how one thinks about things, not with regard to physical processes.), there are just ways of thinking. Those who examine things more deeply are said to be "left brained" and those who make connections at the high-level are said to be "right brained". It is not an excuse for why people suck at math or programming. It is not some genetic gift/curse only placed on a few people. As a matter of fact nobody is ever always right-brained/left-brained. People go with the mode of thinking they feel is appropriate for the situation. Besides STEM, analytical thinking is necessary in philosophy, literature, economics, sociology, and all other forms of the humanities, because they're not just a bunch of people sitting down, looking for the best way to jerk off their egos by saying the "deepest" thing (at least they're not supposed to be).
Second, this resurgence of math envy is merely a reflection of the fact that the importance of science and math are finally being recognized in society. So the author shouldn't get his panties in a bunch; no one is dragging the humanities down from it's privileged societal prestige. We simply don't have to scramble for answers to give to kids when they ask why all this algebra stuff is important. In reality, it's important in the same way history, literature, and civics is important: it's not. None of them are. Are you telling me high school history and civics left you with the propensity to be a more informed voter? Are you telling me you really genuinely explored the theme of revenge in Hamlet? Or did you just read the spark notes? Henry Ford couldn't read well and famously didn't know the date of the American Revolution, he still rose from a farm boy to becoming one of the richest men in this country (he was also a good engineer). STEM is important to know in the same way humanities and "creative arts" are important in that they are ways to help you understand the world. Simple as. The only difference is it's a lot harder to convince them that "physics is what powers your car" than it is to BS them about how history makes us a more informed society (seriously, have to taken a look out there? it's a freakin' jungle!)
Third, and most important. He's right. Don't learn to code, learn to draw. Fuck it, learn to ride a bicycle. Next week, I'm going to start swimming lessons - in my twenties! Our senseless push to get kids to learn to code is like this senseless hyper-aggrandizing of the "creatives". We should be teaching kids to learn to think. It's easy to do stuff. It's easy to train kids to learn some task for some as-at-yet determined future purpose. It's easy to code. It's easy to draw. What's hard is thinking, and that's where the creativity is. As a matter of fact, not only is the cultural perception of coding and math as more mechanistic in contrast with humanities and the "creative arts" wrong, the opposite is , in fact, the case. Anyone who has every learned a musical instrument and doesn't look back on it with rose-colored glasses can attest to the mechanistic heartlessness of the piano or the guitar. Drawing is merely the act of building a motor skill. So is dancing. But guess what, once you're done with the hours of torture to get good, then you realize the fun. When you come back from school and drop your bags and you bang out a perfect rendition of Chopin's Prelude No 4, then you truly understand the magnificence of the piano. Much in the same way, when you've crammed the ifs and elses, the fors and whiles, the variables and constants, the pointers and pointers to pointers, and pointers to functions, and pointers to pointers to pointers to functions, and then you go on to build that thingamabob or model that gene sequence or understand that earthquake, then you realize the true power of what you've been working with. So this false dichotomy of "creatives" and mechanistic science robots propped up by people who simply don't want to learn math and are mad that not knowing math and science is less of a badge of honor in society anymore misses the point. And while it reads nice (hey, it has nice fonts, man) and could be a nice rallying cry for people like him, what he should understand is that he is not defending creativity, he is defending ignorance. He is defending a one-seided traditional view of creativity - which is where the irony of his essay lies. And at the end of the day, the only true creativity is the one that comes out of understanding. That is a creativity a series of pretty pictures can never embody, only the artist, geneticist, programmer, linguist, or even the swimmer (did I mention I'm learning to swim? :) ) So to anyone else who feels a divide between their "creative arts" and "cold logical science" my advice: learn some science, then you can have an opinion of science. But hopefully after actually peeking in to see what it's about rather than making flawed generalizations based on traditional views of an emerging way of seeing the world, you would have learned a new way of looking at the world.
Not a rebuttal, but--
This post reeks of wish fulfillment.
1) Underdog Rises fantasy
2) Everyone thinks they're creative
3) Talent evaluation is difficult enough in the current paradigm. Hiring/promoting based on 'creativity' is even harder. How can super-creative types 'rise to the top' if we mere mortals can't identify them to begin with? (Before you answer with platitudes about track record or whatever, ask yourself how well your solution is even faring right now. There are a gazillion recruiting startups for a reason.)
4) Author takes several paragraphs to explain an idea that requires two sentences.
Some of the assumptions made here are absolute nonsense:
1. Programming is purely science: If so, then why can't we teach the computer to do it?
2. Coding is not a "conventional skill" that should be taught: Schools teach physics and math because they make up the system of which we live in, then why not software? It is an integral part of our day to day lives.
3. Software and computers are at a point where they can operate wih minimum human interference: to any programmer this is ridiculous because we all know that we still live in the Stone Age equivelant of what software engineering should be like.
While I entirely agree that creativity is the future, I do not understand why people think you need to draw or compose music to be creative. My most brilliant creative moments have always been with my code, not my music. I may consider myself more of an artist than an engineer, but my code is my most precious work of art.
That said, by pure chance I happen to be re-re-re-re-attempting to learn how to draw this year.
What I find lost in the cracks by many "artists" is the fact that creativity is found in all areas of human activity - it's seductive for systems thinkers to painters to consider their "clan" or "way of thinking" is the sacred and the rest of the world as secular. In truth, there's a beautiful creativity in Music, Painting, Writing, Mathematics, Engineering, Programming, Gardening, Architecture, Exploring, &c...
Also, if I'm not mistaken, painting came about because people studying mathematics were studying geometry and how to relate the real world (using geometry) onto a piece of paper.
The guy supposes that instead of learning how to code, one should learn how to draw, for it is a better way to become more creative.
Why on earth programming should be considered less creative than drawing? In no way does drawing require less technique and training than programming. Also, in no way programming and visual arts are opposite; art can be, and for decades has been, created through programming.
"But in the next 50 years, those that excel in creativity-- big picture thinkers, artists, inventors,designers -- will rise to the top."
Let's ignore inventors (because unless you're inventing "the Snuggie", there's a very high chance you have an STEM background) and big picture thinkers (which is a meaningless term). The tone of the article suggests that the author is talking about art for arts sake (e.g. a band) and not design for a product i.e. industrial design or graphic design. If he is including products, who will actually create the products, now that all of the engineers are gone? If he is not including products, then for every million artists, only one will get meaningful recognition, as why would anyone consume less than the best content?
"The illiterates of the future will not be those who cannot read and write or code, but those who cannot connect the dots and imagine a constellation."
A constellation, and connecting dots? That's so uncreative! I hear the stars sing to me, and they tell me that I'm a big picture thinker.
"A recent IBM poll of 1,500 CEOs from 60 countries and 33 industries identified creativity as the No. 1 “leadership competency” of the future (more than rigor, management discipline, integrity and even vision)."
Because of course, creativity in this context means ability to draw.
"Education and parenting should aim to provide the conventional skills (math, problem solving, and test taking skills) while also encouraging creative, out-of-the-box type thinking. Computers are no match for the average fourth-grader when it comes to creativity."
Again, is the author talking about creativity in the context of drawing, playing and instrument, etc, or "out-of-the-box" thinking? If it's the second, what does he think problem solving skills are? And what exactly does he think programming is?
"Instead of encouraging your child to major in engineering, you might encourage her to study philosophy, ask smart unsettling questions and practice making unusual and unexpected mental associations."
Yes, I've never heard of an scientist or engineer asking unsettling questions, or making mental associations.
"Albert Einstein said; I have no special gift. I am only passionately curious.”
Unfortunately, Einstein's background was in physics. So, while he was curious, he can't be considered to be creative. He should have studied philosophy instead.
I think this person underestimates that creativity required to write code and engineer systems.
Would they have the same opinion of an architect or structural engineer who builds buildings in a creative way?
I agree with the sentiment. Although coding, can be(and often is) a form of artistic expression. The same way Math is; unfortunately, people believe that math and coding is a very strictly left-brain activity. This notion is entirely untrue.
For instance, when I grew up, I really want to make a game. Now, the problem is that I can throw together a game pretty quick; yet, I can't ship a game without good graphics. One could argue that I could go minecraft style, but I want a pretty game. This requires a lot of art.
This is, but one reason, why I married my wife who has a studio art degree and draws amazingly well.
I appreciate the effort it requires to draw, and create art. But I don't think the author of this page quite understands how difficult it would be for a computer to program another program.
You can tailor aspects of a language to your program, but you cannot simply design a program to think of unique ways to tackle an issue. Math and programming are left-brain activities in practice - but this ignores the slew of abstract thinking that occurs before you set key to the page, as it were.
Coding may not look as pretty as art, and I'm not saying it's more important. But it is wrong to say programming is any less organic than art is. Having a computer automatically generate code is like having it generate ASCII - impressive, but both pale in comparison to what human talent offers.
This should be taken with the massive grain of salt that is the history of DA. For anyone who's been involved in it since the beginning -- I ragequit with the Jark debacle long ago -- shrugging off their particular brand of bullshit is second nature.
Don't make the mistake of thinking anything done on DA is done for art. It's done for cash. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's an important distinction, and that's the basic truth the more in-depth rebuttals here outline.
Disclaimer: By writing the following I do not wish to discount the value of art (in its classic visual, musical, etc. forms) as an encouragement of creativity, or in general.
That said, it is a mistake to say that technical ("systems") capability is in any way contrary to creativity. In every art form, there is a technical prerequisite before expressing creativity. When a person learns how to draw or play an instrument (not to mention architecture, woodworking, product design, or programming), they grapple much more with the technical challenges in creating the image or sound that they imagine much more than with creativity. What facilitates creativity most is a mastery of techniques (craftsmanship) to the point that the technical is mainly subconscious. This is true of all of the above mentioned activities. Or another way to think about it is that technical incompetence can crush creativity and make people abandon projects that they would like to create.
(As a side note, I've actually been encouraged about the state of creativity in our culture by seeing that a lot of the people who are excited about programming have come to it in order to create, not in order to find technical solutions to technical problems.)
Those who don't know about computers have two choices. Accept that it is a lack in their knowledge. Or fight fiercely that their ignorance is somehow justified.
I'm more than a little irritated that his idea of "systems thinking" is "understanding how computers works".
The argument's fine, given the usual caveats about the validity of its assumptions - I'm more concerned that the author's writing off mathematics as a "conventional skill" by conflating it with mechanization, and it's certainly not his fault. (I'm very aware of this - just about to be passed through the GI tract of high school, and there's nothing like poring through boiled down revision guides to make you feel miserable about what you're doing with your life.) In fact, I'm convinced the problem of attempting to convey a high-level appreciation of the sciences and mathematics is intractable, given the pressure we already put on the education system. And it's a pity - we'd all like to say that we're far better off investing in giving a kid a grand unified appreciation of what a mind can do (the arts bleed into rhetoric bleed into mathematical formalism and so on and so forth). (Un)fortunately, self-motivation seems to be a prerequisite.
But the argument works both ways: I've seen, for that matter, just as many people going through my school's art program end up still inarticulate about what their art means (you can make a cogent argument that art doesn't have to mean anything, but I haven't seen anyone take that tasty intellectual biscuit) or even what they appreciate in the subject.
So I find it annoying to claim that art is inherently special because it is something inherently better to occupy the mind with - it's true by observation, but there was nothing much to observe in the first place.
I'm all for drawing, and a lot of what is being advocated here, but I hope we at least make an attempt to consider things like programming and mathematics to be artistic/creative disciplines. I mean, there's a reason many universities intentionally award Math students a BA, as opposed to a BS or BEng. There's a subtle beauty to mathematical precision, and well-made code, so I don't like seeing these areas dismissed as cold, grey cubicles for the hopelessly left-brained.
>For the past few centuries, society has richly rewarded strong systems thinkers, logical, analytical, objective people such as computer programmers who build software, engineers who build bridges, lawyers who write contracts, and MBAs who crunch numbers.
No, it hasn't.
Maybe it looks that way from your office.
But singers, actors, entertainers and athletes have been more than handsomely reward and esteemed.
Computer programmers? Not so much. Just that we needed more of them than we need actors or athletes.
"the importance of creativity will trump systems thinking..."
Systems ARE art. Freud was a systems designer. Religious metaphors are introspective systems.
These are systems as metaphors of the human condition.
Do they describe the human condition? No - bigger - they create it. Freud invented a lost continent that allowed us to pronounce ourselves.
As computers and consciousness continue to intersect.. great artists will be expressive, critical, abstract engineers.
"I don't know how to draw" -many of my friends, simultaneously dismissing drawing as out of reach and as a challenging hobby in which they fear they could not be good at - at least in the crucial initial stages (the fear of peer judgement)
If you want to learn how to draw, you can learn how to draw. You start out drawing lines and blocks, move on to cylinders, than to pots and pans, shoes, chairs, simple still-lifes and make the leap to live models. If you really want to become a legitimate skilled artist, you can become one. It just may take 9 years... [1] Like anything, you will need to work on it as often as possible - to the point where you just enjoy doing it (the classic doodling for fun). Doing art for money isn't realistic for most people [2]. There were always be people who are natural artists, people who make skilled drawing look effortless - remember as a coder - what you do is not easy - and it makes money - and it can exercise our problem solving creativity - all the while being a marketable skill.
I've been taking a progression of art classes for over a year and a half now. This is actually a long time in art class world. Really enjoying the escape from coding. It rocks because you lose yourself (like when you are on a focused coding tear). Have gotten much better yet have still so far to go. Have plateaued many times.
Drawing is all about the relation of shapes to each other. Drawing is about drawing what something actually looks like not what you think it looks like (drawing what you think something looks like and having it turn out to be what it actually looks like is the artistic equivalent of 'perfect pitch')
I've always wanted to be able to draw portraits. Portrait drawing is about the relation of shapes - but has the additional constraint of very little tolerance for off-by-one errors. Everyone is particularly attuned to facial recognition - lines that are off by even a millimeter or a fraction of an inch (by position or more generally - the angle) - you notice that. It is the difference between a portrait that looks like someone, a portrait that looks like someone else (but not her).
The thing that has troubled/stopped me most was trying to draw what I thought the eye/nose looked like and actually drawing what it looks like. My internal model of what the eye/nose looks like is flawed because I lack experience.
If you want to get better in portrait drawing and don't have the luxury of a live model posing for you, don't draw from pictures. Draw from live TV (like a newscast where the poses are relatively static but still fluid).
As an aside, if you look at other people's portraits of the model - there is usually part of the portrait that resembles them.
One of my teachers was amazing. She could take a blank piece of paper and in 15 min. create the person's portrait, capture their essence. If she worked on it more and more, it got even better. But she got the basic essence in a very short time. She didn't make mistakes in positioning - like most of us in class did (we did get better by the end of the course) - to draw fast - you need to draw very accurately and with confidence. Mistakes can be corrected, up to a point. If you don't draw the eye as it really looks, you can easily end up with something that looks like an egyptian mummy. There is a very clear orbital socket that needs to be shaded/drawn - without that the eye isn't an eye. Shading is so, so important.
Adding the little stuff to your drawing - like adding a little more shading to the half/side of the pupil that is on the dark side (away from the light) makes a difference. By itself, it doesn't add up, but it makes it look better - when adding all the other little stuff.
Now, drawing in public (e.g. someone's portrait for money in 15 min.) is a whole different ballgame. At least, starting with a controlled environment (precise teacher feedback) is a start. I believe the key is to have the basics down (and basically do a Mr. Potato Head from your experience drawing the basics)
[1] "Journey of an Absolute Rookie: Paintings and Sketches" 9 years...
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=870
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/11/22/how-the-futu...
The author here makes bold, sweeping predictions about the future. While these might come true, Hoffman offers no concrete evidence to bake up the claims.
Hoffman suggests that because computers are becoming more powerful, the people who work closely with them will be less marketable, and their skills less valuable. Maybe I'm short-sighted, but I don't see this as coming true.
My brain can't do art. I have tried for 20 years. I am never happy and keep going to try and make it perfect. And I never succeed. I end up tossing it in the bin after my attempts at perfection make it look like like a mess.
I like code since it works or it doesn't. Sure, it could be better but as long as it works and is secure I don't really care. And yes, 90% is using PHP.
Economically, it has never been the case that a country became a leader because it was competent in the arts. The sciences are more important in people's minds because they provide for economic prosperity, an aftereffect of which is the flourishing of the arts.
It's not clear why the author seems to be optimistic. Maybe because the recent economic crisis has led the prices up in the elite art market? If anything, the examples of youtube, deviantart etc. prove that (the visual) arts are becoming increasingly a cheap commodity. So, from the standpoint of "creating an impact" the visual arts (and the performance arts) in particular seem pretty doomed. How long can it be before we have screenplay-to-movie generators? On the other hand, storytelling and music seem to be having a renaissance.
In any case it's bad advice to tell people to study only art or only science as both are necessary for the "advancement of the human condition".
"The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation or safety to life and property."
First definition of "engineering" to pop up on a google search (Wikipedia).
The problem is that it is damn harder to be creative when your creations have to actually work, and you have to know some science to make that happen, than it is when the creations just need to be "beautiful, inspiring or thought-provoking".
I don't understand how thr author contrasts "creativity, intuition, and the marshaling of original solutions" in opposition to "systems thinking".
I can't imagine a better foundation for "systems thinking" than "creativity, intuition, and the marshaling of original solutions".
Code lets you magnify your creativity more than any pencil or sketchpad. Its currently one of the greatest forms of leverage for the human mind and creative minds of the future will necessarily need to understand it to realize their true creative potential.
Personally I found "learning to draw" process quite slow. Like most people, I thought it would be like learning a new language and probably bought some sort of tablet and started reading up on some tutorials. However I found the process almost unrepeatable when doing it on my own intuition. Ive been told I was much better at drawing when I was younger so I thought I would try and revive that "talent", and it was no easy process. I still have my wacom tablet, and still look in awe at the amazing illustation and digital artwork that people have done with these tools on DeviantArt.
If anyone has any suggestions/links to things that helped them the most in the process I would like to hear.
I have to echo to some degree the opinion of those who say that this essay is presenting a false dichotomy. I went to MIT, but all throughout my grade school education and high school education, I was required to study English, which was largely about writing creative essays of one sort or another. And if I hadn't done very will in those English classes, MIT would not have accepted me. And then as a student at MIT, we were required to take a full year of humanities. I assume this is because the MIT culture understands that you need to be able to think in all sort of different ways, and with your entire brain, to successfully solve problems.
I'm not sold on this rallying cry, and I say that as both an artist and former volunteer staffer of DeviantArt. There will always be paces for systems brainiacs and for aesthetic wizards. The two broad categories are not mutually exclusive, and in my opinion actually overlap in a lot of ways.
I have worked in high tech for 15 years, and have consistently found some of the most technically adept, logical thinkers to also be closet creatives (usually in music, but also in visual and performance arts). These people synthesize the left/right brain output into something better than just leaning one way or the other.
I think the future requires a balance of both logical and intuitive intelligence. Both are needed in creating art, ideas, things, and experiences that matter to people.
Einstein was a violinist and a physicist. Why not develop both skillsets?
In an article about the importance of creativity, it's sad to see a quote promoting drawing over coding.
To me, the use of computers to advance art, taking out as many steps as possible between idea and artwork, is the most exciting way to think about visual art. (I know the article didn't mention visual art specifically, but it seemed to be implied.)
Anyway, the site I've been working on for the past year is based on drawing. You might be interested in trying it out if learning to draw is a goal for you, or if you have ideas related to visual art.
>Artists have always feared that they are unappreciated and that the march of progress comes only from business, science and their machines. 1984 was imagined by an artist projecting these exact fears.
1984 is about authoritarianism and censorship. The "futurology" section of its wikipedia article is about predicting a future in which the dystopian state depicted in the novel is stable, and persists indefinitely. (That is, the one discussing futurology as a theme of Orwell's work. It has nothing to do with machines taking over art or whatever nonsense the author has projected onto Orwell's work.)
That 'artists' shy away from systems thinking is a ridiculous assertion. The first person who comes to mind is Leonardo Da Vinci:
From the wikipedia article bearing his name,
"Renaissance humanism recognized no mutually exclusive polarities between the sciences and the arts, and Leonardo's studies in science and engineering are as impressive and innovative as his artistic work.[17] These studies were recorded in 13,000 pages of notes and drawings, which fuse art and natural philosophy (the forerunner of modern science), made and maintained daily throughout Leonardo's life and travels, as he made continual observations of the world around him.[17]" [0]
I would argue that systems thinking and understanding the world around us is essential to produce art that isn't descended from something like a cargo cult.
>Over the next 100 years, the importance of creativity will trump systems thinking due to the rapidly escalating power of computers.
First of all, systems thinking is more than just computer programming. In the same way that cybernetics is more than just computer programming. Writing programs that do what you want and do what you mean without actually specifying the operations involved is something that I would think is an AI complete problem.
In other words, to explain the problem you must first understand the problem, hence systems thinking.
>No, I’m not talking about an apocalyptic “Rise of the Machines,” but rather about the future ascent of people who excel in creativity, intuition, and the marshaling of original solutions, things that computers won’t be able to do for a long time.
I'd bet money computer algorithms that can write code can draw you a picture. (That is to say, 'creativity' is also an AI complete problem.)
>In the United States, the key predictive score to spot a good systems thinker-- our future leaders-- has been the SAT and IQ tests.
I think the biggest name on wikipedias "list of mensans" is Buckminster Fuller. With a membership of 110K, I would expect a larger list if IQ was an almost 1:1 predictor of success.[1]
The rest is just design dressing.
[0]: Taken from the article, Fri Mar 1 23:26:15 PST 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_vinci)
[1]: One could argue that wikipedia may not have an exhaustive list of MENSA members who went on to do great deeds. My reasoning is that because wikipedia is a community project, the people who would compile a list like that are probably MENSA members who want to brag. Therefore the list is probably fairly inclusive of most famous MENSA members. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mensans)
[2]: I'm citing wikipedia yes, but the OP cites nothing.
Drawing realistic fine art is a rare skill, which like many skills can learned with sufficient devotion. 10000 hours, I think.
That said, contempory artists like Kelvin Okafor whose renditions of Heath Ledger, Rihanna, Princess Diana still amaze me.
Do enjoy - http://www.flickr.com/photos/kelvinokaforart
His blog also contains tutorials of sorts - http://kelvinokaforart.blogspot.com
My mathematics teacher once said that being a research mathematician was one of the most creative jobs in the world. I agree with this, since I can see this situation: as a painter, you have a near infinite number of possible subjects. It seems that much of it will not stretch boundaries revolutionarily. But as a mathematician, you come across a difficult problem. How do you solve it? You may be forced to look at things in a new light, or else fail.
Or learn how to code in order to produce a wider range of art.
Learning to draw has been on my todo list for quite some time. I've started reading "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" and I bought a Wacom tablet. I can just never seem to find the time.
I think I need to find a class (Manhattan anyone?) so I can dedicate the time. It's easy enough to Google any computer language or system and learn at least the basics in a few weeks. Unfortunately, learning to draw seems like a very slow process.
Good article. As we build products and services, the art direction, design, and visual appeal become more and more important in order to stand out. And most people spend the bulk of their time on the web consuming content. Where does that content originate? In the mind of an artist, composer, writer, designer, or videographer. As we seek to generate better and better content, these roles will become increasingly important.
I've been coding for over 20 years now and I absolutely suck at drawing. The only kind of drawings I've ever done are circuit diagrams, but I don't think they count. I bought a copy of Betty Edwards' "Drawing on the right side of the brain" over a year ago but never got around reading. Maybe I should dust it off and start with it.
Does anybody have any recommendations for coders learning to draw?
Or, instead of focusing on "becoming an engineer" or "becoming an artist," you could realize that both require immense time investments and are equally deserving of respect. Instead of disregarding artistry, try developing your own artistic talent and learn to respect the craft so complementary to our own.
"Over the next 100 years, the importance of creativity will trump systems thinking due to the rapidly escalating power of computers."
Right, because more technology has always led to less demand for math/technical skills. And where are the numbers to back up such a claim? Oh wait.. well at least there are pictures..
I like to think of this as a response to the "learn to code" propaganda.
If it seems like it's missing the point, or underestimating the "other side", I'm sure it's entirely intentional. Or at the very least a reflection of how videos like "what most schools don't teach" come off to 'artists'.
An artist with a decidedly analytical and systems-thinking bent: http://worrydream.com
This one is more established: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
undefined
As they say,beauty is the exercise for our heart, it keeps us healthy. I will try to learn drawing this year, I want to understand/enjoy beauty more.
Throughout the whole process of my education, to create beautiful things is of least importance in people's eyes, I think that was sad.
No. Learn to code and draw and write and play an instrument. They are all the same thing really.
Why not learn both?
Coding allows me to be hugely creative. It is a power tool. Ok, you can be creative with drawing. However the value of working software is often a lot bigger than a drawing.
He is right be creative. But coding and being creative go hand in hand.
I don't disagree, but I dislike the reasoning.
If you truly believe in art (or engineering or plumbing), you do it for yourself, make it happen regardless of whatever "big societal shifts" that may happen in the next 30 years.
Don't over-calculate the future.
I find it absurd to argue that computers will be enablers of the future direction of society while at the same time arguing that the people who will create such machines will not be the drivers of that society.
New products can only created by those who have the toolsets to create them.
There's some (small) wisdom in there. History shows there is less and less correlation between technology and jobs lost the more an industry relies on creativity.
First off, I definitely think learning how to draw is very valuable.
However, the main premise of this article is off in two ways. For one, what it terms "systems" thinking is not going away; if anything, increased computing power increases demand for this sort of thinking! This is something like Jevons Paradox[1]--the more computing power we have, the more we use it. And by extension, the more programming we do!
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
I've recently been working a bit on program synthesis. This is perhaps the most direct and obvious way to use technology to eliminate programmers: we literally use absurd amounts of CPU to generate programs. But not to worry: this particular approach is not nearly scalable enough to replace programmers in the near future. In fact, it does the opposite--the most successful uses of synthesis I've seen are very limited and enable non-programmers to program rather than replacing actual programmers.
So as people have access to more and more computing power, more and more of them are going to have more and more reasons to use it effectively. Combine this with more accessible tools and we see much more programming in the future. However, this is not really going to supplant actual, professional programmers: after all, somebody is going to have to develop tools and abstractions.
Moreover, as we get increased computing power, demand is also going to go up for non-programming uses of computers. People are going to want to do more and more with there increasingly capable machines and so they're going to need more and more programs--more and more programmers.
Really, that's the keyword in the whole field: more.
The second fault of the article is in contrasting "creative" and "systems" thinking. In practice, the very best programmers stand out not because of their technical prowess or even logic capability but because of their creativity. There is a reason the ultimate compliment in math and programming is not "complex" or even "capable" but "elegant".
Perhaps I am biased, and perhaps I am simply envious, but I believe that the field with the most creativity and the most beauty is abstract mathematics. The interesting proofs, theorems, abstractions, constructs in mathematics require immense creativity and carry immense beauty.
Yes, math is a field of rules. But, just like music, the real innovation often involves changing or going around the rules. Or just inventing new ones. It is really not that different from art.
Programming is also like this, to an extent. I don't think most programming is quite as beautiful as much of math. But it is beautiful. That sort of beauty is a testament to creativity.
Anyhow, I really do think you should learn to draw. And a bit about design. Typography. Writing. But not for the reasons outlined here. And certainly not at the expense of math, CS and programming!
Maybe this is off topic but the first I did when I got past page-2 was to look at the page source. An amazing attention to detail
I can't stand this jibberish. There's only two things I've ever gotten from an artist that I actually appreciate.
1. a UI
2. a 3D movie
Most 3D artists I know are 100% self taught.
What about both? http://ellatoons.quora.com/
Except that nowadays creativity develops best when you are proficient in programming!
Yknow, to hell with "making stuff". Do you really want do dance with dead crap?
What websites do people here suggest if one did want to learn to draw?
anyone can learn to code. but can anyone really learn to draw?
why not do both?
"Instead of making a resolution to learn how to code in 2013, you might make a resolution to learn how to draw. " It is tragic that this is the world we live in.
The weird rules of creativity