The Rise Of The Artist | Hacker News Reader

The Rise Of The Artist

techgnotic.deviantart.com

225 pointsVervious156 comments

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.

Programming these days isn't really like what you describe, unless perhaps you are an indie game dev. Most software development nowadays requires extensive collaboration with other programmers, interacting with a lot of non-programming people and building on top of existing systems, rather than creating something from scratch.

It is for me, and I do a lot of collaboration, interaction, and system gluing.

But it's more fun on my own at home. :)

The creativity comes in when you need to decide on the most efficient way to do something. And you are always creating something from scratch, otherwise you could just reuse the existing solution.

I don't think you can compare coding and writing so closely. I don't know about you, but I've never thought of coding as involving much creativity.

Or is your point that good writers and artists and such are not actually being creative?

>I've never thought of coding as involving much creativity

Truly?

Programming requires a whole lot of creativity (sometimes enough to sap it from your other creative endeavors). Not necessarily in the part where you write the if, else, for and while stuff, but the part before that - when you're figuring out what you actually want to DO.

I've spent hours simply thinking about the best algorithm to use for a task. Sitting there with a notebook, sketching different possibilities over a simple example, thinking about its algorithmic complexity and whether there's a way to do it better. Considering what data structures I need to implement it, and the trade-offs between those choices. Whether I might just need to start over altogether (and I have; on some of the more challenging algorithm assignments, I've gone through 4 iterations of implementation before I hit one I was happy with).

You might call that engineering. But, the act of actually COMING UP with new algorithms and implementations that might solve the problem? That's creativity. And the harder the problem, the more it takes to solve.

Maybe it's just that I'm still a student, doing some projects on my own and doing a lot of homework assignments. I don't know what kind of coding you're doing, but if you can do it mechanically, without requiring any creativity whatsoever, then it doesn't sound like a very good use of your time.

> I've never thought of coding as involving much creativity.

I do. In both writing (drawing/sculpting/whatev) and coding you have something based in reality, that you transpose into you mind and then create another reality with.

In writing you may have something you have experienced, in drawing you might have an object in front of you, in coding you have a non-computer-based system/algorithm that you need to support. The better you are at imagining how to best support the real life system, the better a programmer you are. That said, I consider programmers more like craftsmen; but as in all crafts, some artistry usually slips in.

>I don't think you can compare coding and writing so closely. I don't know about you, but I've never thought of coding as involving much creativity.

You know that you are in the forum created by the "Hackers and Painters" guy, right?

It depends on the ‘level’ at which you employ this creativity. To me, neither coding nor writing requires much creativity at a very low level (think inside a function or a paragraph), but it does require creativity as much as the ability to analytically extract suitable abstractions at a higher level.

That is, once you created (using your creativity) some sort of flow-chart for either your programme or your story, you will be able to fill in the remaining bits using strictly analytical thought without much creativity: Once you created pseudocode for Dijkstra’s algorithm, you don’t need much creativity to implement it. Similarly, once you set up the story of your genius cheating the devil, you don’t need much creativity to fill in the gaps.

The quality of this gap-filling will still greatly depend on your skill as a coder/writer – making the best use of the language you have – but this is not a necessarily a creative process, unless your language is ill-suited to the task and you need to create it on-the-fly, c.f. Shakespeare or K&R. Neither Goethe nor Thomas Mann made up many words, but only used their tools at a very high level and are still considered among the best writers in the world. Similarly, Linus didn’t invent C, but he used it to build a very complex system (or randomly ended up at one by continuous evolution, though that’s another discussion).

The above obviously only applies to writing/coding, and I would assume that the same goes for composing – even more so, as you can choose a particular set of rules (harmonic, atonal, you-name-it) and each individual note follows from the previous with little choice. Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier is probably a good example for this.

On the other hand, at least to the uninitiated (read: me), painting and sculpting appears much more ‘creative’ and incomparable to coding/writing/composing.

You learn grammar and syntax to compose sentences telling a machine that computes to do something. Over and over again.

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!)

Rambling here, but there seems to be some similarity of artists' plight and programmers' plight.

One of the "problems" with art is the low barrier to entry. I've known a lot of people who were 'artists' who didn't really work at anything solid but rather spent some time emoting when the mood struck them then tried to capture that emotion in some sort of sketch or painting or poem. (I also know artists who are working very hard, have their own modes of expression and are trying to keep things together to make a living. Maybe I'll ramble back to them...)

One of the things that has happened to programming in 'recent' years (I'm old) is the barrier to entry for programming has dropped dramatically. For people who have an analytical bent, it's pretty easy to set up a linux box with a bunch of programming tools (even Windows box I suppose), find some tutorials for building web page widgets, and start building stuff.

They can put themselves out on a freelancing site and make short money building crap software. I've hired some freelancers, and every now and then come across one that thinks he is "all that" but he's really crappy. (I had one recently that tried to upsell me to his servers. Now get this: I have my own, with ssh key access, and told me to send me his public key. He sent me his PRIVATE key. He sells hosting. HOLY SHIT!)

There are a lot of people out there that don't know the difference between good and bad- and, for the moment, they don't care enough to ask the questions that allow them to distinguish. They just want their damn blog up with the mouseover animation- or whatever. And they'll pay for it.

At the higher end, programmers have more of a credentialing mechanism (degrees) which aren't perfect, and perhaps are archaic, but can nevertheless provide a first barrier.

As the person who wants the blog with the mouseover widget, I don't know shit about design or art. If I'm buying art, how do I know what's good? How do I know what's worth paying $300 for and what's worth paying $30000 for?

What's different about the people at the top of the food chain? There's a lot of garbage in the system (does every artist still 'play guitar?') and it can make it a real challenge for the authentic practitioners to be visible without some help with the filtering process.

One of the "problems" with art is the low barrier to entry

I used to work in animation. Most people in animation will tell you that it takes you about five years to go from "kid who likes to draw" to "someone who's worth employing in an entry-level job and teaching how to REALLY do things".

It's a lot EASIER to start to figure this out IMHO. Everyone has eyes, everyone can look at art and say "I like that" or "I don't like that". If you're looking for web design graphics, look at someone's portfolio, does it look good? Hooray, maybe you'll hire them. Code, on the other hand? Nobody but other programmers can look at it and say "this is beautiful/ugly".

It gets harder once you get into the GALLERY art world, where you have a culture that eschews representation and raises up stuff that makes people say "My three-year-old could do that". Honestly I don't understand that stuff either, I am quite happy to be a "lowly" commercial artist who mostly draws sf/fantasy comic books.

Yes, the gallery stuff is difficult. I am working with someone who is trying to crack it. She's someone who works very hard, has developed her own (recognizable, and sometimes featured) style. Still, galleries are tough.

I think my point is that, as an untrained person, I can look at something and say, "I like that." But, how do I know that I like the right stuff? Maybe it doesn't work with the message surrounding it (does that even make sense?). I have no idea how to judge that. How do I know who does?

For the coding analogue, I don't think it's "pretty/beautiful" code (except by proxy). Suppose I write something for you that shows off the art that you want to sell. This is a unique app to you (let's say)- Your plan is to generate traffic by blogging about art, and have your stuff tactically displayed throughout to prompt people to buy it. I build the app, you click on it and it works exactly the way you think it should.

Now, you take the app, integrate it into your site, and stick on adwords because you need to make some short-term cash while you iterate your long-term strategy. But my coding sucks, and my script doesn't play well with adwords, and your site fails in a way that you can't see- perhaps you don't get the credit for the clicks you actually generate.

Mind you, I'm not claiming to have answers (I wish I did). But it may be helpful to compare and contrast the plight of artists with that of other professions that are self-identified. When I was growing up, car mechanics were among those professions also. What creates distinction?

Maybe there are two types of distinction to consider: professional prestige and financial success. Some authors, for example, have high professional prestige but you can't find their work at Hudson News (airport book store). Others are quite the opposite.

If some dude with bunny ears stops by, that was me.

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.

>That "left brain/right brain" business is the stupidest, most egregious display of a lack of understanding of basic neuroscience.

This is the first thing that I wanted to say, and I'm glad to see it already represented in this thread. The only myths that get to me as much as perpetuation of the Left- vs. Right-brained business are statements that assume a zero-sum model of economics/trade, or statements that imply a 1:1 mapping of specific genes to specific functions/physical traits.

It's a more academic version of "So are you a dog person, or a cat person? Oh you're X? That means, you like to Y and and hate it when people Z!"

Getting past that and allowing the neuromyth as a metaphor for "creative" versus "process-oriented", there are still all sorts of issues that I take with that sort of one-dimensional categorization being placed on a person.

It's a more academic version of "So are you a dog person, or a cat person? Oh you're X? That means, you like to Y and and hate it when people Z!"

Another thing: generations. "Generation X does this-and-such while the Millennials are like so..." Go fuck yourself. I and most of the people I know from either "generation" are like neither of those things.

To add a little perspective as to how this whole 'left-right brain' myth has been perpetuated - a lot of it has come to popular consciousness (and particularly that of artists) through the (learn to draw) book "drawing on the right side of the brain" by Betty Edwards (1979).

Its actually a fantastic book for its purpose. It remains today a classic book still widely used - better than even most more recent books on the same topic. Whilst its use of the 'left-right' thing is obviously fundamentally flawed scientifically, in the book it is more or less a model presented to the reader in describing how to 'think' to aid in drawing - which mental processes to turn on/off, focus on or ignore. This more practical side of the book has proved very helpful and effective to its readers and is the real achievement which has led to the book's enduring success. The success of this has however led to the propagation of the 'left-right' thing which the book does basically claim is a scientific basis for everything described.

My only point in saying this is that there's complexity to stories like this - ideas can be helpful even if the scientific base they pretend to be based on is incorrect.

"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"."

From what I understand, if you are a math teacher you virtually have a guaranteed job at many, many highschools across the nation. If you're an art teacher, good f'ing luck.

The cold, hard fact is that art, music, dance, and theater are not considered serious occupations by the overwhelming majority of people in the US (despite their worship of celebrity artists, musicians, and actors). If it's their kid, they want the kid to be a doctor, lawyer, or (more recently) dotcom billionaire.

Art/music/dance/drama class just does not fit in to this very narrow-minded view of the world, where profit and fame are king. Some kids are so driven that they might take an art class (usually their first semi-serious one is in high school.. and by then, how many math classes have they had?) or even study it at university. But if they do study it at university, it's either as one of many electives or (if as a major) against their parents' objections -- because most parents know how hard it is to "succeed" in this society as an artist, musician, dancer, writer, or actor.

If you are an engineer or programmer, nevermind doctor or lawyer, you're going to usually be taken much more seriously and get more respect from most people than any kind of non-celebrity artist. And funding in the schools generally reflects these sad but all too common views.

Unfortunately, scientists and teachers are often in the same boat as far as lack of respect as artists are. But even there, the amount of funding given to educating more scientists and teachers is far greater than that devoted to educating various artists.

The dollar is king in America, and the overwhelming majority of artists are near the bottom rung of the money ladder in this country. Odds are you'll make far more money working at McDonalds than you ever will as any kind of artist. And, a bit of philanthropy notwithstanding, the rest of society reflects this monetary bias.

If you're talking about the economic prognosis of art, I'd like to direct you to the world of high-end sports cars. There are many people who can afford to buy and maintain them in this world. Not all of them do. Just like many people can afford to buy works of art, but not all of them do. Why? Because one doesn't really need a sports car, just like one doesn't really need an art piece. The author's essay isn't one of the lament of the hard times of an artist. It is a lament of the diminishing of creativity because his definition of creativity is rooted in a traditionalist idea of creativity as resting solely in the lap of artists. Before the PC revolution no one would want their kids to be programmers. "Programmers were smelly fat white kids". Now it's a hot commodity. Welcome to the markets. Mathematicians were "useless theorists" till a couple of decades ago (as a matter of fact many people still think this). Until industrialization, scientists were a bunch of "rich white guys, not in tune to the needs of the common man". And more importantly, up until recently, engineers were little math nerds, easy bait for the MBA alpha dudes.

You're confusing economic safety with societal respect. If you're talking about the economic aspect, as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet. Poems wouldn't keep a roof over my head and hell, at the time, neither would code. Hasn't stopped me from writing poems in my spare time and engaging in my other pursuits. If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market. But economics isn't the author's thesis.

"as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet."

You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid.

"If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market."

I'm not. Not until they can make a better living at it than most other professions.

The sad fact is that not only is making art looked down on in this society (as "emo", or "gay", or as not serious or worthwhile), but most people are not interested in expressing themselves artistically (partially as a result of the education system, and partially because of social attitudes towards artists and art).

Maybe as kids, a minority of Americans enjoyed an art class here and there, but they probably never dreamed of creating art for a living -- even if it somehow could earn them a decent wage (which it can't now.. not even remotely).

So I don't think even economic parity with other respected professions would suddenly flood the market with artists. Not until societal attitudes and the education system changes pretty radically. Until then, people will still want to go in to a more respectable and "achievable" career path.

Sure, if there's suddenly a swarm of artist billionaires like there has been of dotcom billionaires, then many money-hungry people will swarm in to the art field (as they have in to the startup industry). But I for one am not holding my breath.

"as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet." You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid.

I think now kids say, "I want to be a rapper".

If you define art as "that thing that is emo" then you've created a tautology about art.

But if you look at art as things like: rap, creating electronica music, writing screenplays, etc... I think you'll see that society as really embraced art. It's just not called art anymore. It's the same fate as AI.

Is designing a building art? What about a website?

How about directing an advertisement or designing the title sequence for a television series?

Is researching information for a historical documentary an artistic or scientific vocation? Is such a harsh delineation even suitable?

Level design for a game? Texture design? Concept art?

Designing the circuitry for a synthesizer?

Many people are creating art for a living, though you may not see it as such. In fact, the authentic problem could be identified as society's very narrow definition of what "art" is. Artistic vocations are all over the place, and the prerequisites for entering such a career are just as, if not arguably more demanding than those for "technical" careers such as software engineering.

There's also frequently overlap between technical and artistic vocations and they exist side-by-side for many businesses so I disagree with the notion that people can't make money selling art (including the one belonging to the parent poster).

"Hasn't stopped me from writing poems in my spare time and engaging in my other pursuits."

This is the epitome of the lack of concern for creative practices that gnosis is referring to. It's a "spare time" thing. Anyone can do it. It's not a real job. It doesn't deserve the effort or respect that STEM gets. (I'm not saying this is what you believe, but this is a trope I've noticed.)

The idea that there is widespread respect for creative types of all breeds is hogwash. I work as both a front-end web developer and a web designer. I can provide the exact same quote for the exact same amount of work for those two fields, but I have to fight tooth and nail to get anywhere close to my estimate if it's a design project.

If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art

Now is that time.

Poetry is another thing altogether, but more visual artists are making more money right now than they ever have at any other point in history.

I think the time was probably in 1970. While you have a much larger audience today, and computers have kicked the artistic potential of individuals into overdrive, I think the main factor in a healthy arts economy is a wealthy society.

The America of the 70s hit around its peak wealth per person - it has been going down ever since. I don't think the advances in artist productivity trump the fact people make significantly less money than before, and buying art of any form (including entertainment) is still a luxury.

Hopefully the best is yet to come - if we can get a fabricated / automated food revolution, and automated housing, and automated raw materials mining / gathering in the next few decades, besides the fact most people won't have non STEM / artistic / law / business work to do, there would be more luxurious wealth to go around.

I guess it could go either in the direction of everyone goes destitute as a concentrated few own the automated means of production, or government intervention means everyone has the lower tiers of the hierarchy needs covered without straining oneself, leaving everything else to creative pursuits.

Although I didn't cite any stats (google "art market booming" if interested) it's not an opinion. There has been an art boom over the past decades, and there are more artists making a lot more money than ever before. Certainly more than in the 1970s.

As usual, the art business (like all business) primarily benefits the businessmen.

Most of the people profiting from the "art market boom" are collectors and other businessmen who buy art from unknown artists at rock bottom prices and resell them once the artist becomes famous (usually but not always after the artist's death).

In this situation the artist gets pennies on the dollar (if he's very lucky, as many artists don't manage to sell their work at all).

Some very few artists are lucky enough to even be alive by the time their art becomes highly coveted, and then are lucky enough to have enough business acumen (or lucky enough to partner with a scrupulous and competent enough agent) to capitalize on their fame, and actually make enough money from art to actually quit their job waiting tables or driving taxis and devote their energies full-time to making art.

Some very few of those very few might even become rich. But I would not call that a "great time to be making art". The overwhelming majority of artists in the US do not make nearly enough money to even reach the disgracefully low poverty line, much less be able to survive solely by selling their art or profit much from this "booming art market".

Thats probably because of the booming inequality that means some people have a lot of money. It is unclear that art is becoming more democratic or widespread other than this.

Not sure what you mean by "wealth per person", but pretty much everything is significantly better than it was in 1970.

The average North American is significantly wealthier today than they were in 1970. Compare an average car from 1970 and an average car today. Today's econo-boxes are Space Shuttles compared the caveman-cars of 1970 (Ford Pinto?). Both cost approx the same in inflation-adjusted work-hours.

Think about the TV that your average family was watching in 1970, and the average TV today. 60" 3D flat panel TVs for <$1000 in 2013 compared to ~$2200 (inflation adjusted) in 1970 for a 16" Motorola color TV.

He meant inequity.

Which is an argument I don't understand.

Imagine, instead, that compared to the 1970s, everyone today was twice as healthy as they were back then.

But, some people are 10,000x healthier than they were in the 70s.

I get the impression that the "inequity" people think we should prefer the 1970s, because at least then, even though we were all sicker, no one was 10,000x healthier.

It's such a strange position to me to desire everyone to be worse off, just so that a few people aren't much, much, MUCH better off. Does it really matter that a few super rich, or super healthy, people exist? Heck, even the super rich we're talking about end up giving it to charity anyway (what else is there to do with it, really?).

Anyway, /rant off.

"I get the impression that the "inequity" people think we should prefer the 1970s, because at least then, even though we were all sicker, no one was 10,000x healthier."

Except that in order to become healthier, you don't have to take someone else's health away.

I think a better analogy would be something like that (stupid) movie In Time, where people are given a certain amount of time to live when they turn 25. They can freely trade that time with others. Some wind up with millions of years of time, while the majority are cheated, exploited, and misled by the wealthy ("time is money") and face the risk of death at any moment as they scramble over what little time they have left.

As weak and flawed as the movie is, they're right about one thing: it doesn't have to be that way.

> Except that in order to become healthier, you don't have to take someone else's health away.

Yes an in order to become wealthier you do not have to take someone else's wealth away. A brief look at history will show this to be true

Yes, it matters.

Gross inequity is undemocratic. I cite Kevin Phillips' book Wealth and Democracy http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-Ame... but it's been researched and detailed ad nauseum.

More equitable societies are happier.

More equitable societies have better public health.

Just in case you need cites: https://www.google.com/searchq=More+equitable+societies+are+...

Lastly, I believe, but cannot prove, that more equitable societies are safer. Both domestically and internationally.

Well, maybe, just maybe, there are more people who want to be art teachers, than there are math teachers.. and in that, the positions are relatively hard to fill.. There are also more jobs at Walmart than in Education.

The financial disparity of "art" is that there is only so much room for people to excel and you have to be very good... only the top 1% will ever gain any recognition... There are plenty of schools out there dedicated to the arts... there are also schools dedicated to science.

From the financial perspective, nothing is stopping anyone from picking up a pencil and paper and drawing, or dancing to music. YouTube etc has given rise to quite a few self-starters. The same goes for computers... Except with computers the financial barrier to entry is a little higher. Just the same, there's a number of articles, books, blogs, etc that will help you learn if you take the initiative.

Not having something in a classroom never stopped someone with initiative from learning something. Have some.

Perhaps it's more of an issue of simple market dynamics of demand and availability than you care to paint it? Every other kid wants to do a liberal arts major, but how many want to do math? How many americans, in fact, because most I see are driven immigrant individuals taking up this baton so many americans drop in favor of studying philosophy. Both are equally important, yet not equally coveted. And that results in how many teachers we end up with, generation after generation, with a fresh degree in whatever he chose and now needing a teaching position.

"Every other kid wants to do a liberal arts major, but how many want to do math?"

Liberal arts major as such is quite different from an art major. Many kids do want to maybe be an English or History major and then teach. Far, far fewer want to be an art major and try to survive as an artist (or even an art teacher).

As far as math goes, maybe not all that many kids want to be mathematicians, but plenty do take a fair bit of math on their way to becoming engineers, programmers, doctors, and scientists. They all certainly take far more math courses than art courses.

Of course, few artists take many math courses, but there are far fewer art students than there are students of professions that rely on math and need a decent education in math to graduate.

"so many americans drop in favor of studying philosophy"

Oh please. There are probably fewer philosophy majors in the US who actually want to do philosophy after school than art majors (of which there are very few). There'd be even fewer overall if philosophy wasn't the number one major of students accepted in to law school. Most philosophy majors just use that major as a means to get in to law school.

"Far, far fewer want to be an art major and try to survive as an artist (or even an art teacher)"

Are you discounting the multitudes that study fashion design and graphic design? The ones that pile on at RISD and New School? Julliard? At this point I feel you should specify what you consider an artistic pursuit

"As far as math goes, maybe not all that many kids want to be mathematicians, but plenty do take a fair bit of math on their way to becoming engineers, programmers, doctors, and scientists. They all certainly take far more math courses than art courses."

No, actually beyond basic high school math many people never touch math again. Not even calculus. You talk about the ones on their way to becoming engineers and such. That's like complaining that people at chef school take more cooking classes than astrophysics classes. You talk about engineers, programmers, and scientists like everyone's just lining up at the door to become one.

"few artists take many math courses, but there are far fewer art students than there are students of professions that rely on math and need a decent education in math to graduate."

See the chefs and astrophysics above. A further counterpoint is that there are more students who graduate college who take a cultural "creative" course than there are students who take math. And like you've alluded to, many who even bother to touch calculus are the ones who are required to.

"Are you discounting the multitudes that study fashion design and graphic design? The ones that pile on at RISD and New School? Julliard? At this point I feel you should specify what you consider an artistic pursuit"

RISD is a very small school. Only 2,282 students total. According to [1], they had 835 admissions, with a 34% acceptance rate. If my math is right, that makes for 2,455 applicants.

Julliard is even smaller (800 students), though much more selective. According to [2], they had 2,138 applicants (of which they admitted 162 -- an 8% acceptance rate).

So that's 4,420 total applicants to RISD and Julliard combined.

According to [3], there were 3.3 million high school graduates in 2008. That would make for 0.13% (or about 1 out of 1000) high school graduates "pile on" Julliard and RISD. While 999 out of 1000 don't apply to either school (and the overwhelming majority of those probably not to any kind of art career path at all).

"No, actually beyond basic high school math many people never touch math again. Not even calculus."

Ok. But how much math did they take by the time they make it through high school math? Maybe 9, 10, or even 12 years of math. Which is probably an order of magnitude more than they have years of art.

"You talk about the ones on their way to becoming engineers and such. That's like complaining that people at chef school take more cooking classes than astrophysics classes. You talk about engineers, programmers, and scientists like everyone's just lining up at the door to become one."

Well, let's take a look at the 10 most popular majors in 2008.[4]

Biology, Business administration and management, Communications, Computer science, Criminal justice, Elementary education, Marketing, Nursing, Psychology, Political science.

Of those, I'd say Nursing and the more sciencey fields like Biology, Computer science, Psychology, and maybe some Political science need math. The others not so much. Of course, out of these, Computer science is the most math-heavy.

Incidentally, according to this[5], Stanford's most popular major now is Computer Science.

So, that's a fair bit of math there. Not as much as you'd need to major in engineering, applied math, or mathematics itself, of course. But perhaps more than what's taught in most high schools.

Now, compare that to how many of these majors need art. I would say none of them do. And none of them are any kind of art major. So, yes, I think math has a very strong lead over art as far as the most popular majors go.

[1] - http://www.theu.com/admissions_ratings/rhode_island_school_o...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juilliard_School#Admittance

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_admissions_in_the_Unit...

[4] - http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/10/27/cb.what.major....

[5] - http://mashable.com/2012/07/01/stanford-top-major-computer-s...

"RISD is a very small school. Only 2,282 students total. According to [1], they had 835 admissions, with a 34% acceptance rate. If my math is right, that makes for 2,455 applicants."

I'm afraid you're missing the point. The point is that those who want to study art will study art. In addition many don't just study "art" in the traditional sense of making paintings. They study some applicability of art whether it's design, architecture, etc. Why? Well the same reason more people become programmers and not computer scientists, or engineers and not theoretical physicists. Theory only appeals to some people

"But how much math did they take by the time they make it through high school math? Maybe 9, 10, or even 12 years of math. Which is probably an order of magnitude more than they have years of art"

Again, I'm going to have to ask you to be specific with your definition of the "creative arts" because it seems your gripe is that we are teaching kids math instead of drawing in school; to which of course the appropriate response is school is for learning, not for doodling. Just like you should have a certain level of reading capacity, you should also have a certain level of reasoning capacity. This is the bare minimum one should have. So if your gripe is about the amount of math taught, well, I hope you take that same gripe with history, literature, geography, and even PE. Furthermore, art classes are offered as electives and are free to be utilized by students who want to take them.

"Of those, I'd say Nursing and the more sciencey fields like Biology, Computer science, Psychology, and maybe some Political science need math. The others not so much. Of course, out of these, Computer science is the most math-heavy. Incidentally, according to this[5], Stanford's most popular major now is Computer Science"

Seriously, what point are you trying to make? It seems more like you're disgruntled that math is relevant to more spheres of life than art - however it is that you are defining that. Furthermore, noting the dearth of CS grads at Stanford is like noting the dearth of engineers at MIT (or blackjack players ;) ). What do you think the school is famous for? In any case, the author of the essay's point has nothing to do with who is studying what because if it were he'd be complaining about social science, humanities, and business majors. His essay is about the demise of creativity - however he defines that. Furthermore, as a relation to my first post, noting that one should learn science before one has an opinion about it, it seems it would be beneficial if you followed that. Just because one reads a "science" subject does not mean they will learn math, especially not Biology and Psychology. As a matter of fact, many CS grads get away with only calc 1. And to be clear, until you get past calc 4, you're not really doing "math", just numeric manipulation - which itself isn't trivial.

To be clear: it's not about how many areas of life find math beneficial. As a matter of fact, that is the point. Despite the overwhelming potential for analytics to transform the world, despite the new knowledge to be gained STEM has not been culturally relevant till now. Now is when it is most painfully obvious that he who understands the world holds the power. It used to be he who holds the purse strings, but thanks to the litany of these technologies that we're talking about, it's becoming less so (though not fast enough). The important questions in the world are/have been/ are being asked, and not many of them involve "self-expression". Knowledge of Science and Math add a whole new dimension to our exploration of the world and people are just taking notice. That is the point. The journey that STEM has made from esoterica to becoming a full participant in the cultural discussion. The idea that we can even consider STEM a cultural activity. Smashing that barrier that keeps people assuming that STEM people are these little weird people with their irrelevant subjects and threats to human existence and starting to see it as a part of the human experience like any other. That's what I'm talking about. That's what the author of the essay doesn't get. That's why I keep volunteering to teach kids math and physics on my own dime. So of course, arrogantly determining, from an old world view of the subject, that STEM is a mechanistic chore best left for uncreative robots is not only very annoying but very unproductive. I'm sure you're very passionate about art, and in a perfect world, we would all have the things we love be recognized both culturally and economically. But antagonizing an entire field just because one's field isn't getting the limelight is not a productive way to go.

"The point is that those who want to study art will study art."

In another post of yours, elsewhere in the thread[1], you yourself pointed out that:

"when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet. Poems wouldn't keep a roof over my head and hell, at the time, neither would code. Hasn't stopped me from writing poems in my spare time and engaging in my other pursuits. If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market."

Presumably, you didn't study poetry. Not because you didn't want to, but because you didn't think it was economically viable. Many if not most people interested in art are in the same boat. On top of that, there's the stigma associated with art and artists that influences their own attitudes and decisions of whether or not to pursue or study art.

So, no. I don't think that "those who want to study art will study art". Most who do want to choose not to. It's a minority who are wealthy enough, driven enough, or naive enough (with tolerant enough parents) who do actually study art.

"Again, I'm going to have to ask you to be specific with your definition of the "creative arts" because it seems your gripe is that we are teaching kids math instead of drawing in school;"

Drawing is, in fact, one of the so-called "creative arts". So is painting, sculpture, printmaking, creative writing, music, theater, and dance. Architecture, illustration, and graphic design could arguably be squeezed in to that definition as well. History, English, and various other "humanities" subjects would not. Though creativity is required in many if not most fields of human endeavour (including math), that does not make them part of the "creative arts".

"to which of course the appropriate response is school is for learning, not for doodling."

Now that's a condescending view of art and its role in education if I've ever heard one. I'm sure you would not enjoy hearing math described in a similarly condescending way.

"Just like you should have a certain level of reading capacity, you should also have a certain level of reasoning capacity. This is the bare minimum one should have. So if your gripe is about the amount of math taught, well, I hope you take that same gripe with history, literature, geography, and even PE."

I do have the same gripe against all those other subjects, which are certainly looked upon as more "serious" than art, and are generally given more resources and emphasis in the education system (well, except maybe for geography). Art is unjustly demeaned and underappreciated. That's not to say that these other subjects are also underappreciated compared to the moneymaking and "practical" fields. They are.

"Now is when it is most painfully obvious that he who understands the world holds the power. It used to be he who holds the purse strings, but thanks to the litany of these technologies that we're talking about, it's becoming less so (though not fast enough)."

But we're not talking about what used to be (though your depiction of math as being neglected in the past relative to art could also be argued -- I don't know when in history the "creative arts" as I defined above were ever near as popular in education as math was). We're talking about now.

"The important questions in the world are/have been/ are being asked, and not many of them involve "self-expression"."

Well, this is indeed an expression of bias that could be corrected through better education.

Unfortunately, your attitude of condescension towards other fields is not limited to math/physics folks. It's all too prevalent in most fields. Many people who are passionate about their own field are often disparaging of others (especially ones radically different from their own). I think this is generally due to ignorance and lack of appreciation of the worth and value of other fields.

Of course, that doesn't mean that every field is necessarily equally valuable. But perhaps every (or nearly every) field has something of value in it, perhaps even of great value. Until this is appreciated on a deep level, I'm afraid we're going to continue to have the kind of bickering over which field is most valuable and which should get more dollars and emphasis in education that we have now, and there'll continue to be a stigma on certain fields.

"Knowledge of Science and Math add a whole new dimension to our exploration of the world and people are just taking notice. That is the point. The journey that STEM has made from esoterica to becoming a full participant in the cultural discussion. The idea that we can even consider STEM a cultural activity."

Wonderful. I'm all for that.

"Smashing that barrier that keeps people assuming that STEM people are these little weird people with their irrelevant subjects and threats to human existence and starting to see it as a part of the human experience like any other."

A part of the human experience like any other. Like art. Which also has deep value to the human experience.

If you don't agree, I'll just refer you to Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, DaVinci, Van Gogh, and Michaelangelo. Their like are not exactly encouraged by cutting arts funding in favor of math, nor by stigmatizing the creation of art as "doodling" or whatever other derrogatory terms you wish to use.

"I'm sure you're very passionate about art, and in a perfect world, we would all have the things we love be recognized both culturally and economically. But antagonizing an entire field just because one's field isn't getting the limelight is not a productive way to go."

Pot, meet kettle.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5308873

I'm not sure how one could possibly interpret any of my statements as being condescending towards art, so perhaps the problem is your inability to understand the topic at hand rather than my "condescending attitude". Like I've pointed out numerous times, I like things beyond the sciences, like every other human being on this planet. Lawyers don't just do law, they listen to music, they play sports. People don't do just one thing.

You mentioned that I didn't read poetry in college. You're right. As a matter of fact, I didn't complete college. I got out after a year. So if you wouldn't mind keeping your presumptions to yourself, that would be great.

Like I have said before, economics is king. You have acknowledged that your narrow idea of "art" is not economically viable. In the normal definition of art, which encompasses music, dance, film, orchestral performance, design, etc, I'm sorry but you have to be living under a rock to imply that people don't pursue these fields. So after reading your post I'm convinced your gripe is not math, it's not science, it's not history, and it's not literature. It's that people aren't paying tens of thousands of dollars to go to college to study what is really just an interest. Where the author's post reflected some one-dimensional, condescending view of people who don't just draw all day - essentially the artsy equivalent of "you haven't read Ulysses? well poo-poo you my illiterate friend" - your posts reflect a condescending view towards people who don't share your singular world view of "art". The fundamental argument, to put it as simply as I can, has been that the cornerstone of our education system has rested in the classics, literature, and art. That is what you need to be considered cultured and creative and educated. Knowledge of the liberal arts (which by the definition of the word should include the maths and sciences) has been restricted to those fields. One doesn't tell people one can't read and feel proud of oneself. When one finds out you haven't read the Iliad, or you even deign to ask what "post-structuralism" is to our "intelligentsia" you are looked down on like an uneducated bonehead who has been living under a rock. To proclaim a lack of understanding of basic algebra, OTOH is almost a badge of honor. So again, you seem to be conflating economic viability with societal cachet. So really, the only thing I've gotten out of your posts is "my singular vision of art is not necessarily economically sustainable, and I'm angry that people don't pursue it as a career".

Furthermore, I did not "stigmat[ize] the creation of art as "doodling", I was calling into question your premise that because math is made compulsory for basic education in schools and art isn't, it reflects some general societal respect for sciences. Before the 1930's and 40's if an American wanted to do real research, they usually had to go to Europe. Even our highest of institutions looked down on research as being inappropriate for universities. Today, this disdain for the theoretical still lies in our culture. So why the giant about face vis-a-vis research? It became economically viable after the war, but especially during the space race. I became a programmer because that was a skill I had that I could make money with. I provided value because someone wanted to buy what I made. People become lawyers, doctors, engineers, historians, designers, etc because those are skills they have that they can assuredly provide value to other people with. Now if someone thought my piano playing was so beautiful that she would pay my rent just for me to play all day long, I'd become a pianist. It doesn't mean I love programming less, neither does me being a programmer mean I love piano and poetry less. So I feel you have to come to terms with the fact that what one does as a career is not an all-encompassing definition of who one is. In any case, the argument is not about careers, it's about a backwards, self-serving definition of creativity being purported by people who are upset that their privileged cachet to the use of that word, without question is being threatened by the "analytical baby killers".

Funny, in my late teens, I was interested in philosophy, politics, religion, and government/law. My interest in philosophy wasn't as a career path... just an interest I had.. I was also interested in art/design... which is how I wound up falling into programming (which paid a lot better, and I had a talent for).

Nobody in America drops a math major to study philosophy. A more likely scenario is someone who can't handle the coursework to get a business degree so they end up majoring in communications.

Citation? I'm a data point of one, but...I did it..

We have more people who graduate with degrees in dance than we do people who graduate with degrees in mathematics.

This is not true. Dance programs are extremely small and one can join by audition only. The U of MN only has about 10 dance majors per year. In contrast they graduate about 100 math majors per year. I know this because I'm from MN and majored in math, and my girlfriend majored in dance. You can verify actual stats on the U of MN website somewhere.

We have more art and history museums than we have science and engineering museums

This is also incorrect, there are 140 art museums in the US and over 400 science "museums" , if you count the following as museums: planetariums, kid's science centers, imaginariums, aquariums and the like. I know this cuz I once worked at a company that sold software installations to both art museums and science museums. (Not really a great business to be in with few potential customers and loads of competition). You can probably verify the numbers with data from Wikipedia.

my bad man. been up too late, I meant theater and performance. From the link http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/11/col...

"In 2009 the U.S. graduated 89,140 students in the visual and performing arts, more than in computer science, math and chemical engineering combined and more than double the number of visual and performing arts graduates in 1985."

As for the museums, unfortunately kid science centers, imaginariums, and aquariums aren't science museums.

As for the museums, unfortunately kid science centers, imaginariums, and aquariums aren't science museums.

My estimate was only including institutes accredited by the American Association of Science and Technology Centers. They definitely do consider imaginariums, kid science centers and aquariums to be in the same class as science museums.

unfortunately kid science centers... aren't science museums

What rubbish. Just because they're not tailored for tertiary-educated engineers doesn't mean they're not science museums.

The comparison of 'art' vs 'science' museums is a load of horseshit anyway - museums are one of the places you go to art is formally presented. They're not where you go to formally present science or engineering.

> museums are one of the places you go to art is formally presented. They're not where you go to formally present science or engineering.

Although generally true, there's the Exploratorium in San Francisco, and the Air & Space Museum and the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. All these examples present something other than art works.

a science center is different from a science museum. i didn't say this difference was dependent on the formality of presentation.

Why are only Computer Science, Math, and Chemical Engineering being counted compared to all Visual and Performing Arts? Shouldn't all math, science and engineering graduates be compared?

> or even the swimmer (did I mention I'm learning to swim?

I wholeheartedly recommend Terry Laughlin's Total Immersion technique. It emphasizes swimming like a fish, stroke length, low stroke count, zen-like being in the moment. The beginning drills emphasize basic buoyancy and balance techniques - and the arm propeller-based swimmers will look at you strange when you practice them in a public pool - but keep with it, you will lower your stroke count and eventually enjoy swimming for fitness.

http://www.totalimmersion.net/

I second that. I also took proper swimming education in my twenties, and followed up with this technique. Once you get the hang of it, the stable, long distance rhythm you can get is amazing.

Side note: learning to swim, full technique, is something you can do at any age, very rewarding result wise[1]. Kudos on your decision.

[1] Except if you have some hard to overcome fear of water. It's not a roadblock, but expect it to take time.

Thanks, I'll definitely check it out. I signed up for lessons at the local YMCA, but this could be a nice supplement. Thanks again!

I second wallflower's recommendation: "total immersion" is amazing.

I just wanted to point out that "supplementing" swimming techniques may not be a good idea... once you get the basic habits wrong, it can be very hard to undo. (not to say YMCA is bad, I know nothing about it)

Very well put. As someone who works currently at the intersection of technology and the arts, I know plenty of people who've worked at a high level in both camps. Because of my STEM background, occasionally others are surprised that I don't struggle with the creative aspects of my role. But to me there is no distinction, it is all just different types of problem solving.

Being a skilled artist is 90% a combination of technical ability acquired through repetitive practice, and a strong sense of aesthetics. The vast majority of creative work is just combining existing ideas in new ways. Genuine inspiration, where a completely new idea is added to melting pot happens very rarely. There are plenty of artists for whom I would question whether this happens at all.

> There is no physical hemispheric dominance, there are just ways of thinking.

Well, those right-handed people who have had strokes in their left middle cerebral artery distribution might beg to differ on this point. However, I got this far because I found your first paragraph to be quite compelling writing.

Why thank you. As a mechanistic science robot, I find that flattering. I meant no hemispheric dominance with regards to how people think, not in terms of physical/motor skill. My bad

Don't be pedantic. It's clear from the context that he meant in terms of "right-brained = creative, left-brained = analytical".

The fact that there is lateralization to cortical function is not just some curio.

A stroke on the nondominant side in the same distribution leads to contra lateral hemineglect of the world. Watch these people try to draw a clock: they'll put all 12 numbers on the right side. It is interesting, to me, that the pathways are such that there is this partitioning of deficits.

It's not "left logic right creativity", but neither is it one homogenous mix.

Anyway, I think it's relevant and not simply pedantic. If you disagree, well, I suppose we can disagree politely.

I think it's odd that from my comment, which was solely dedicated to correcting your misinterpretation of his comment rather than expressing my own endorsement of it, you have extrapolated that we "disagree".

Based on your misguided comments, it is clear that we disagree on two points: (1) that I misinterpreted the OP's comment and (2) that the lateralization of the brain is or is not relevant.

So you wanna hang out or something?

Maybe we could kick it in the ball-pit at Chuck E Cheese then get a few beers at a good pub?

Hopefully a Chuck E Cheese that's near a pub.

This. But you contradict yourself slightly. Your main point:

>>>>There is no dichotomy between science and the creative act.

Well, my distillation thereof at least.

But then you go on to say:

>>>> 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.

Now: 'Ways to help you understand the world' <--- Science/Math is one too. How?

A 'way of understanding the world' is a conditioning, a particular mode of thinking. Usually they require training. An "objective" observer watching a tribal ritual will find the whole ordeal it as meaningless as an "objective" observer who is watching scientists operating a lab. To understand this is scary for a "man of science/math" and it drove me to tears when it hit me from the sky.

As any consellation, the utility of science/math in predictive capabilities gives them a "mere" superiority (please bare with me, I reveal my inner fears here), but they cannot (IMHO) either be claimed more superior to the other because they both stand equally as conditionings. Those greats who discovered the truths of Science had great creative capability, and capacity for communication of profound ideas through elegant vehicles for the appreciation of mankind.

To illustrate: You cannot distil drawing to pure motor skill. This is an over-simplification, "the arts deal in the particular, the individual and the personal while the sciences deal in the general, the universal and the collective". Yet both describe the same phenomenon, one in abstract, the other in concrete, but both mere images compared with the current moment (now), which alone has the airs of Reality.

If I may play my final card: we should perhaps beware of the importance we place on these pursuits, because while they are the current paradigm, we certainly (IMHO) do not tap the entire range of human potential. The question which plays, to me: which came first, me or the world?

It is an interesting one to ponder.

Thank you for suffering my thoughts.

>A 'way of understanding the world' is a conditioning, a particular mode of thinking. Usually >they require training. An "objective" observer watching a tribal ritual will find the whole >ordeal it as meaningless as an "objective" observer who is watching scientists operating a lab. >To understand this is scary for a "man of science/math" and it drove me to tears when it hit me >from the sky.

They might find both situations to be equally meaningless, however one gives people the power to understand the natural world; the other does not. The great progresses our world has seen have largely been done by folk engaging in scientific processes - not tribal rituals. Watson & Crick discovered the shape of DNA in a lab, not around a fire.

One of the best HN comments ever.

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.

I feel that the different mediums are mutually beneficial. Stories can be told through music, code or a drawing. Often a new perspective can be found in a different medium that applies to another you may be struggling with.

I agree - I am more concerned about telling kids to draw instead of learning to code, when it would be much more beneficial to do both. This is a glaring flaw in an otherwise prescient essay.

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 see this a lot here and I feel that I should point it out; industrial design is an engineering discipline. It is similar to architecture in many respects.

Thanks for the clarification. I actually watched "objectified" - http://player.vimeo.com/video/50944978 today, a good documentary about industrial design.

It's a great documentary, certainly one I'd recommend to everyone here. If you haven't seen them already, I highly recommend Helvetica and Urbanized.

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.

You can replace computers for X in that statement, where X is any field of study, and it will still be true.

I'm more than a little irritated that his idea of "systems thinking" is "understanding how computers works".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking

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...

Here[1] is an excellent HN thread about that painter in your first link.

The video[2] in the top link of that thread is a little long, but very much worth watching. I was incredibly impressed by this man's perseverence and achievement.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031684

[2] - https://s3.amazonaws.com/markerdmann.com/Paintings.mov

I've never been great at drawing (freehand, I can do mechanical stuff okay), but I realize it's mostly because I don't put the time into it that I could and so I'm much slower at it than someone who is an expert and does it all the time (so that eventually leads to frustration). I do try to use that as a reference point for explaining to people that think they cannot learn how to program though (or learn to be better programmers). If I took the time to do draw more often, I would improve and probably learn to be halfway decent at drawing.

It's mostly about dedicating the time and working through the frustration and embarrassment (either from imaginary judgment or real). I would imagine to be an expert in drawing/painting, one has to delve into theory and concepts, such as much as a programming requires as well (Computer Science, Mathematics, etc). Sure there are people that are naturally talented in both, but to understand the "whys" of a subject, it takes more than a superficial approach to the subject.

"I don't put the time into it that I could and so I'm much slower at it than someone who is an expert and does it all the time (so that eventually leads to frustration)"

I have devoted a lot of my time to making art, and I can tell you that frustration is a fact of life for me. I'm virtually never as good as I want to be. My work rarely turns out the way I want; and this doesn't even begin to touch on issues of coming up with ideas and creativity/originality. Learning to deal with and live with failure is just something many ordinary artists have to do constantly.

"Fail early and often" is as much of a maxim to live by for artists as it is for entrepreneurs.

Perhaps 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 works will be something you're pleased with, and then you can count that as a success. Or perhaps the journey can be counted as much or more of a success than the destination. A lot depends on your expectations.

William Staford was once asked how he was able to write a poem every day. He answered, "I lower my standards."

Sounds very similar to programming then :).

We typically think our code is never good enough and can always be improved. Learning when something is "good enough" or as you mentioned "lowering one's standards" can lead to a more productive and happier life.

I used to doodle, which eventually made me think that I had some predilection for art. It was only partially true, and likely only in the sense that you refer to -- that anyone can do it. Drawing something that you see is a purely mechanical exercise.

The first real drawing lesson that I had was some years after I had started. The teacher placed an egg in front of each of us, and said "Draw exactly what you see." It was a revelation, an instant understanding that art was a way of looking at the world, not about collecting shapes on a piece of paper. The utter simplicity of the form and color force you to examine the play of light and shadow in exacting detail.

I am convinced that once you've learned to see gradations of light and color, you need no other lesson, only practice.

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.

You try to make something perfect and don't succeed so you don't feel satisfied?

Welcome to the club of mere mortals!

Even Michaelangelo probably wasn't completely satisfied with some tiny spot on David or the Sistene Chapel that looked like an enormous blot to his trained eye and unmeetable standards, while virtually everyone else probably couldn't see it and considered the work a masterpiece.

If you set impossible standards for yourself you will get nothing but frustration and disappointment. Part of being an artist is learning to either set more realistic expectations or learn to work despite your own feelings of inadequacy.

"It works or it doesn't" suggests you either limit yourself to extraordinarily simple projects or your clients don't care what happens as long as it's not a 500. Development is not such a black and white pursuit if you're working on projects with any sort of complexity.

I'm better with programming than I am with charcoal, but I can say with certainty that while my art is hanging in a few living rooms, my code gets a lot more scrutiny (appropriately) and evolves much more. That's not because it can or should be perfect, it's because the result and the scrutiny is less subjective.

I'm not talking about design or features. I constantly think of ways to make what the user sees better. I was talking more about refactoring.

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".

The author appears to warp his argument and land his primary criticism on machines and not the people that program them. Which is odd - you should not learn to code because machines are not creative? Much like saying you shouldn't learn to draw because paper + pencils aren't creative...

Machines "aren't creative" is a naive assertion too (forgivable though because not everyone outside of our industry may be aware of the happenings) - there are some truly amazing programs people are building that can evolve creative solutions to many things that no human could ever dream of.

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.

http://www.sketchport.com/

>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?

As others have said, find a great teacher.

I thought I was completely unskilled at drawing. Heck, stick figures were beyond my grasp. And then, by chance, I ran into an awesome teacher at LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum Of Art). I went to his class to humor my partner - she's an artist and wanted me to learn more.

In the first class, we started sketching the human figure (based on a statue) - and the guy was good enough to make me understand what to do and how to get a realistic depiction. Now, granted, that is still miles from what any decent artist could do, but he made things click for me.

Reading a book won't do that for you. Find somebody who can teach you in person what drawing feels like. Who can, if necessary, take your hand and draw with you. Who can relate the ideas behind painting in a way that makes sense to you.

Nothing beats finding a good, respected teacher and taking a class with them.

Just read the book and do what it prescribes. This got me from stickmen to decent shaded realistic drawings. No portraits yet, but I believe I just need to put the time to practice.

that is a good book. a class based on it would be even better. you can also practice with GIMP

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

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?

Whilst I don't condone this articles sentiment I have used these sites in the past for learning to draw (digitally).

If you like Photoshop:: Free http://ctrlpaint.com

These guys are amazing:: Paid http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/

and others:: Free http://www.proko.com/videos/

http://theroundtablet.com/

Some inspiration:: http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?870-Journey-of-a...

http://www.deviantart.com/

Probably the biggest factor stopping you from teaching yourself something is your own motivation.

Thanks!

anyone can learn to code. but can anyone really learn to draw?

I'd say a better question would be: Anyone can learn to code or draw, but can anyone really learn to code or draw well?

And drawing well really depends on your standards, the time you devote to the pursuit, and your dedication.

If you are past retirement age and want to achieve the technical proficiency of a DaVinci or Durer while painting on the weekends, then I'm sorry to tell you, but that's probably just not going to happen.

If you are young and incredibly dedicated, and devote a lot of time to it, maybe you can achieve something like that (on a purely technical level, though it arguably takes much more than this to achieve anywhere near as much on an artistic level above sheer technical skill).

For those of us with lesser ambitions, a lot can be achieved without becoming very technically proficient. There's a lot of satisfaction that can be had from emotionally stirring, but perhaps not technically perfect work.

This is a much more realistic goal. But it's still a difficult one because you have to get beyond completely cliched depictions (unless that's what you're aiming at), and achieve some sort of technical proficiency. This will likely take some time and effort, but should be achievable for most people who can devote sufficient time and effort to the pursuit, and not give in to discouragement.

And then there are the so-called "naive" and "art-brut" sort of artists, who may have no technical proficiency at all and yet make work that is satisfying to themselves and/or others. There, by definition, they have no training to speak of, but often make art through obsession, mental illness, or for a wide variety of other reasons.

Finally, there are the so-called "weekend painters", who work infrequently, at their leisure, and usually without extravagant aims or demands on themselves. They can also be quite pleased with their output, and often create just for the sheer joy of it, or with a very modest aim of achieving a little technical proficiency. This is quite doable and quite satisfying for many.

Yes. Drawing is muscle memory/dexterity. Drawing/painting is a physically trainable skill.

Creativity however, is something innate (or at least a by-product of the nature/nurture of the person) and can be expressed compulsively regardless of the technical acumen of the pencil-wielder.

Creativity is certainly distinct from technical proficiency. However, much research has been done on creativity, and the consensus is that it can be taught and learned.

The compulsion or "drive" to create is something else, and perhaps that is more innate. I'm not sure what the research says about this, actually.

Certainly a lot of people "want" to be creative, just as they may "want" to write a novel. But few want to put in the hard work to make it (writing the novel) happen. Being "creative" is also hard work. Especially when you have to do it consistently and over a long period of time. Relatively few are compelled or driven to do so.

Yes? There are lot of books, videos and other materials that can teach you how to draw better. Like with coding, or anything, with practice you can become quite good at it.

I thought it had been pretty well established that a minority of people can learn to code.

yes. there are many techniques, mainly revolving around learning to see shapes.

why not do both?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com