 |
Author |
Topic: how to attract artists and designers to P5? (Read 4440 times) |
|
Charles Hinshaw
Guest
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #15 on: Jan 26th, 2004, 1:56am » |
|
For that sake of increasing the user-base of an incredibly useful
programming language and environment (that would be Processing) I must
voice my disagreement with those posters who suggest that exposure is
enough to prompt experimentation. While many of the people who are
already familiar with Processing likely approach new technologies in an
experimental manner, the majority of artist and designers (and society
in general, I would imagine) lack the degree of non-task-oriented
computer interaction (and by that, I mean computer use beyond defined
business functions) needed to approach learning a new technology in a
trial-and-error fashion.
To clarify: Exposure is only enough to prompt experimentation in those
individuals that are already inclined to experiment.
If a stated goal of Processing is to provide a tool to the visual
design community, it will likely take a much more concentrated push to
reach those users who, while perfectly able to grasp programming
concepts, hide behind "technophobia" as a means to avoid potential
failure in a medium that they are unfamiliar with.
So how is this done?
In my experience, for any "good" technology to become a "useful"
technology it has to allow people to do what they are currently doing
in a better way (better could be faster, or cheaper, or... you get the
idea.) So what are designers doing? Well, only a very small number of
them are creating things for the sake of creation. Instead many of them
are attempting to solve real world problems for their clients as
efficiently as possible. How do you make Processing useful to a
designer? Show them how it can be used to solve problems, not simply to
make pretty things.
Beyond that, I would suggest making the learning process as streamlined
as possible -- a roadmap that allows for early successes (to overcome
the whole failure avoidance issue) is absolutely critical, as is the
ability for a designer to learn some fundamentals and then move on to
aspects of Processing that are relevant to them (A designer will likely
not care as much about Binary Output as they would about image
manipulation)
Those are just my thoughts on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
arielm
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #16 on: Jan 26th, 2004, 11:47pm » |
|
good to get back discussing these kind of issues on the forum, it's been a long time!
a short update/summary of what we've been doing (with heidi) on the subject (of promoting p5) since last august when this thread started:
- made a website for promoting processing among the local new-media designers and artists community...
- tried (hard) to sell workshops to individuals and schools...
- gave a lecture...
- done some lobbying (e.g. some hot discussions on a flash oriented community forum...)
- sent some processing made e-cards, etc...
some more of the same is planned for the near future, including fun stuff like trying to present some of my processing works at the next local BD4D party ("by designers for designers"...)
surprinsingly or not, it's pretty much applying pollux words "a la lettre":
on Aug 26th, 2003, 11:13am, pollux wrote:| word of mouth, buzzing it around. exposing interested people to the website. workshops, congresses, events, parties, schools. it has worked, it's working, it'll work. |
|
this was part of a contrasting and pretty well-balanced response from pollux to my hypothesis that good-old usual "exposition" won't be enough...
today, it's not that i don't subscribe anymore to this point of view (that there should be something more original to do in order to promote processing), but after trying hard, i didn't find any shortcut.
my approach nowadays is, again, something reductible to another quote from pollux: "and then, whoever wants to use it, will use it".
i'm convinced that processing is the expression of a broader and emmerging culture, which, given some time, will "attract" the most talented people.
a propos the culture processing is part of: it's not conceivable that the synthesis that is currently occuring between technology, sciences and arts will lead to a void!
pionneers like the incredibly talented "hybrid" people coming from John Maeda's group will continue to show the way for some time, then they will be joined (koenie, 16, member of this community is on the starting-blocks already...)
i like to believe that in a few years from now, the gap between works done by "standard" new-media designers, and the ones done by "augmented" new-media designers will be so huge that it won't be a question wether to jump into the other side of the mirror (where a designer meets non-linear maths, fractals, cellular automata and finally mother nature and her absolutely perfect design rules...)
now one step back to reality!.. and focus on Charles's post:
on Jan 26th, 2004, 1:56am, Charles Hinshaw wrote:I would suggest making the learning process as streamlined
as possible -- a roadmap that allows for early successes (to overcome
the whole failure avoidance issue) is absolutely critical... |
|
i agree, definitely, the current de-facto process for beginners to learn processing is not very effective:
- the documentation is too advanced for people that never programmed...
- the processing environment is not very "error friendly", and in general, starting with java as a first programming language is a real challenge...
the first point should be solvable relatively easily but implies a large involvement from the processing community (i.e. starting to make streamlined tutorials targeted to absolute beginners.)
so yes, it's up to us, to find the time, the motivation and to develop the skills required for creating these tutorials!
i guess the second point is more complex but not unsolvable: hiring (open-source or funded) big shots programmers, the kind of people that work on the ibm eclipse ide 
on Jan 26th, 2004, 1:56am, Charles Hinshaw wrote:| How do you make Processing useful to a designer Show them how it can be used to solve problems, not simply to make pretty things. |
|
ah! i have to admit that this very question is on my mind for at least a week, and i'm definitely over scratching my head on the subject.
let me tell you this short surrealist but true story:
last week we went with heidi to a very serious school of design in tel-aviv, it was a casual meeting with the director, just about negotiating a barter (we give them a lecture / they give us a computer room for a workshop).
the director asked us to quickly explain what is this new hype all about, but before we had the opportunity to finish half a sentence, he said something like:
"okay guys, first, you're not convincing at all, and you'd better get much more focused on trying to explain me how your processing thing is about to be helpful to someone out there, otherwise, the 2 people that are going to enter this room in 10 minutes are going to give you some much harder time than me!"
10 minutes didn't help, and at the time the 2 yakuzas (one woman and a men) entered the room, the only interpretation of our poor explainations that the director could retain was something like: "okay, in a few years from now, without your processing, people like me are going to be unemployed, right"
(continued on the next thread...)
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 27th, 2004, 12:43am by arielm » |
|
Ariel Malka | www.chronotext.org
|
|
|
arielm
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #17 on: Jan 26th, 2004, 11:56pm » |
|
...
the 2 yakuzas turned out to be 2 fine marketing people (at some point, the man said something like: "hey, look at me, don't you see, i'm a bunch of dollars"), whose vague goal seemed to be of mounting a huge project, involving a lot of workshops on a very wide range of subjects...
it took us time to understand, but it happened that they were all very interested by integrating our processing workshops into their project, at the condition that we convince them how what we propose is going to be helpful to someone (say, a designer...)
well, time was short, and we were not prepared (afterall, all this was a surprise), but since we're not exactly beginners in the field: we still had a respectable arsenal of arguments in our hats...
nada!..
"unsellable for now, come back in one week and try to convince us again!"
FIN
well... we do plan to meet them sometimes in the near future (we like challenges), but we're a bit clueless for now on how to approach the question:
"how do you make processing helpful to someone, say, a designer?"
some more clues?
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 27th, 2004, 12:48am by arielm » |
|
Ariel Malka | www.chronotext.org
|
|
|
kevinP
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #18 on: Jan 27th, 2004, 12:36am » |
|
> "how do you make processing helpful to someone, say, a designer?"
Maybe you can't.
Though it doesn't seem to be too much of a leap to look at a filter in After Effects and then look at Processing and then realize, hey, I could write my own.
What I mean is that practically speaking, the age of the pixel is on the way out (slowly, perhaps). One has only to look at Photoshop's newer features to see this. Images first became numbers; now they are becoming algorithms and procedures; which is well-suited to small file-sizes and limited bandwidth.
How will this help traditional designers? I don't know; there's a nice comfort in staying on the front side of the screen and choosing "Gaussian blur" without knowing anything about convolutions and kernels; but I think that many of tomorrow's designers will want to work "behind the screen"; to get their hands into this clay and to develop their ideas in new ways using new tools.
I think that Processing is a stepping stone along this path.
-K
|
Kevin Pfeiffer
|
|
|
Charles Hinshaw
Guest
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #19 on: Jan 27th, 2004, 1:00am » |
|
I think the real issue here is to get a designer to understand how Processing can be a valuable addition to their existing toolset.
That is a pretty nebulous issue, and it may help if we talk in specific terms (fictional examples, if you will).
How can Processing be a valuable addition to this designer's toolset:
Small GD firm - 4 employees.
The head of the firm is an old-school designer who has a love/hate relationship with her Mac. She likes that things are faster than the used to be when things were done by hand, but she hates that her Mac doesn't do what she wants it to. Her primary role is to meet with new clients and to keep the firm focused.
Employee number one left to follow the head of the firm when they quit their Art Director position to start a new company. He excells at some of the strategic aspects of building a client's brand.
Employees number two and three have both been doing graphic design for about ten years. They started as print designers, but both have had some experience with web design (although they were just creating graphics in Photoshop to be sliced.) They are responsible for the bulk of the actual design work that gets produced by the firm.
Employee number four is young enough that she grew up using computers and has always been able to switch gears between interactive and non-interactive projects. She helps out by doing some of the more intensive Photoshop work, and has a firm grasp on Dreamweaver for building HTML web site. She also had a class teaching Flash and Aftereffects at school, but her knowledge of Actionscript is cursory at best.
So, with that design firm, which is probably pretty typical for a design firm (at least in the midwestern US), how can Processing be a valuable addition to their toolset?
I don't know the answer, but it is a much more specific question. Anybody care to take a shot at it?
Charles Hinshaw
|
|
|
|
|
Allen
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #20 on: Feb 3rd, 2004, 7:47pm » |
|
The thing that I've always been curious about is why people suggest idea after idea on how to make Processing a better tool for traditional artists to use rather then present work of high quality in front of them.
Here in Michigan, both Ann Arbor and Detroit have fairly large art and new media communities, but they are completely isolated from each other. While Processing, without a doubt, has infiltrated the new media community, which is made up primarily of engineer types there has been little work on exposing traditional artists to this new medium.
While I think its great that people are lecturing and giving workshops on Processing, I wonder how effective this will be in attracting traditional artists. I'm confused why most of the all the best work created in Processing is displayed only in an online form, and not in a material or tangible form and not presented in a space or gallery. It's in my opinion that we must first look at how we can present our work in a more suitable setting for an artist to come, learn, and interpret.
arielm's story I think is a good example of my point. As arielm pointed out Processing is a difficult sell to those who know little about art and design because its purpose and function isn't all surface, and, in my opinion, this problem also arises in reverse when trying to sell to artists. A new tool is just an instrument to answer conceptual questions an artist seeks to answer. I suggest that on top of getting this work in front of artists, that we make sure that not only is the work strong on a technical level it also presents and answers, interesting and new, conceptual problems.
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 3rd, 2004, 7:51pm by Allen » |
|
|
|
|
Charles Hinshaw
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #21 on: Mar 8th, 2004, 5:01am » |
|
on Feb 3rd, 2004, 7:47pm, Allen wrote:| The thing that I've always been curious about is why people suggest idea after idea on how to make Processing a better tool for traditional artists to use rather then present work of high quality in front of them. |
|
Do you think that simply putting high-quality work in front of somebody is enough From what I have seen, this is seldom the case... When there is a great deal of initial overhead -- whether real or perceived -- people tend to avoid a new medium.
I think that for most people to want to try something new, they have to first have interest (such as seeing other people doing "cool" things and wanting to try), but they must also see a path towards getting to where they want to be (instruction and lectures fills this area.) It prevents people from either deciding not to try the technology because of perceived overhead or abandoning the technology because of actual difficulty learning.
Just my two cents.
|
Charles Hinshaw
PHAERSE
http://www.phaerse.com
|
|
|
locke
Guest
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #22 on: Mar 9th, 2004, 3:43pm » |
|
so many .. GeoVista, IBOX, Proce55ing, Flash, Director, OpenGL, where to begin!
www.alice.org
uh, right
|
|
|
|
|
Allen
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #23 on: Mar 15th, 2004, 9:17pm » |
|
on Mar 8th, 2004, 5:01am, Charles Hinshaw wrote:
Do you think that simply putting high-quality work in front of somebody is enough From what I have seen, this is seldom the case... When there is a great deal of initial overhead -- whether real or perceived -- people tend to avoid a new medium.
|
|
Yes, and I think history has proved this. Actually, some of the most conceptually striking work came from periods where artists were working in tedious mediums (and yes, I consider Processing a tedious medium). Honestly, if this weren't true, how can you explain the resurfacing and popularity of egg tempera throughout history
Just to note, I would take learning, uh, assembler before I would practice egg tempera. ; )
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 15th, 2004, 9:18pm by Allen » |
|
|
|
|
arielm
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #24 on: Mar 16th, 2004, 10:07pm » |
|
just some few more cents to this discussion (we're going to be rich at the end...):
the more i work on interactive sketches, the more i'm convinced that the programming language aspects (assembler, java or whatever) represent only a minor part of "what's required".
it's probably trivial to say, but the more important seems to me now really to be versed both in sciences and arts:
computer science, maths & physics, etc. on one side,
philosophy, poetry, etc. on the other side.
ah, what a program! (it could take one a dozen years or so...)
but... it's like in every profession, no?
it surely takes 15 years to be a good film-maker,
10 years to be a good "designer",
so why not spending 12 years to be both a good designer and a good programmer?
|
Ariel Malka | www.chronotext.org
|
|
|
meiy
 
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #25 on: Mar 22nd, 2004, 12:08am » |
|
Very interesting question! I am an artist myself and don't have any programming experience, sure I can use any graphic/animation tool with easy IU, but the Processing is more attractive, because the coding part (another creative side), so people like me may required more detailed instruction (or help documents) compare the advanced user who knows what to do.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 22nd, 2004, 12:10am by meiy » |
|
|
|
|
Mark Hill
|
Re: how to attract artists and designers to P5?
« Reply #26 on: Feb 3rd, 2005, 9:14am » |
|
This is an interesting question. I am involved in a research project looking at this very issue. Here are my thoughts as both a programmer and an artist.
Accessibility doesn't seem to be too problematic and this is one of processings most attractive features. Simple and extremely effective, nicely contained and powerful use of sketchbook metaphor.
Part of the problem as I see it, is in my experience of teaching in traditional art school studio environments is the lack of technology's presence as a tool. Many a module involves traipsing over to the IT dept. to partake in a token demonstration of a commercial package, with a steep learning curve attached, soon forgotten.
It's in the wrong place! This is not necessarily a problem for the art school, as I see most students carting around laptops. They have the means to situate this technology for themselves, without worrying about network managers, who are going to shit themselves at a the suggestion of a University wide installation. Instituitions are notoriously slow, so don't waste your own time.
Exposure to processing must be through adequate demonstration of its relevance to existing arts-based practices. A connection must be established that shows a sculptor something s/he can identify with.
No one seems to be asking these people "What ideas do you have, and how can we help you realise them in the context of your studio environment?"
Studio-based practitioners (sculptors, painters and even conceptualists etc.) rely on what they can put their hands on. A great deal of studio time is spent reflecting upon what's to hand. Improvisation, experimentation and language etc.
As a painter I have a laptop in the studio running image processing algorithms, which provide me with an additional visual resource. I see it as part of the information resource gathering material. I don't believe that I'm a digital artist, but I attend to the very real need to explore ways of seeing, and ways of being through technology. I use it as a lens, or prosthetic extension of my ordinary capabilities, and as a means of critiquing exisiting ideas about visual perception and cognitive processes.
Technology and art are inextricably linked as ways of revealing.
www.mark-hill.co.uk (examples of what I mean).
It may be that the question isn't about how to get more people to use processing, but more about an interface.
Artists, like most other non-programming types have a predeliction for expressing themselves in natural language. My suggestion is that the algorithm represents a powerful interface between the coders and non-coders. An algorithm is an expression of a process in a finite number of steps in natural language. No one has a problem with that. As an artist I say, write an algorithm and then get someone to code it (this community seems to thrive on this concept, of shared knowledge). If the artist or designer is sufficiently attracted to its implementation, then natural curiosity will take its course, but with many artists, eclecticism is the name of the game; you make use of what's available including people/ programmers and then you move on, or sideways.
People being entrenched in one particular medium is old hat, and that goes for programming, too (says someone deeply entrenched!). Ideas are the real currency and that's where artists make their greatest investment. Collaboration between traditional practices and programmers who can help with the realisation seems an appropriate way of getting off the ground, and the interface might be the algorithm; saving that a normal bloody conversation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
