PDA

View Full Version : "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."


Gord-MacDonald
05-18-2005, 06:08 AM
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."

This quote was made by Picasso (I believe in 1968).

so what do you think of this quote? (remember - it was made in 1968)

Gord

paperclip
05-18-2005, 11:05 AM
Here's a 74 computer..

http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/samp-xerox-PARC-alto.jpg
I wouldn't really expect anything more than answers from this guy, and possibly not even that.
Anyone remember the Amiga Logo turtle thing? You programmed it to make a picture for you. I remember taking ages to make one smiley face.
Here's one I did in 2 seconds:
:)

ashakarc
05-18-2005, 05:54 PM
I wouldn't really expect anything more than answers from this guy, and possibly not even that.
Anyone remember the Amiga Logo turtle thing? You programmed it to make a picture for you. I remember taking ages to make one smiley face.
Here's one I did in 2 seconds:
:)
Paperclip: Are you implying that computers of today are able to ask questions?

stepington
05-18-2005, 05:56 PM
I think it's still true insofar as brush is stupid. A computer is a tool - a book - an automatic execution of human made instructions.

If your original artisitic peice is flawed - a computer won't fix it for you. You have to fix artistic issues on your own. A computer will only put a really cool filter on it - and even then it's a filter that's human crafted.

A bag of hammers, however . . . . genious!

jmBoekestein
05-18-2005, 06:04 PM
:rolleyes:Picasso was an interesting man...But not interested enough to care to learn...:surprised...


...:D...

ashakarc
05-18-2005, 06:06 PM
In a panel discussion entitled: The past and future of design by computer, 1968; Louis Kahn, the great architect; explained his view like this:

"Machine can communicate measure, but machine cannot create, cannot judge, cannot design, these belong to the mind"
At a final remark in the same discussion, Steven Coons (a pioneer in computer graphics) said:
"When I tell you in few years it will be possible for you to sketch in the air and have the thing you sketch in the air come to your eye, solid and real, so that you can walk around it, so that you can scrutinize it from any direction and any view point you please. I am telling you the truth."
That was 1968, same year Picasso was quoted for the above!

ashakarc
05-18-2005, 06:07 PM
:rolleyes:Picasso was an interesting man...But not interested enough to care to learn...:surprised...


...:D...
Hey jm, I hope you are joking, you are talking about a man who kept painting until the last day of his life, and he was 90+.

jmBoekestein
05-18-2005, 06:16 PM
Yeah I was...:D don't worry. But in regards to this subject though, the remark still stands. :)

paperclip
05-18-2005, 06:24 PM
Paperclip: Are you implying that computers of today are able to ask questions?

Not at all. I'm just saying that the computers of Picasso's day weren't advanced enough to be able to do what he wanted, hence he would think that.
Today...things are different- the computer has become more useful as a tool, due to its more user friendly interface, etc etc.
This is not a particularly insightful remark, just wanted to point it out.

ashakarc
05-18-2005, 06:33 PM
Not at all. I'm just saying that the computers of Picasso's day weren't advanced enough to be able to do what he wanted, hence he would think that.
Today...things are different- the computer has become more useful as a tool, due to its more user friendly interface, etc etc.
This is not a particularly insightful remark, just wanted to point it out.
Wonderful, that explains your point. No doubt, computers of today are part of our lives, 40 years ago they were found in advanced labs and classified military zones, not particularly accessible to the average person.
But the question would be, an artist of Picasso's caliber, would he be using it to produce art, if he is living now? I think he would, not just that, if he is living our age, he won't be as influential as he was, simply because the world of today is not the same. Art is not as central in the society as it was in the beginnings of the 20th century. Also, if it wasn't for his genius to break new grounds in arts, we would be somewhere else today, not sure where though ;]

jmBoekestein
05-18-2005, 06:33 PM
He could have easily recognised that the exact memory present in computers and the ability to do math on that is reeally...really...useful.

When you are mixing paint or using watercolor you are doing maths, it's that simple. A man of Picasso's intelligence could have recognised that I think.

paperclip
05-18-2005, 07:07 PM
It's possible he just didn't want to have to learn how to program in order to paint.

I'm almost positive, had he been around today, that he would give it a go. He's famous for trying everything- in fact, that's what made him famous, his fluidity between different media and his constant shifting between styles.
Digital art would have been no problem, i'm sure.

Gord-MacDonald
05-18-2005, 10:39 PM
In a panel discussion entitled: The past and future of design by computer, 1968; Louis Kahn, the great architect; explained his view like this:




"Machine can communicate measure, but machine cannot create, cannot judge, cannot design, these belong to the mind"




At a final remark in the same discussion, Steven Coons (a pioneer in computer graphics) said:"When I tell you in few years it will be possible for you to sketch in the air and have the thing you sketch in the air come to your eye, solid and real, so that you can walk around it, so that you can scrutinize it from any direction and any view point you please. I am telling you the truth."






That was 1968, same year Picasso was quoted for the above!






Hmmm.. Khan and Coons both seem to agree with Picasso.

Coons clearly is looking at the potential of computer technology - in what must have seemed, to most, incomprehensible orders of magnitude.

Note he still says " it will be possible for you to sketch in the air "




paperclip: "Here's one I did in 2 seconds: :)"

I did mine in 1 second ( :) ) :D


Gord

Lunatique
05-19-2005, 06:40 AM
Paint brushes are useless--they can only hold small amount of paint.

Ovens are useless--they can only generate heat.

Pianos are useless--they can only generate various tones of a single timbre.

If Picasso lived today, he'd have to eat his own words.

Gord-MacDonald
05-19-2005, 06:51 PM
Paint brushes are useless--they can only hold small amount of paint.

Ovens are useless--they can only generate heat.

Pianos are useless--they can only generate various tones of a single timbre.

If Picasso lived today, he'd have to eat his own words.

Paint brushes are not useless - when wielded by an artist of vision

Pianos are not useless - when placed at the service of a musician who understands the power of music to move us, and can act on that understanding.


Photoshop, Painter, Maya etc are useless tools, unless weilded by intelligent, creative, artistic individuals.

Behind every useful tool, is a person who makes it so.

We are by nature, reflective creatures. We are driven by a creative urge to ask questions.
I think it it reasonable to suggest that Picassos comments were addressing the inability of 1968 era computers to act as creative forces unto themselves . The computers of 1968 -were not about to ask any creative questions, they just ate, digested, and dumped.

Gord

ps: HAL - the series 9000 computer from 2001 a Space Odyssey (the most popular icon of computer intelligence and sentience) also arrived on the scene in 1968.

ashakarc
05-19-2005, 07:33 PM
oops, //What happened here? Some posts are missing from this thread. Moderators?!
Edit: Sorry, wrong post.

Lunatique
05-20-2005, 05:52 AM
Gordonm - I'm not so clueless that I need to be explained that tools can do great things in the right hands--I was being sarcastic.

Brushes, pianos, ovens, computers..etc are ALL just tools. In the right hands, they can do wonderful things. That's why I don't think much of the quote. Now, I don't know just how primitive computers were in Picasso's days, but if they had the ability to at least crunch some numbers, then they are definitely useful for the right people. If they weren't even able to do that, then the quote itself has no relevance in today's world, and thus is itself pretty useless IMO.

Gord-MacDonald
05-20-2005, 06:48 AM
Gordonm - I'm not so clueless that I need to be explained that tools can do great things in the right hands--I was being sarcastic.

Brushes, pianos, ovens, computers..etc are ALL just tools. In the right hands, they can do wonderful things. That's why I don't think much of the quote. Now, I don't know just how primitive computers were in Picasso's days, but if they had the ability to at least crunch some numbers, then they are definitely useful for the right people. If they weren't even able to do that, then the quote itself has no relevance in today's world, and thus is itself pretty useless IMO.


Ya, I caught the sarcasim, and you are obviously NOT clueless. No offense was intended.

As far as the quote - IMHO - when the greatest and most innovative artist of our epoch, crossed paths with and commented on the technology, whose evolutionary descendants, we are now so dependent upon, I think it is worth taking a look.


Gord


btw: To my knowledge, the mainframe computers of 1968 had about 1 meg of ram, and were worth about $10 million dollars.

TheCleaner
05-20-2005, 06:54 AM
Paint brushes are not useless - when wielded by an artist of vision

Pianos are not useless - when placed at the service of a musician who understands the power of music to move us, and can act on that understanding.

Photoshop, Painter, Maya etc are useless tools, unless weilded by intelligent, creative, artistic individuals.

Behind every useful tool, is a person who makes it so.

That last comment is perceived to be different from the other two, though you said the same with with negatives.. rewording

Photoshop, Painter, Maya etc are not useless tools - when weilded by intelligent, creative, artistic individuals.

I dont know why you worded it differntly to ensure you put that these software tools 'are useless', though i will not dwell on it..

we have alot to owe to technology, i was watching a show just lastnight, about how those of the iron age had the exact same intelligence and ability to learn as us now, so bringing a normal baby to this day and age, could easily become anything they wanted.

The main jist of the show, was about how technology and medicine is responsible for destroying our paths of evolution in western countries. How people today survive, and get to pass on their defective genes, throught being kept alive via medicine and technology, long enough to pro create...
its certainly not survival of the fittest anymore... but it went on to talk about how we owe our intelligence to various form of technology, this including books, these methods 'recording' of events, discoveries etc, and how the computer/internet combines all of these things..

anyway im going off the point heer, but fact is, computers advance.. "640k should be enough for anybody" remember...

???
05-20-2005, 10:04 AM
Here's a 74 computer..

http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/samp-xerox-PARC-alto.jpg


WOW ! it's widescreen !
Here's what it takes to render this smiley (:)) in 1970's

http://www.computer50.org/kgill/mu5/mu5con1.gif

Now imagine this smiley (:buttrock: )

Note: These guy's took years to render a pixel of a smiley.

Stahlberg
05-20-2005, 12:00 PM
when the greatest and most innovative artist of our epoch, crossed paths with and commented on the technology

True, he was a creative genius, quite smart, good with the ladies and good at selling himself, and he grew to become very old and wise in the ways of the world... but that doesn't make him Noam Chomsky. I'd take that quote of his with a big pinch of salt, smells like cliche wrapped in wordplay; designed to impress...

Or it may have been honestly prompted by
1. fear of the unknown (don't tell me he actually knew much about computers),
2. resistance to forced change (we're all very conservative that way, even those of us who like to experiment), or
3. the artist's fear that art (or indeed everything) would be corrupted by greedy industrialists and their horrid mechanical devices... :)

paperclip
05-20-2005, 12:47 PM
Hard to imagine Picasso as a luddite. As I said before, he would likely have embraced it, had it been the way it is today. Also, for reasons Stahlberg put forth above, it is understandable that he didn't.

I bet Leonardo would have the time of his life in our age--all the wonderful advancements in technology would have helped him SO much in his studies. I wonder if we'll have another Leonardo in our time?

slaughters
05-20-2005, 01:29 PM
True, he was a creative genius, quite smart, good with the ladies and good at selling himself, and he grew to become very old and wise... Picaso was more than a bit of a jerk.

He is not a man that should be admired, or whose opinon should be cared about, but I guess people will forgive any behaivor if the person is talented enough.

Recommended reading: "Life with Picasso" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385261861/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-4846084-4804100?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) by Francoise Gilot, wife to Picasso

dmonk
05-20-2005, 01:34 PM
If Picasso was around now we'd probably be talking to him in this very thread and checking out his entry in the Master and Servant challenge.

THECLYKE
05-20-2005, 02:39 PM
i think picasso would gone psycho after seeing stahlbergs art and he might evan buy a copy of photoshop and burn it.......take a pic of it with a digital camera and post it on his own weird abstract website with really bad coding as a state ment to all artist that the computers are evil...ummm ......he was a contraversal guy.....again i think it would be me doing that if i was him but who am i to say what he'ed do....i'm just a rookie.:shrug:

Laeng
05-20-2005, 03:11 PM
Remember that old story of Icarus, why build wings, and came realy near to the sun, so the wax holding the feathers melted, and he felt from the sky?

I think itīs the same with artists. There are many men who are creative. I would explain creativity as something subconscious. Itīs the influence and the ideas of our subconscious mind that make us creative. Sometimes we donīt even have to think about it. Once we close our eyes, we might start to see pictures, sceneries complex enough, that it would take days or even weeks to paint them.
But they donīt stay constant, they are changing, getting disturbed by new pictures, and different ideas. Most people are not able to carry their ideas because the carrying structure, the we we do is to week.
Sometimes itīs like someone is throwing 2000 balls at you, and you try to catch them all. Thatīs what beginners do. They are not uncreative, they just have a high degree of diffusion. Experience artist develope something like a concept, a method. They build it up procedurally. They catch one ball at a time, and if they are experienced enough, their concepts will carrie them to extreme hights without melting.

Those procedures have sometimes a high tendency towards computing. They can be very strict and precise, there are decisions made, and they are compatible to both, the creative mind, and exact tools like the computer.

In fact all tools are just a manifestation of concepts. They wouldnīt exist if the wouldnīt solve a purpose, and in the field of art it is allways the carrying of ideas.

I still wonder why Picasso said that, cos he was both, a good craftsman, and a highly creative person. Anyway, Iīm sure he would like photoshop or painter.

THECLYKE
05-20-2005, 03:44 PM
Anyway, Iīm sure he would like photoshop or painter.
http://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/wise.gifWISE WORDS

BUT.....

MY GRANDFATHER LOVES SPORTS BUT AS SOON AS VIDEO GAMES CAME OUT HE SAID IT WAS A GOING TO TURN YOU INTO A BLOB....NOW PICASSO ...IF HE WERE AROUND MAY HAVE LIKED PHOTOSHOP OR PAINTER...BUT IT WOULD BE THE RESULT OF HIS OFFSPRING PISSING HIM OFF AND THEM HIM REALIZING IT'S A TOOL. NO ONE COULD SAY HEY PICASSO HERES PHOTOSHOP....ESPECAILY BECAUSE HE'S SO CLOSE TO HIS PAINTINGS...IMAGINE ART NOW WITHOUT COMPUTERS.....EVERY ARTIST CAN'T CREATE IMAGES MORE FASTER AND MORE RESPECTABLE TO THE PRICIPLES ART WITHOUT MESSING UP 1050 TIMES ON THE ONE PAINTING...THE OPTION CTL Z IS OUT...WHICH WOULD BEG THE QUESTION...... ARE SOME REALLY IN IT FOR THE LOVE. OR THE MONEY, FAME....LETS FACE IT IT IS EASIAR TOO NETWORK YOURSELF NOWADAYS..AND IT'S ALSO EASIAR TO BE COPIED OR INFLUENCED...I GREW UP LEARNING ART BY WATCHING CARTOONS AND READING STORIES AND COMICBOOKS....IF IT WASN'T FOR THE INTERNET I'D BE WORKING AT A FAST FOOD RESTURANT AND NEVER REALLY LEARN ABOUT THE TRUE HISTORY OF ART ...BUT HEY BACK TO PICASSO........I STAND BY MY STATEMENT....THINK MAN...IF THEY BRING OUT A NEW COMPTUER TOOL THAT CONECTS TO YOUR BRIAN AND ALOWS YOU TO MAKE A WORLD OR A SCENE BY MONITORING THE ELECTRIC ACTIVITY IN YOUR BRAIN WAVES CREATE OR THINKING RATHER......EVERYBODY WOULD BE DONG IT AND IT WOULD BE A.......PAST TIME......AND I KNOW IT WILL BE AVAILABLE AROUND THE TIME I'M 60.....I'M 22 NOW...I DON'T KNOW JUST A BUNCH OF THOUGHTS..I DON'T THINK IT SUPPORTS THE ARGUMENT.http://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

HOLLA

slaughters
05-20-2005, 05:08 PM
http://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/wise.gifWISE WORDS

BUT.....

MY GRANDFATHER LOVES SPORTS BUT AS SOON AS VIDEO GAMES CAME OUT HE SAID IT WAS A GOING TO TURN YOU INTO A BLOB.......Very hard to read. Are you alternating how you type every other post? First in all lower case, the next in all upper? What's next, a mixture of upper and lower, or will you just start repeating the pattern :)

THECLYKE
05-20-2005, 05:16 PM
Very hard to read. Are you alternating how you type every other post? First in all lower case, the next in all upper? What's next, a mixture of upper and lower, or will you just start repeating the pattern :)

STICK TO THE TOPIC MAN....I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT PICASSO THINKS...I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK AS ME AS A ESTABLISHED ARTIST WHO'S DONE ALOT IN MY LIFE WHICH HONESTLY I SUCK AT IT.....
AND SORRY FOR THE CAPS... I LOVE COMIC BOOKS.


THIS IS SHOUTING:scream: WHEN IT COMES TO WRITING....STICK TO THE TOPIC....IS THIS A GRAND ENGLISH WRITING WEBSITE THAT IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO WRITE PROPER ENGLISH?
HMMMMMMM..........I THINK THIS IS A WORLD WIDE SITE FOR ARTISTS........WHY DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS?

JUST STICK TO THE TOPIC MAN....DOSE ANY BODY ELSE FEEL I'M WASTING MY BREATH AS A STUDENT

Gord-MacDonald
05-20-2005, 05:35 PM
True, he was a creative genius, quite smart, good with the ladies and good at selling himself, and he grew to become very old and wise in the ways of the world... but that doesn't make him Noam Chomsky. I'd take that quote of his with a big pinch of salt, smells like cliche wrapped in wordplay; designed to impress...

Or it may have been honestly prompted by
1. fear of the unknown (don't tell me he actually knew much about computers),
2. resistance to forced change (we're all very conservative that way, even those of us who like to experiment), or
3. the artist's fear that art (or indeed everything) would be corrupted by greedy industrialists and their horrid mechanical devices... :)

You have presented some interesting points here.

Gord

ps:

re: "he was a creative genius, quite smart, good with the ladies and good at selling himself, and he grew to become very old and wise in the ways of the world"
- Hey.. Whats not to like about that!!! :D

ashakarc
05-20-2005, 05:43 PM
Well, let's not take the quote by its tail. The quote by itself is very provocative, not strange to Picasso's style. It has two distinct parts. The first part declares the utilitarian vaccum of computers, by itself it sounds shallow right? but the second part of the quote it admits its functional advantage and usefullness by acknowledging it provide answers. What did he want to say really?

We are talking about a world class creative individual. I sense in this quote that he acknowledges the capacity of computers to provide answers, which by itself is huge. There is a flare of sarcasim manifested between the two halves of the quote. But, what is he really saying, which I find truly inspirational is that the ability to put a question forward requires creativity, reasoning and it is a higher form of intellectualism. What is the use of an answer if the question is inferior? The quote is much more complicated than what one would think.

The metaphysical query of artwork is centered around the 'question' not the 'answer'. In other words, Modernists, who inherited the Carteisian reductionism (Descartes, Newton, et al) sought the existence revolved around 'thinking'.

On the same note, the famous quote by Descartes "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think, therefore I am" has this similar contradiction inherent within. The first part of the quote recognizes the "I" that thinks, which eliminated the need to conclude existence. It sounds silly, but it isn't.

The question could be straight if it is based on simple requests, but questioning needs complexity to give depth and wider possibilites for possible answers.

THECLYKE
05-20-2005, 05:44 PM
Kinda Thinking About It He dId Have A Hot Model Around Him All The Time :)
But Still.....i Think He'ed Hate All The Beginers Appear From All Over (via Internet) Egar To Learn And Emulate LOL



HEY SGT. SLAUGHTER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT

1000101
05-20-2005, 05:50 PM
It's just easier to read when everything is lowercase.

To the subject at hand; even today computers just provide answers. It doesn't create things for us or anything along those lines. We still have to tell it what to do and it does it.

I think the deeper meaning is that the computer is not creative in nature.

THECLYKE
05-20-2005, 05:58 PM
It's just easier to read when everything is lowercase.

I think the deeper meaning is that the computer is not creative in nature.




GREAT POINTS

Gord-MacDonald
05-20-2005, 06:55 PM
But, what is he really saying, which I find truly inspirational is that the ability to put a question forward requires creativity, reasoning and it is a higher form of intellectualism. What is the use of an answer if the question is inferior? The quote is much more complicated than what one would think.

The metaphysical query of artwork is centered around the 'question' not the 'answer'. In other words, Modernists, who inherited the Carteisian reductionism (Descartes, Newton, et al) sought the existence revolved around 'thinking'.

On the same note, the famous quote by Descartes "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think, therefore I am" has this similar contradiction inherent within. The first part of the quote recognizes the "I" that thinks, which eliminated the need to conclude existence. It sounds silly, but it isn't.

The question could be straight if it is based on simple requests, but questioning needs complexity to give depth and wider possibilites for possible answers.

This is a very thoughtful post. I think you hit the nail on the head, in recognizing the importance of seeking knowledge through query.

(Earlier in this thread I commented that "We are by nature, reflective creatures. We are driven by a creative urge to ask questions." - I think we are pretty much on the same page with this one.

Where I would tend to part company, is in considering the 'question' to be of a strictly intellectual nature - (and those intellectual developments were very important).

Expressionists artworks (I am not refering to a particular art movement here , but rather to an artistic predisposition) address the human condition, from an emotive vantage point, with some very powerful results. Goyas "The Third of May, 1808: The Execution of the Defenders of Madrid", Munchs "Scream", and of course Picassos "Guernica" - just to name a few.

Note: The examples I have given above are not to suggest that these artists works were purely emotive, the intellectual and emotive do often converge.


Gord

ashakarc
05-20-2005, 07:29 PM
Thanks Gord ,

Let me comment on the expressionist way of producing art. If, and only if this type of work is inspired by emotions, it cannot sustain itself as a sole emotion when manifested. Without the intellect, emotions are manifested in less complicated ways as in laughing, crying, smiling, frowning, etc..The 'intellect' of the artist conveys the emotion through her/his work to the receiver by means of intellect. What differentiates the artist from the non-artist is the ability to express complex emotions inquired by the need and will to do so.

Edit: Artists are intellectuals in their own means, not dummy brainless apes able to paint fantastic works based on the most "noble" emotive powers. The stereotyping of artists as emotionally advanced persons is why most people don't take them seriously. Artists superiority is in their intellectual powers to read the human condition, and write it. Computers don't do this :curious:

eks
05-21-2005, 01:23 AM
Paint brushes are useless--they can only hold small amount of paint.

Ovens are useless--they can only generate heat.

Pianos are useless--they can only generate various tones of a single timbre.

If Picasso lived today, he'd have to eat his own words.

<SARCASM MODE>
Human beings are useless--they just sit in a couch and stare to a screen.

Life is useless--itīs just a bunch of physical and chemical reactions in organic cells.
</SARCASM MODE>

and i canīt resist

<SARCASM MODE++>
Art is useless--itīs just an expression of a being aimed at feeding his/her own ego.
</SARCASM MODE++>



eks

PS: please, DO MIND THE TAGS :)

xmarek
05-21-2005, 03:54 AM
I think that, more important than being able to analise data and "think", the computer isnt able to "feel". In other words, it has 'no soul'. As some people here stated: traditional people express their feelings laughing, crying, etc. The artist will be 'literate' enough to express these emotions in another way: using tools to create his art. And the computer, on the other hand, still doesnt have any feelings. It isnt even close to be able to think by itself yet. Imagine, then, having a soul or feelings to be expressed. Therefore, the computers are still just another useful (or useless :) ) tool.

Sil 369
05-22-2005, 09:03 AM
Photoshop, Painter, Maya etc are useless tools, unless weilded by intelligent, creative, artistic individuals.The paint brush is a basic static, unchanging tool (no?). These PC programs are changing and updating. They aren't static. Developers are continuously automating certain tasks in them so you don't spend too much time trying to figure out how to create such and such effect. They "make" us filters and macros. I wish they make a paintbrush with a button so when I press it, it lays out and paints a Mona Lisa for me on paper. :)

I guess that's why these programs become useless. It gets too easy to make something/art. The artist has a role/responsibility to resist them - creativity is something that evolves, it happens over time. Machines eleminate that, they can be interpretated as being shortcuts to artmaking. We lose that appreciation of time, it "amputates" us (McLuhan ;)).

(But imagine this ... let's just picture if in the history of art, machines/computers came first. If all art where made with them (Parthenon, Pyramids, David, Mona, etc). And then later on, pen and paint arrived, traditional art. How would people perceive artmaking this way?)

Ok I'm just babbling now. I guess I'm not sure if I disagree or agree with you on this comment. Maybe a little of both. I think it depends on what the creative artist can do versus what Photoshop can't (that it requires updates). Sorry if I'm not making that much sense here. :argh:

Interesting topic tho.

Laeng
05-22-2005, 11:18 AM
There are more than 6 million people on this planet. Every one of them has a different opinion of what is usefull, what has a meaning. May it be objects, thoughts, ideas.

No one can claim that his way of thinking and giving importance to things is the right one, thoug some people do. But we are in fact only constructing a network of use and opinions.

The only one who could realy say that an object has some kind of inherent importance would be someone/something like god (no matter wich religion). And as far as I know, he didnīt talk about that subject yet.

Lunatique
05-22-2005, 11:26 AM
There are more than 6 million people on this planet.

Wow, we have an alien among us! :eek: Welcome to planet earth! Your planet must be about the size of our moon. On planet earth, we have over 6 billion people--that must seem like a lot to someone that came from such a tiny planet. :D (Just playing with you.)

zudo
05-22-2005, 02:58 PM
pcaso's dead... does it really matter?

Yes, because it influences people today, me thinks that if picasso was here, in this time period (like if he lived to this time period) he would approve of the paint programs but disapprove of most of the filters and things, becase it is just a computer math problem and really your doing, but me thinks he wouldn't mind taking a walcom tablet, opening photoshop and drawing, as long as he doesn't see the filters.

Gord-MacDonald
05-22-2005, 03:26 PM
pcaso's dead... does it really matter?

His work and legacy aren't..

Gord

Ghiangelo
05-22-2005, 05:11 PM
Paint brushes are useless--they can only hold small amount of paint.

Ovens are useless--they can only generate heat.

Pianos are useless--they can only generate various tones of a single timbre.

If Picasso lived today, he'd have to eat his own words.

u forgot one:

Money is useless - it can't buy you love

Kanga
05-23-2005, 01:28 AM
Hey jm, I hope you are joking, you are talking about a man who kept painting until the last day of his life, and he was 90+.

Jeez was he that slow?

Justa kiddin!

G.I.G.O. Was a favorite credo in the early 80's,... it stood for 'Garbage In Garbage Out' which is still true today.

Gord-MacDonald
05-23-2005, 04:05 AM
G.I.G.O. Was a favorite credo in the early 80's,... it stood for 'Garbage In Garbage Out' which is still true today.

Actually - it is still taught today - I think it is a 'timeless truth'

Gord

erilaz
05-23-2005, 04:25 AM
Deep thought: "42". :D

ajchung
05-23-2005, 03:30 PM
I don't know just how primitive computers were in Picasso's days, but if they had the ability to at least crunch some numbers, then they are definitely useful for the right people.

Consider the state of computing in the 1960's (http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/1960-And-Beyond-Advent-of-Micros.htm):
No personal computers -- that wouldn't happen until the late 1970's at the earliest. Only medium to large labs could afford mini-computers such as the PDP series (http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/%7Ejones/pdp8/history.html). However as early as 1963, Dr. Douglas Engelbart had already demonstrated a system that used a mouse as a pointing device. But it was not until 1973 that the graphical user interface was developed, featuring windows, icons, menus and pointers. And not until the 1980's did graphical interfaces finally become available to consumers (albeit wealthy ones) on microcomputers.

jmBoekestein
05-23-2005, 06:14 PM
Deep thought: "42". :D

:scream:How many times will I have to stress...the bl**d* answer is 47...:wise:I know it's difficult to compreh...*

Ghostscape
05-25-2005, 05:05 PM
Taken generally, the quote is saying that tools don't matter, only people, because people are creative, etc. Very nice. :thumbsup:...:rolleyes:

Computers are a tool, and tools are useful. Anyone who would like to argue that they aren't needs a swift kick in the rear.

CGTalk Moderation
05-25-2005, 05:05 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.