Martin's Minutes - Joe

#1

Joe: “I can’t get enough softness with the ‘weight’ control.”
Martin: “I wanted to name that the ‘pea’ control because only a real princess can tell the difference.”

There are a million ways you could take that. . .

And I probably shouldn’t rush to judgement. . . but . . . Damn.

When an artist like Joe Williamson takes time out to try and walk you through how he thinks would improve your renderer. . . would you then go and openly poke fun at his attempts to put into words aesthetic qualities!?!

Yes Momentum makes TV adds. Yes people submit art to the Hash contests. But only on the RARE occasion has any of this work been anything I’d call “awesome”.

Martin has taken time out to have a little dig at probably one of the few remaining “Awesom” AM artists left.

:shame:
[

#2

Here is the full text. There is nothing that I read that even hints at anything but respect for Joe. Not sure what you saw in it–

There’s a group of A:M users who we fondly refer to as “Hash fellows”, (which is slightly different than the common on-line greeting of “Fellow hashers”.) Hash fellows significantly contribute to our success, each in their own way. Some fellows are teachers, others are technically proficient, but most fall under the category of “artist”. Artists can be identified by the fact that they talk with subjective, immeasurable adjectives like “soft” and “flow”, and their self-assurance that they can run our business better than we can. Joe Williamson is definitely an artist – a good one.

Joe and I exchange emails occasionally.

Joe: “Art is like a beautiful woman – you can’t describe it but you know it when you see it.” Martin: “Well, then let’s compare wives and see who’s the better artist.”

Joe: “I can’t get enough softness with the ‘weight’ control.”
Martin: “I wanted to name that the ‘pea’ control because only a real princess can tell the difference.”

Joe: “What do you think of the flow of this image I’ve been working on?”
Martin: “Joe, here’s a quote from an email I sent to a customer asking why the renderer wasn’t more awesome:
‘Awesome is the art entered into the A:M contest every month. Awesome are the TV commercials done by Momentum Studios with A:M. Awesome is the huge library of art created by A:M. A:M’s renderer is certainly awesome. Maybe you’re thinking it should be ‘fantabulistic’ or ‘superduperwuper’. Renderers with those qualities are so good you can masturbate to them. We’d rather our customers use both their hands for animating, so we’ll settle for awesome.’

Joe’s image was fantabulistic.

#3

Binder: He is all but saying that Joe belongs to a class of users that is far too ambiguous and picky to make any sense to him.

He is saying that if the renderer is good enough for Momentum to do TV commercials. . . then its “Awesom” and thats all they want.

I can’t be the only one who is seeing this. . .

#4

Yeah, I was kind of scratching my head at this as well. I think in Martin’s world he is paying Joe a compliment, but dang it really does come off kind of bad. Martin is an admited techie guy that doesn’t really ‘get’ artists so I wouldn’t rush to a harsh judgement too quickly. Besides if Martin didn’t respect Joe’s opinions, then he sure the heck wouldn’t have been listening to Joe and the rest of the Avalanche guys so much these last few months. Be really interested in how Joe thinks it sounds. Somehow I’m guessing Joe is used to Martin being such a, what’s a nice way to say this, strange bird.

#5

I think Martin-while I think is a amazing programmer-is a bit tilted! :> A friend of mine is a very talented programmer to. When he says something nice-I always have to rethink it! :> They see things weirder than we do. Thats why I dont think Martin was slamming Joe-but there are other ways for Martin to say that Joe is awesome! ;> But Id love to hear what Joe thinks since he was there! lol :>

#6

I’ve never really understood Martin’s Minutes. They basically seem to consist of Martin saying the exact opposite of what the owner of any company should be saying. Many of his comments could be construed as offensive & bitter, but I think he’s just trying to be humorous. Not my kind of humor, but… :shrug:

#7

Ok I went back and re-read it. The part that got me was this–

\Artists can be identified by the fact that they talk with subjective, immeasurable adjectives like “soft” and “flow”, and their self-assurance that they can run our business better than we can\

After reading that it does sound kind weird. Not really a slam but a real head scratcher. I think Martin is way to defensive and needs to realax sometimes. Not everyone is telling him how to run his business!!! :>

So Joe whats the scoop???

#8

So Billy, you’ve spoken to Martin in the past. Is he has weird as he comes off in his Minutes?

BTW, I shot Joe an email to see what he thought. Considering how busy those guys have been on Tak lately, hopefully he’ll chime in and give us the scoop.

#9

Well this whole thing would have whiffed by me had not Nicco given me a heads up…

I’m not offended by what Martin wrote - not at all - in fact, I was chuckling while reading the whole thing. It’s funny because I remember the conversations he paraphrased, and it was interesting to read what he “heard” vs. what I thought I said.

I think he was paying me a compliment in his own way - and since I’ve been e-mailing him back and forth (and usually setting him off :slight_smile: I’ve gotten to know him better - or at least we’ve come to some sort of rudimentary understanding.

I know that we (artists) frustrate the hell out of him because we can’t quantify what exactly we want (30% more green, 22% less bloom, etc, etc). Subjective is definitely not Martin’s forte - but he knows that he needs the kind of feedback we give him if he wants to change the software in ways that appeal to artists. A lot of times, I pass my ideas through Yves Poissant and let him interpret them into “Engineerese” - so that I don’t make TOO little sense to Martin.

Just so everyone knows, Martin is still working on the renderer - we’ve been working back and forth on a number of issues - sometimes things are getting broken, sometimes they’re looking better, sometimes… well, not so much better - but he’s trying - and that’s a HUGE improvement from a year or two ago…

Thanks for all the compliments, guys - I’m flattered!

JoeW

#10

Originally posted by JoeW
[B]I know that we (artists) frustrate the hell out of him because we can’t quantify what exactly we want (30% more green, 22% less bloom, etc, etc). Subjective is definitely not Martin’s forte - but he knows that he needs the kind of feedback we give him if he wants to change the software in ways that appeal to artists. A lot of times, I pass my ideas through Yves Poissant and let him interpret them into “Engineerese” - so that I don’t make TOO little sense to Martin.

[/B]

Thanks, Joe! Confirms what I’ve suspected and said here a short while back. They need to be shown the problems with suggested remedies. It’s the quickest way to get the problems solved. Martin is a programmer, not an artist. His realm is more math than art. I’ve worked with many engineer types over the years…some have artistic bents, many don’t. The good ones listen to the creative types to help figure out what they have to do to get the job done. But you have to have a good BS detector going so you don’t get steered wrong. I straddle the line a bit in different things I do, so I can relate to what is going on. We’re all a bit eccentric anyway! Some more than others…

When I was working on our first and second station websites, before First MediaWorks signed a multi-station deal, the Marketing/Promotion Manager in charge was always telling me how this would look better or that would look better. But I had to do it first. No amount of explaining or diagramming would help. She had to see it. Our big boss had to see it, too. Pretty common in the world. She as well could not explain how she wanted it to look exactly. Just what she didn’t want and what she did like. Implementing it was tough as she has a long print/design background and the limitations of website design (then especially)were frustrating for her (for instance, she hates the way fonts look in browsers but had to face the reality that most folks around here were on dial-up and web newbies, too, with no flash installed, etc.). She was more the artistic type while I was more the technical type (with some creative) in those endeavors. But compromises and extra effort got the job done to everyone’s satisfaction.

I’ve gotten used to the comment…“I’ll know it when I see it” or “hear it.” Heard those for many years.

Another way I look at it…as an announcer/voice artist, and engineer/producer, I have to interpret a writer’s idea and bring it to life. Many times that is hard to bring forth. Rarely does someone translate the written word exactly the way a writer heard it in his or her head. I’ve worked as a producer directing and coaching voice talent as well with scripts not written by me. Many times interpretation is subjective. You can get a script and read it the best you can, pick great music and the client or writer still thinks it sucks. Or they can think it’s great and you thought it was a mediocre job at best. It’s so natural to me now that I don’t let it bother me as much as it used to 10, 20 or 30 years ago. I’ve gotten more used to approaching the process from the technician’s view along with the creative’s view. I also understand that you can’t please everyone, nor should you. It brings peace. :wink:

The division between the left and right brains will always be there. Some understand that more easily than others, but we should always be open to understanding that not everyone can see or hear things as we each individually do. When we can make clear what we are looking for, that’s when we can make progress and it looks like this process is bearing fruit: a better A:M!

[B]

Just so everyone knows, Martin is still working on the renderer - we’ve been working back and forth on a number of issues - sometimes things are getting broken, sometimes they’re looking better, sometimes… well, not so much better - but he’s trying - and that’s a HUGE improvement from a year or two ago…

Thanks for all the compliments, guys - I’m flattered!

JoeW [/B]

Great news, Joe, and keep up the great work!

Kevin

#11

When I read the Martin’s minute about Joe, I thought Martin was paying a huge compliment to Joe. The idea that Martin was having a dig at Joe never crossed my mind. Hat off to you, Joe, for taking the time to document and report your observations and for having the patience to go over the frustration of talking over the art/engineer cultural gulf.

In my job, I have to continually do the translation between artist “soft” descriptions and engineers “hard” descriptions. I’m a educational product designer and project manager in a multimedia company. I have to work with team of peoples which consisting of artists, authors and programmers and I am the one which does the translation from the artist POV to the engineer POV and vice-versa. Not an easy task and I often find that when nobody is there to do the translation, both camp tend to cristalize their positions and flay the other camp positions. Two cultures clashing.

As an example, We once had a project where the artist was constantly complaining about the bad composition and tonal balance of the application. The programmer didn’t have a clue as to what the artist was refering to. I took the time with the programmer to explain composition using space partitioning principles and tonal balance using RGB to HSV transformations. Then we took the golden ratio as a rule for partitioning the space and for selecting colors on the SHV wheel. The programmer got really excited about programming those principles. This eventually produced an automatic page layout system with which everybody was comfortable. We even used the result for an art education product where painting composition is explained.

I can do the translation because I define myself as an artist who learned to love programming. I see programming just like another form of art. And in the past, I enjoyed programming 3D applications and Neural Networks. When I report a problem, I try to break it into its engineered constituents and isolate the particular part which seems broken and describe it in a kind of “inner working” jargon.

I recently discovered a problem with ray-traced soft shadows in the beta. Instead of subjectively reporting that the soft shadow is “not soft enough”, I built a simple scene, designed explicitly to isolate the problem and then sent a complete objective mathematical analysis with illustration of what I was observing. The next day, Martin had corrected the problem which was a coumpound of 3 bugs. I had the same experience with reporting an antialising bug.

If you can report problem in a very precise “engineering” way, than my experience is that the problem will be corrected quickly. But communication will not pass between the artists who “never could add two number together” and an engineer who “never could draw a staright line” because they live in two different universe.

As an ending note, I would like to sort of counter balance the impression that Martin is such and such. I’ve been exchanging e-mail with Martin for several months and find him a nice guy with a real sense of humour. He’s a damn quick programmer too. In short, my experience with Martin seems to be very different than what I generally read here.

Yves

#12

That’s great to hear Yves. Martin and crew has certainly done a super job with 10.5. It gets better and better with each update.

It’s still a shame that Martin has been so stubborn in the past with artists. He seems to think we all want to, as he puts it, “run his company”, which just isn’t true. I know people have tried for years to make suggestions but Martin kept throwing out the hobbyist line as an excuse for changing things. Too bad all this didn’t happen a few years ago. Maybe we wouldn’t have lost so many talented artists like the Eggington crew to other apps. I’m sure some of that was due to the different cultures. Still, I’m glad we have folks like Joe and your self (and others!) who are willing to take their own time to help Hash out and nudge them in the direction that a lot of us would like to see the software go.

Who knows, maybe someday we can even get Billy and crew to come back and take a spin in the old Hash camaro again :thumbsup:

#13

Great going, Yves!

What you’ve done is just what I was talking about months ago. A:M experts making positive efforts using specific, detailed examples to show why something is not as good as it should be and doing it so Martin and the rest could get it.

With you, JoeW and others who have the knowledge, skill and ability to communicate what is needed, this is obviously bringing results. This is much better than basic bug reports.

With all the back and forth I’ve seen and heard over the years, I figured it had to be some kind of miscommunication or lack of communication for some users to feel it wasn’t working and how Hash, Inc. felt it was. I always knew there were honest opinions on both ends, there was just a wide gulf between positions needing some kind of bridge. You guys are that bridge.

Kevin

#14

Originally posted by My Fault
Who knows, maybe someday we can even get Billy and crew to come back and take a spin in the old Hash camaro again :thumbsup:

Ya never know. Its highly unlikely but ya never know.

#15

Originally posted by Wegg
Ya never know. Its highly unlikely but ya never know.

Maybe if we all chip in and fill the trunk with your favorite iced beverage! :thumbsup:

Ah well, at least the PmG guys are putting all the Eggington brainpower to good use, it’s a shame Hash didn’t take better advantage!

#16

I agree, MyFault…

Wegg, it would be great to see you guys back with it, but I understand if it takes time. Never say never…

Kevin

#17

Just a lurker here that wants to thank you guys for the insight. Being an engineer myself, the observations suddenly makes a lot of psychology fall into place! I always thought that Martin was a convert to programming rather than a convert to art… never know how I got that impression.

It also explains about a lot about the quirks of A:M and the reason it never evolved to sub-divisions and such.

It also gives me some new thoughts on how to formulate my bug submissions for better response.

Bjorn

#18

… that what Martin posted in jest about his relationship with Joe, happened to Wegg, but for real.

  • Raist
#19

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.