
The Rise Of The Artist - Vervious
http://techgnotic.deviantart.com/journal/The-Rise-Of-The-Artist-You-Are-The-Future-356840683
======
angrycoder
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.

~~~
sliverstorm
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?

~~~
Nav_Panel
>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.

------
egypturnash
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!)

~~~
dhimes
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.

~~~
egypturnash
_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".

 _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?_

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.

~~~
dhimes
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.

------
qzxt
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.

~~~
gnosis
_"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.

~~~
qzxt
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.

~~~
gnosis
_"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.

~~~
kenjackson
_"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.

------
mtowle
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.

------
amasad
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.

------
blackhole
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.

~~~
andyfleming
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.

~~~
blackhole
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.

------
Ixiaus
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.

------
nine_k
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.

------
stuffihavemade
"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.

~~~
_Simon
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.

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

~~~
_Simon
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.

------
zdw
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?

------
mathgladiator
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.

------
dylangs1030
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.

------
obviouslygreen
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.

------
ThomasShaw
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.)

------
billwilliams
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.

~~~
disgruntledphd2
You can replace computers for X in that statement, where X is any field of
study, and it will still be true.

------
saraid216
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>

------
rplacd
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.

------
redschell
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.

------
coldtea
> _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.

------
paperkettle
"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.

------
wallflower
"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...](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/11/22/how-the-future-looks-
from-high-school/my-dreams-of-broadway)

~~~
yareally
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.

~~~
gnosis
_"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."

~~~
yareally
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.

------
adambom
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.

------
johnpowell
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.

~~~
obviouslygreen
"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.

~~~
johnpowell
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.

------
return0
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".

------
caster_cp
"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".

------
paulsutter
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".

~~~
Ixiaus
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.

------
gfodor
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.

------
tharshan09
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.

------
nessus42
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.

------
zeruch
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.

------
rblion
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?

------
magicalhobo
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/>

------
unimpressive
>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.

------
DJN
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>

------
hangsi
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.

------
stormbrew
Or learn how to code in order to produce a wider range of art.

------
melling
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.

------
oakenclast
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.

------
woadwarrior01
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?

~~~
groby_b
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_.

------
chatmasta
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.

------
arikrak
"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..

------
unimpressive
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'.

------
nswanberg
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>

------
happypeter
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.

------
saddino
No. Learn to code and draw and write and play an instrument. They are all the
same thing really.

------
moultano
Why not learn both?

------
TeeWEE
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.

------
metaphorical
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.

------
scott_s
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.

------
lquist
New products can only created by those who have the toolsets to create them.

------
SamuelKillin
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.

------
tikhonj
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!

------
SCAQTony
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

------
GhotiFish
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.

------
zelvenskiy
What about both? <http://ellatoons.quora.com/>

------
miga
Except that nowadays creativity develops best when you are proficient in
programming!

------
swayvil
Yknow, to hell with "making stuff". Do you really want do dance with dead
crap?

------
xelfer
What websites do people here suggest if one did want to learn to draw?

~~~
somethingbad
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://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?870-Journey-of-an-
Absolute-Rookie-Paintings-and-Sketches)

<http://www.deviantart.com/>

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

~~~
xelfer
Thanks!

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

~~~
AskHugo
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?

~~~
gnosis
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.

------
wildgift
why not do both?

