A more serious training..

I am getting more serious about my drawing skills training / learning in past few weeks.
Although I did not do very well in my watercolor courses in January (and I do accept I did not put enough time on it), it bought me close to my near and dear skill.. drawing..
After re-reading my books, on figure drawing, I am getting more attracted towards the classical way of studying drawing. My current aim is to first do very well in drawing, before moving to the next medium. It is kind of encouraging to learn that even in classical ateliers, students spend more than an year first in drawing. So its not a bad idea to focus on it till I master the medium very well.
One of the most important thing to learn is that even the professional masters spend a lot of time in a single drawing. Breaking it up into smaller 2/3 hour chunks and working on it for weeks.
The idea is to work on details, and redo the parts till they are perfect (ie. use the eraser without a guilt feeling :-) ). I did try this and my first study has been a good success. The main thing I learnt is that if I spend more time and focus on details, like drapery and hair, they turn into pretty interesting things and add a lot to the overall impression of drawing. The hair and clothes look pretty boring when I try to complete the whole sketch in 1/2 hours.
So here is the result of my first study.. A cast drawing of a sculpture by Rodin. I plan to do many such casts..

The separate ways of traditional art and 3D computer graphics

Another recent post of mine on goodart

Hello,
Having some amount of interest in both art and computer graphics, I find it surprising that the two fields follow quite separate paths even though they have a lot in common. Computer Graphics theory is seen to be almost rediscovering a lot of concepts and learnings that were already discovered by the great masters. On the other hand I feel, the classical atelier type of study could benefit from using 3d modeling applications as "tools" to assist learning the form and affect of light on it as it provides a faster way to move around both 3d objects and lights in different ways to see different combinations of light and shade.

Part of the difference lies in the fact that computer graphics community is made up of two very separate roles for individuals. The application developers, who are well trained in 3d solid/surface concepts as well as the light theory, and the 3d artists, who are well trained in using the applications to produce stills and animations. Whereas in traditional art, both these roles are combined into a single person, the painter.

Here is a long list of observations. They are all separate bullet points that I am unable to put together in a good way :
1. Painting is considered art while graphics is considered science. Although I believe both are somewhere in the middle.
2. The basic principles of light are introduced in more approximate and practical ways in art books (in order to shade by hand), while they are taught as a collection of separate physical formulas (that can be written as mathematical equations). Although these separate ways are good for task at hand, I feel each of these books could borrow from each other. New art books could have a page devoted to three types of light effects (ambient, diffuse and specular), while the graphics books could devote a page on how the three effects would look in a combined and way, like the classical sphere made up of highlight/midtones/shadow/reflected light and cast shadow.
3. In recent years, there is a lot of discussion in computer graphics community about a "newly" discovered concept called subsurface scattering that would make the rendering of skin and marble more realistic !!
I believe this concept of light scattering below the surface was well known to great masters as can be observed in their renditions of skin and marble in paintings. If only the graphics scientists would have read a bit about these and the methods used to render these effects they could have benefited a lot earlier. (I think it is produced by painting a lot of thin layers of paint one above another, that can in a way 'trap' the light and scatter it),
4. I feel the online communities and discussions go totally separate ways in both the communities. When I visit the graphics communities I see, that the artists trying to learn anatomy are searching for information, and happy with some cheap books/dvds that are not accurate or well drawn.
There are many such instances, which I could crystallize to put in words.. I will keep adding them as I become more aware...

Finally, let me confess that while I am interested in both, I am more affectionate towards painting than graphics. I consider that as of today, the organic forms (portraits/figures/landscapes) produced by hand are much more accurate and also pleasing to eye than the ones produced using graphics applications. :-)
Yet I do feel that some use of graphics applications as tools for learning (I am not talking about producing art on computer) could help in reducing the learning time for the concepts that are learned by observation alone.

I would like to give some pointers for some freely available (open-source) graphics programs that I found quite interesting.
1. Blender is a modeling software. I warn that it has a steep learning curve, but I believe it won't be that much of a problem for trying out a composition of basic shapes and lighting.
2. Makehuman is a program for modeling 3d humanoid characters. I warn that the quality of models produced is far below the standards found in classical paintings. However, this is the best way of producing some forms and posing them the way you want quickly. While this cannot replace live models, it does give us an easy way of trying different poses quickly. It could serve as preliminary homework, before actual live model sessions, and probably an easy way to decide on a new pose that we expect from the model.
3. Inkscape is a 2D drawing program. The advantage I see here is the ability to 'modify' the lines in our line drawing !!. We normally draw lines and erase and draw new ones, if we are not satisfied with curvature. However, if we have the ability to modify the curvature *interactively*, it could serve as a good tool for learning the aspects of line shapes and curvatures.

Differential skills & quality depending on medium & subject.

One of my recent post on goodart discussion group

I find that I have a vast difference between the quality of art produced
depending on the medium I use and the subjects that I draw. Has anybody
observed this ? Is this common among artists ?
1. I am good at portraits & figures, but bad at landscapes
2. I am good with pencils & pastels, but bad with watercolors
3. I am good drawing complex surfaces of a single object
(portraits/figures), but am not so good at
drawing a composition of simple objects (eg. a sketch of a living room)
4. I find myself to be better at drawing figures in watercolor than
drawing landscapes with the same medium.
5. I find that drawing comes very naturally to me without any training
(except for reading a lot of books), but I
can't paint well in watercolors in spite of a lot of training.

I have following questions.
1. Have you observed this quite often among fellow artists, yourselves
or your students ?
2. I want to start doing portraits/figures in oil, but I am in mixed
minds. Are oils more close to pastels, or watercolor in terms of
execution ? On one hand, I am afraid I won't do well as I haven't been
good with watercolors, but on the other hand I feel, it might be ok,
since it is possible to do lot of corrections and layers with oil.

Note that I am an amateur, doing portraits as a hobby. So probably I
haven't put enough time in the other mediums as required.

On Painting and Poetry

I was thinking about the parallels between painting and poetry and it struck me that drawing and painting skills are much like the ability to write. The main content of the painting is in its composition, the visual elements laid out in visual language. This is the reason why probably the xerox machines and type writers did not affect poetry much like the way photography affected painting.
Major portion of the drawing and painting skills includes the basic skills, but this part in poetry is almost covered by age of 5. People learn to write letters and words by then, and then the next upgrade is when a person learns to use those words to compose a set of lines that also rhyme.
It should also be noted that in case of painting, the basic drawing skills are very important, whereas in poetry it really doesn't matter whether the poet's handwriting is good, or he/she may even do-away with writing and use a keyboard instead.
A good classical painting requires, the natural/real forms to be composed in a poetic manner, much like poetry requires using a good set of rhyming words. When the poetry does away with rhyming or uses a lot of liberty and stretches words to fit, or makes meaningless sentences, it turns into an equivalent of abstract painting. An abstract painting is like using garbled, invented and nonsense words to create a poem which doesn't even rhyme.
Anyways, the bottom line is, however difficult the initial drawing skills are, it is only when an artist learns them and makes a leap towards the composition, that he/she will be unaffected by photography. Because composition in painting, like composing a poem is something that the new technology (photography, computers) is not able to do very well on its own.

Subsurface scattering with watercolors

While reading and experimenting with characteristics of watercolors, I realized it could be a good medium to demonstrate the effect of subsurface scattering in painted pictures. The transparent layer of watercolor will allow the scattering of light on the paper, which will be finally reflected back. However, this scattering will be at a 'macro' level as the roughness of paper will be much larger than what would be expected for the figure represented on the paper. Maybe we could use some medium to put in a 'finer' roughness on paper and then apply the transparent colors.

This may not be a new idea. I bet many artists must be doing something similar. This thought is just to marry the concepts in traditional art and 3d computer graphics.

Thought Buddies

While going through people with similar books on librarything and the profile details on blogger, a thought crossed my mind. Is it possible that two very unrelated people (genetically) would have exactly same 'set' of interests ?
I do know people with similar interests. These pairs are plenty. But what I mean here is two people having exact same set of books, with no single book held by a single person in the pair that is missing with other. Two people having exact same interests/hobbies, with none of them having a unique interest/hobby missing in another.
Well, there are such possibilities if you have limited interests and limited books, but it becomes very difficult if you have large number of interests & hobbies and a large collection of books.

So here is my list of interests.. is my thought buddy somewhere out there ?
[Note : to qualify as a thought buddy, you should have already written exactly similar article on your blog :-) or at least thought about it]

My Profile:
Very good skills/interests : Drawing, Sketching, Portraits, Pastels, Web Designing, Web Programming (AJAX like techs), Brain-storming, thinking creative ideas, Smart Ariel Mapping*, Scene Recall** .
Good Skills/Interests : Figure Drawing, Programming, Blog/Article Writing, Psychology, Book collecting (esp Art Books), Smart Browsing***. . Photography
Deep interests, but havn't yet developed good skills : Painting (Oil & Watercolor), 3D Modelling / Texturing / Rendering, 3D Scripting, Shader Scripting,
Extremely bad at : Music / Understanding Music, Understanding /Comprehending Lyrics of music.

These are my definitions of the skill names that I just invented :-)

Smart Mapping* : I would define 'Smart Mapping' as ability to quickly find a location from Ariel satellite maps (google maps) without reading road/place names. [For example, if you are landing/taking-off in an airplane, you are able to recognize your house/area/road very quickly in the brief moment that the plane passes over it]

Scene Recall** : Being able to view a half a second clip from movie *without* seeing the actor/actress faces (ie only seeing objects such as a cycle, a car) and being able to recall the movie name. This quality also creates lot of Deja-Vu moments in normal life. I frequently experience moments that I feel I have already experience. There is nothing paranormal about it, it is just that I am able to recognize a certain 'bite' of a moment and I recall a similar moment that happened earlier that had exact same 'bite'.

Smart Browsing*** : An ability to quickly find information on web, which cannot be easily found by google - OR - Being able to specify good set of keywords to search on google (or other search engine) - OR - Knowing information portal sites to quickly find info (like wikipedia, wikimapia) etc. Note: I would extend this to ability to quickly find an item in supermarket, without prior knowledge of where it is normally stored. Also, being able to quickly find a book in a huge library, without actually going through normal library systems/indexes etc.


....
To take the concept further, it might be a good idea to take this set of skills/interests and be able to create a unique code for it, and then post these codes somewhere on internet, where somebody is looking for exactly same set of skills.

For example, is there somebody looking for a good programmer, with excellent web designing & programming skills, who is also good at drawing and portraits and has lot of creative ideas ? If so, you could contact me :-)

--update on 29th Jan
Although not quite exactly the same as I want, I have found a similar way of classification that already exists :
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
This typography test is general, rather than about specific skills, interests and hobbies

Computers and Classical Art

Classical / Academic art has gone out of fashion while the abstract expressionism is gaining popularity. I do love classical art and appreciate the efforts by groups like ArtRenewal who are trying to revive it.
I was wondering how modern technology could help the classical art. What tools would Leonardo use if he would be brought in modern age through some time-machine.
Well here are my thoughts :
1. 3D modeling programs (eg Blender, Wings3D) could be used to learn form/light/colors better.
2. Complex 3D surfaces (Bezier surfaces, NURBS) used to create an ideal human form. Try finding the new magic numbers in NURBS for the perfect human form, just like the greek did use simple analytical geometry.
3. Better Sculpting through 3D programs. Use the sculpting modes of the programs to sculpt geometry just like in real life. However, the programs give more flexibility in terms of working only with surfaces (as opposed to volumes). No dependency on constant-volume of material, size etc.

While I think about this, I am sure that 3d programs and computers, would never match the possibilities, workability and complexity of real mediums. Painting in real watercolors gives a richer experience than painting on a PC using a tablet and Corel-Paint.
However, I feel computers could be used as teaching tools, initial study tools, and learning tools for the final art-work that will be done using physical mediums. They will just help us go one step ahead* of the great masters in understanding human form and finally painting / sculpting it better. If one can think of a human arm in terms of a mathematical complex surface, rather than a cylinder, it will give much richer experience.

Also, it might not be a bad idea to add 3d modelling programs as just another medium sitting beside pencils & pastels. Just like drawing is used as a study medium, as well as a final medium, 3d modellers could as well be used in similar fashion.

* Note : While I do see efforts by people to revive classical art, I don't see any mention anywhere about doing better than old masters. By 'better' I mean in the same classical sense, and I do not mean moving into abstract/modern art. I do see that some living classical artists have painted better than the old masters, but they are never appreciated in the same way as old-masters and recognized as being 'better'. This could be one of the reasons, why artists try to 'escape' into abstract medium.

Watercolors

I am doing a watercolor course right now. Here are some of my observations.

• Think colors : Knowledge of forms & volumes will make it difficult in the beginning to perceive in pure colors.
• Think 'Water' colors : Water is a major aspect of this medium. Should be used in abundance. The whole idea is to have a watery look.
• Simple blends to details : First put-in simple blends. For the techie type, this means, first pain in lower frequencies of an image (in terms of Fourier Transforms) and then go to higher frequencies.
  
• Controlled Chaos : Water colors are chaotic, but the end-result is also important. The chaotic brushwork should finally produce a well synthesized image.
• Give & Take : Its an error prone medium. The talent is to correct the errors or live around errors
• Shade in single color : Use a single color and create a gradation using more/less water.
• Shade in single strokes : When painting thinner elements like pipes/rods, a single brush stoke should show a gradation along the width of the pipe. The brush should have un-even paint on different sides
• Complex to simple : Any form of art is an effort to simplify/clarify/beautify/ a complex real picture. The artist makes a picture from reality 'easy to chew/digest' for a viewer and this gives the pleasure to the viewer. One way of doing this is to start with simple picture and add complexity to a required extent. Another way (possible with watercolors) is to start with complexity and simplify to required extent.

Selfish Gene & Selfish Patterns

Richard Dawkins' Selfish Genes & Selfish Memes (I read the part in The Mind's I: although a separate book with the same titlle is available) is an interesting and well formulated article (or story as it is called sometimes). It lays out the fundamental 'reasoning pattern' behind theory of evolution. While reading the article I sensed a back-story well hidden behind the main story. The back-story may or may not have been intentional (but that doesn't matter). The story is that of 'selfish patterns'.

Let me define 'pattern' as the way I see it. I quote from the article "The universe is populated by stable things. A stable thing is collection of atoms which is permanent enough or common enough to deserve a name". My 'pattern' includes - but is not limited to - the representation of this 'stable thing' in human mind. It also includes the concepts of genes and memes and many more. I would include non-physical concepts of reason, theories, laws, principles, algorithms (and memes), and physical concepts of animals, plants, rocks, cats, dogs, people (and genes). [Note: It is also possible that, what I mean by pattern is what Dawkins may have meant by memes. but I am not very sure..]

Patterns are the only way in which we can think. It is as fundamental to our way of thinking as ones and zeros are fundamental to working of a computer. The article talks of two concepts that are interesting in terms of patterns. The first concept is that of pre-programming done by genes (the Andromedans story) and the other concept is about 'simulation' (prediction) property of human mind. Both of these concepts are heavily based on pettern. A pattern is necessary to do a program and it is also a fundamental part of simulation. The simulation in human mind is unlike simulation in computers where different computations may be done on different inputs to simulate different outputs. The simulation in human mind is most probably related to pattern matching. The input (which itself is formed by pattern matching) is matched in different 'simulation patterns' to select the most appropriate simulation and then simulation pattern along with the input pattern generate an output pattern. This is how most likely the simulation in mind works. [I don't believe the brain would do number crunching to formulate an output.]

The 'pattern matching' biased human brain is probably not capable to think in a different way. So the reasoning behind 'Selfish Genes and Selfish Memes' is also heavily biased by thinking in terms of patterns. Instead of just reasoning like say : " A random set of atoms in universe million million years ago have changed their positions to form another random set of atoms in universe as of today ", we need to reason in terms of genes & species and animals and plants.
What I mean here is that we 'see' patterns (and only patterns) because we can think only in terms of patterns and not think in any other way. This is just similar to saying we see colors between range violet-red because we can see only in terms of those colors. Thus we seldom see 'non-patterns' in any given situation.

The 'selfish patterns' have taken control of human minds. The different varieties of these patterns are evolving in the human mind space. [Note the difference between patterns and memes here. Memes are occupying some space in human culture, whereas patterns are filling all the space in human visualizing and reasoning space]

So what are 'non-patterns' ? An explaination of non-patterns can probably explain what I mean by patterns. Let me give another story in terms of non-patterns, which may look funny or foolish, but it will explain what I mean. The story is made up of 'specific' entities and not a class of entities. It will contain ids (identifiers) for everything. Also, speaking in terms of non-patterns cannot be as brief as speaking about patterns. In fact if I recite the whole story, it would be so big that it cannot fit in all available space of all computers in the world. So I will give only some snapshots of the story. [Of course the story is random and thats what it is meant to be ]

In the begining there was a specific carbon atom. Lets call it c10254. ...c10254 was part of a primeval soup belonging to a shore of an ocean which is present day pacific ocean... As the 'replicators' were being formed, c10254 became part of replicator 35410... The replicator 35410 survived for long period in the soup and latter became part of the first cell of organism o530... Several million years latter c10254 was briefly part of the hind legs of a brontosaurus 456. It later became part of soil and survived being consumed by any organism for another million years... It was later consumed by a potato plant number 567. I ate that potato a few days ago and now c10254 is part of the tip of the finger with which I am typing.

The story looks meaningless without patterns in it, although it is a plausible story. This is what I mean by non-patterns.

[Another interesting thing that can come out of non-patterns story is that we can explain the evolution from other side. The non-organisms (like rocks, soil, water) can be actors in the story. They would be evolving to avoid being consumed by organisms (and thus loosing their non-organismness). The fittest non-organisms will survive. The non-organisms may be re-born from the waste and hides of dead organisms. well the possibilies are endless...]

Analysing Attrition

Attrition analysis is a common topic of discussion today. The managers sit down, brainstorm and bang their heads about why employees leave the company. They come up with various charts and figures to analyse attrition from the real data available. However inspite of all these metrices there is no way to predict or stop attrition.
Lets dig more into this.

While I agree there are several factors and constraints that may cause or stop attrition, such as salary issues, work culture, location constraints, legal constraints etc. I will discuss only on one factor. ie. a person's interest in work.

I am only going to re-visit the idea that says:
"A person's interest in his/her work holds him/her in a company, while a lack of interest in work may cause him/her to leave."

The above statement is just half true. In fact I find it almost opposite in may of the cases. The reason is that there is no proper definition of work.

Work could be termed as :
Technology / Skill / Domain (eg. 'C++ programming', 'software development', 'requirement analysis', 'web development) basically something that is not the IP of the company.
or it could be termed as :
Product / Service (eg. developing/maintaining product ABC. or providing service for XYZ ) which is basically a product/service of a comapany. Something which the person cannot find in other companies.

My theory is that, people stick to jobs either when they are interested in a specific product they are developing (although they may change teams) or when they are totally disinterested in the technology / field they work in.
They would frequently change jobs when they are interested in their domain / technology, but not in a specific product.

Here is an analogy related to cars :

Interest in specific:
If I am interested in cars and have a liking for a specific brand (say toyota), then depending on my capacity, I would change cars as frequent as I can, while sticking to the same brand. I may change to different models, or ugrade my models frequently. However I will be seen loyal to the brand. Same goes for a company. If I am interested in developing a specific product/service of the company, then I would stick to the company even though I might change groups and teams frequently. Still I will be considered loyal to the company.

Interest in generic:
If I am interested in cars in general and have no specific interest in a brand, I will keep changing my car models and car companies. Thus I may look disloyal to a brand, although my frequency of change is similar to the case of changing cars in a specific brand. I would appear to be disloyal to a brand. Similarly, if I am interest in a particular technology, I would keep changing jobs to find new avenues in the technology. In fact changing jobs is beneficial and keeps my interest. I would thus appear to be disloyal to a company.

No interest:
If I am not interested in cars at all, then I have several other things in life to worry about. I would not change the car as long as it is not giving be big trouble. If it goes without trouble (even though the maintainance is big expensive) I will go ahead with the same car. I may thus appear to be loyal to a specific car brand, although the reality is that I care less.
Similarly, if a person has other things more interesting in life and his/her job is not the most important thing in life, the person will carry on with the job.

If you think deeper the above three cases work for everything.. art, hobbies, cities you live in, houses you live in, books you read etc.

Forgetting fundaes

It is a common knowledge that if your fundaes (fundamental concepts) about a particular thing are clear, you do not forget it. I will dig deeper into this common knowledge.

First, let us re-check the meaning of above line. It could mean in different ways

P1. It may mean that when you have learned a concept and its fundamentals are clear, you would not forget the concept. eg. A mathematical formula, or a sorting algorithm.

P2. Or it could mean when you have learned a concept and its fundamentals are clear, you will have the ability to re-discover the concept in furture, even if you have forgotten it. For example, you could derive a mathematical formula or you could reconstruct an algorithm etc.

P1 is very superficial. I assume that most people realize it. What I mean is that fundaes of a thing being clear does not mean that you can recite a long formula or algorithm quickly whenever asked a long time in future.

P2 looks sensible, but this is where I would dig deeper. First lets see why ‘fundaes’ are anything special than normal memories. why would they remain intact while we forget other things related to them. There are 2 ways of interpreting this.

Pa. Fundaes could mean simply memories about fundamental concepts. These are special memories because they go beyond a concepts contexual meaning. Since it is not contextual, it is very basic and remains in some special area of brain where it is not forgotten. I assume here the fact that whichever memory is accessed frequently is not lost. The unaccessed memories for long time will be lost. As these fundaes get ‘touched’ frequently, they are never lost.

Pb. Fundaes could also mean the ability of brain to derive a concept. This is a unique setup of one’s brain and not like memory. So that could remain intact for long time, except for effects of aging.
If we assume ‘Pa’ then I think the fundaes themselves could be lost just like memories. And here is my explaination.

(For further discussion I assume myself as test subject and do not mean to boast about my abilities or hide by disabilities).

I clearly remember that throughout my academics and till date, I have been quick learner. When a new concept is introduced, I am able to understand (and re-discover) it quickly as compared to my classmates or collegues. This has been formarlly tested in my aptitude tests as well as certain tough tests on maths & science that are designed with the sole purpose of calculating onces ‘fundaes, understanding, analytical abilites etc’. Yet I find one problem with me. I find many a times, that I have forgotten completely the ‘fundaes’ that I had discovered about 5 years earlier, although other people (clasmates/collegues) could remember them very well. I mean here very basic fundaes like high school science or mathematics. I havn’t forgotten everything, but I don’t believe I would be able to do very good in a calculas test for example, as compared to my collegues. Although I am sure I did very well and was known to know calculas very well in high school.

So the question is why do I forget fundamental concepts as compared to other average people, when in fact I was first to understand a concept and did understand with greater depth. (as my previous records show)

I see these possible answers

1. It could simply be my brain’s way of storing the concepts is different

2. It could also be that I did not really understand the concepts well, that what I call as fundaes were not fundaes after all. and I did well in exams because of some ability to solve the problems on the fly without understand concepts well (eg point b. above).

3. However, the most probable reason I feel is the following:.

Fundaes could be combination of both Pa & Pb. They could be formed with a process of ‘re-discovery’ (ie for example understanding a mathematical theorm, in the same way the theorm’s proponent had thought before). The re-discovery could be assisted by formal knowledge (eg textbooks, teaching etc), but it is still a re-discovery. The next part after the re-discovery is the storing of concept just like any other memory, but in some special portion of the brain. It is also possible that this special portion is limited in the number of fundaes you could store. So when it is packed and there is no more space, it may forget some non-frequently used fundaes. For the people where this area is never full, the fundaes are intact. I know for sure that I have always been forming new fundaes, probably much more than an average person (for example this article) and so my fundaes box has no more space. It knows that ‘partial differential equations’ are never used by me and so they could be forgotten. Similarly some algorithms (eg sorting algorithms) that are not in frequent use can be forgotten.

.. all of above could be just true, or it could be just an excuse to say why I don’t remember quick-sort or cannot derive quick-sort quickly if asked to do so.

Abstract Art

I sometimes wonder what is my position on abstract art as opposed to classical art.

While I hate the abstract art, when it seems like created by a 5 year old, I also find myself defending abstract/modern art when people are trashing it as being meaningless. So I started wondering what is my real position. Am I a liberal or conservative in terms of art ?

After some thinking I came to a conclusion.

I normally accept and am inquisitive about all abstract art that does not contain human/natural forms. However, when it comes to abstart art with human forms, my liking is dependant on several factors. As I am myself interested in figure drawing & portraits and can manage to draw them with respectable quality, I become irritated when I see human forms in abstract art that seem to be drawn like a 12 year old.*

There is a minute but important aspect here. It only irritates me when I get a ‘clue’ from the artwork that the artist does not know or does not have skills to draw a realistic looking human form. So as far as Picasso or Dali is concerned, I have no problem as I can clearly see from their art that they have made serious attempts to make it look non-realistic. Or sometimes their art does contain abstract concepts pulled out of real forms. So when I visited the Dali Museum or the Pompidou Center in Paris, I loved it. There were no clues that the artists were incapable of drawing, as either they had represented human forms very well or they were so out of touch with reality that they did not look like created by a 5 year old.

So finally, what remains is the mediocre representations that sometimes show clearly that the artist made serious attempt to draw realistically, but when he/she couldn’t, tried to hide under the garb of modern art.

This concept is somewhat similar to the explaination about ‘fashion’ in ‘How the Mind Works‘. The fashion is an attempt by a class (ususally upper class) to redefine itself so that it stands out and is recognizable as ‘elite’. When the high quality fabrices with high quality designs become available at cheap stores for cheap prices, there is no way that the higher class can differentiate itself. So they try out an approach that would not be normally immitated by the following classes for some years to come. Thus they would design ugly and torn, ragged clothes that become elite and expensive. They also seem to look like ‘meaningless’ (just like art) in its peak season.
The modern artists of early times were similar to this high class elites in their art domain. It was no more possible to differentiate oneself with high quality realistic art because of some reasons. There were ample amount of draftsman who could draw or copy high quality work, the world was getting smaller and art from other places would become easily available and would naturally be more attractive because of its novelty. And finally because of invention of photography & printing techniques and the speed with which they were progressing it was easier to produce realistic pictures in short time. it was thus necessary for high skilled artists to differentiate themselves. So they may have resorted to ‘abstract’, as it was difficult to understand and copy a concept than a human form.

However, in due coarse of time, the less elites would learn how to copy the concepts too and how to use the ‘abstract’ medium to sell their art without having good skills in realistic drawing.

This is the only kind in abstract art that irritates me. The poor attempts from unskilled artists to pass on their art as being high quality just because it does not represent reality.

** Note here that I say 12 yr old instead of 5 yr old. What I mean is the forms lack the totally abstract quality of stick figures of 5 year old, and also do not come close to quality realistic drawing. They look like an attempt by a non-artist trying to draw a portrait or human figure.

Information Obesity

Is there something like too much of information? Is it possible that too much information in your head can stay in your head like too much fat, with you not excercising the information much to consume it ? Is it possible that this fat information comes in way of normal functioning of brain ? Is this type of obesity a new phenomenon or has it been there earlier ? These are some things that I would like to address.

First of all, I would say that this idea did not come out of nowhere. I am experiencing some such thing. I find I read (intake) too much of information, but I couldn’t recollect it when required on time. The information is also not ‘deleted’. It is simply lost. I know it is there somewhere in the head, as I could recollect it in other context. I do not know why and how this is happening, but I can surely make some guesses.

Fast food Information

The first thing contributing to too much information is its easy and instant availibility. Unlike the time spent in accessing, opening and reading books, or hearing information in others in a slow pace, we are presented with quick information on internet/tv/radio by means such as google/wikipedia/blogs/soap operas/news/discovery channels and such. Easy availibility is the reason for easy intake.

Low Nutrition value

Just like fast food, the easy information also has low nutrition value. What I mean here is that the information doesn’t come in a large enough digestable portion that our mind will be triggered to digest it. The information is in the form of small anecdotes. Just like we forget most of the jokes and anecdotes we hear and are unable to recollect them when we want them so badly, this type of easy information is stored but not wired well with other information to be able to recollect quickly. Since it is not digested (indexed properly) it lies in the brain just like memory leaks in a computer program.

Information Addiction

Information addiction is a serious problem. Much more serious if we think in terms of information obesity. How many times have I (or you) felt that I couldn’t control myself from further reading the related links on a wikipedia article. How many times have I felt uncontrollable urge to watch the tv serials one after another**. How many times I couldn’t stop reading a novel (though I will declare I must have read only 1/2 novels once in 2/3 years, the last being The Da Vinci Code.) I am sure you must have experienced such uncontrollable urges while getting some information. Shouldn’t we call this information addication ?

Obsesive Compulsive Brain waves.

If there could be information addition, why can’t there be uncontrollable brain waves ? This is what happens to me while I am not doing anything else (like driving). This is whats happening to me right now. The problem with these brain waves is that they are lost just the way fast food information is lost without proper digestion. A better way not to loose these brainwaves is to write them down, and that’s what I am doing now. (Writing the information down is itself a brain wave, and It is possible that I would loose this in a short while) So just remind me if you don’t see enough blogs after this blog

** I am starting to believe that tv serials havn’t got their name because they have a story serially split on every day, but rather because many such programs appear one after another ’serially’ on a given day. I remember, once on some thanksgiving or chirstmas day MTV was airing back-to-back episodes of MTV Punked and I watched them all day from morning to night

The Paperless Bureaucracy .

Writing and revising memos
Originally uploaded by mac steve.

'Paperless office' is not a new buzzword. It has been a buzzword for years. But it is only now that the offices are achieving complete (100%) paperless targets. And it is at this time that I see a new type of bureaucracy emerging. The Paperless Bureaucracy.

First let me clarify what this is all about. I am restricting to the processes where data is collected (for example feedbacks or surveys) and where a sign-off is required. (eg. approvals, vouchers etc.).

I would not go into the benefits of electronic processes, as I know there are many. I am not a 'Paper' fanatic. It is only that I don't believe paperless concept should be taken to extreme. There are a few processes where paper-full or a combination of paper-electronic would be more helpful and efficient. So I will concentrate on benefits of paper and how it could be helpful in some processes.

Feedbacks / Surveys:
A feedback or survey is typically taken on voluntary basis. It cannot be forced, as it could affect the true comments from the person giving feedback. It is something that has to be coaxed out. This is where the paper scores more than electronic. and this is why.

1. People do not normally resist the person handing down you a paper to fill the survey. They may leave many portions blank, but don't ignore the survey outright. It is much easier to ignore the feedback sought in emails or over the web.
2. It is more convenient for the feedback giver to put the check-boxes on a paper and write a few sentences (unless you are expecting an essay) than to seek out a website or a feedback form and fill in.
3. There is no guarantee of anonymity on electronic form. Typically, to avoid multiple feedbacks from one person, there is some authentication required in electronic form. And this gives away the identity. Whereas, in paper form, no such authentication is required (because feedback forms cannot be 'easily' copied / duplicated / edited / hacked)

Single / multiple signoffs, Approvals etc:

This is where I see most of the problem. The manual processes that used to take a few hours are now taking weeks to close.
1. Paper is synchronous and electronic is asynchronous process. For those who don't know the meaning, a synchronous process is where different actions are done in a chain. One action starts after another is completed. Whereas, in asynchronous processs many actions can start at one time.
So the problem is seen here when there are multiple signoffs required and one signoff depends on another. Paper gets this done automatically, as there is a single sheet of paper that has all the listing. It collects the data and also shows the 'state' of the processes (ie how where are you right now in the process). Although this can be captured in web applications or email chains, it is not normally done very efficiently. It is left to the people who are going to do signoff to find what and when they are supposed to do, and that too by going to a particular web page. People are not daemons (for example programs running in system tray) that they would check for their workflow inboxes every 2 minutes.
Also, any notifications given on email are normally ignored for the following reason.
2. You cannot ignore a paper on your desk as much as you can ignore an email in your inbox.
Although this depends on each person, this is what is probably typical for a particular person. I can also say, you cannot ignore a person standing in front of you with a request for signoff or a person on phone requesting you to signoff. These are not in any way related to paper. This can be done even for electronic processes. However paper just makes these things convenient. Imagine a person going to different persons' office to get their sign-off, but the sign-off is to be done in electronic form. In this case the person will have to tell the state of the process (that is which signoffs have already been done) to the person and then get his signoff. This can be more conviniently done if the person simply shows the paper to the person doing signoff.

Paper vs. Tablet PCs/laptops/handheld.
The things I said above have a common thread.
Don't expect the person giving feedback or the person signing-off to do on his own computer. Instead take the computer (or paper) to him.
So there lies the solution. We now have 2 options.

1. Use a good and networked tablet PC/laptop/handheld to take to the person from whom you want the feedback or approval or signoff. 'Network' is required only if your process data is so large that it cannot be accomodated on one computer/handheld. Actually here the only use of computer is as an input medium. If we can get cheap tablets that serve only as input medium and don't require lot of processing & data storage that will be great.
2. Use paper instead and take the minimal pains of entering the data back in the system. Throw away or recycle the paper immediately to avoid other paper problems. Or else, take a easy recyclable medium. Which incidently is a agian a slate (or tablet with its true ancient meaning) :-).

Let the magic begin...

Blue
Originally uploaded by trayser.

The first problem I face in blogging is where to start.

It starts with the writer's block about what to write
This is then followed by thinker's block that I shouldn't start anything without knowing what greater goal it is going to achieve.
This is then followed by my perfectionist's block that I shouldn't start anything till I have perfect and pretty material. This is followed by skeptic's block on whether to publish this on blogger (what if blogger suddenly goes down and stops its service !!!) or publish it on my own private site.
This is then followed by monetary block that I don't want to shell out money to buy a webhosting space unless I am sure what I am gonna write
This takes me back to block #1 ie writers block.

These blocks go in circles and have stopped me in starting any meaningful and consistent blog till now.
So better start writing and think later.
I am also making a resolution not to delete this first post, irrespective of how foolish it looks like.

So, I say to myself.. Let the magic begin.