the one and only truly amazing katster (katster) wrote,
the one and only truly amazing katster
katster

  • Mood:

conference day 2, panel 1

You should probably read jrenken's journal alongside or before or after this, we sat next to each other and crossed wires a few times.



The first speaker was from Denmark. His title was "The digital and the fragmentation of the design profession. Unfortunately two things kept me from really getting the idea. One is the difficulty of dealing with accents. I don't hear well in general, so accents slur and I have a slightly harder time understanding. The second is, of course, the "100 seat auditorium". I'll have more to say on this *horrible* piece of design in a moment. Anyway, he's talking about professional organizations having the criteria of autonomy, that they serve clients, not employers, they have a code of conduct...and he's changed slides. Whee.

The difficulty of social sciences is that it depends on a cultural map. So there's a bit of difficulty not only understanding him, but understanding where he's coming from.

yes, this is a very boring talk...

Well, I've lost complete track of what he's talking about... ...is there something rotten in the state of Denmark? (if jrenken can make his Python refs, I can make Shakespeare ones.)

The most exciting thing has happened in this talk -- he dropped his pen.

yeah, this is turned into the mst3k of the first one. I'll shut up now.




David Ribes, UCSD "Mining the Arts for Digital Visualization"

Ribes says he's doing the opposite of Becker yesterday. He wants to talk about how scientists use art.

He talks of the idea of "domain" scientists (biologists, physicists, geologists) as opposed to computer and information scientists. Usually the latter make the visualization programs for the former. He's interested in the art of this.

Can you model art into science?

"Art must be made analyzable..." err...ummm, why?

I mean, I won't argue that great art has come from science, just look at fractals. But he's talking about trying to force art into science...ummm.

anybody who uses "blah blah blah" in a formal academic talk should be shot.

this is difficult to understand, and now he's reading as fast as possible to get all his talk in the twenty minutes. I don't really think he practiced very much, which is a point I will have remember when I talk about 208.

He relies on his discipline too much, and I think he's way out of his league. He's trying to talk about art, and turning it into computer science and it *just* *doesn't* *work*. I mean...it just doesn't make sense. Why doesn't he just talk about the usability of visualization...or maybe he's trying to and just doesn't have the proper words to say so. Because visualization tools, although they can be beautiful, aren't really *art* in and of themselves. And that's about the best I can get out of this talk




Johnathon Woodsall, "Henri Bergson and The experience of an amateur photographer using Photoshop"

This one might acutally *gasp* be an interesting talk. So far they're oh fer two today. It makes me wonder if this morning's news makes it difficult for everybody involved today.

I think this guy is either an Aussie or a brit. He's interested in two different categories, "remembering", which is sharing photographs, and the other one is "perceptual" activities, which he considers like photographers getting together and describing techniques. The speaker is a psychology major. He talks fast, so I'll try my best to catch this. He's better. He's not just reading his slides.

He's definitely a psychologist, which will prolly trigger jrenken's Social Science Theme Song...

it's really too bad, this could be an interesting presentation if he wasn't talking in psychology babble. Granted, he confesses this part is obscure so maybe it'll get better. Now he's reading from his notes. He's talking about a guy teaching, and photoshop on a screen to show the students. He says this made Photoshop take "over the room". zibblsnrt, if this is what grad study in psych gets into, I dunnae wanna go there.

I'm not sure this would be quite a bad presentation if he would JUST SLOW DOWN.

I feel sorry for the folks who are watching this on the internet. on the other hand...and now jrenken is going to turn me into Dr. Forrester...yay!

*shudder* this is bad.

and now he's even going faster. Did any of these people *practice*?

damn. this really could have been a good presentation, but I don't get it. *blink* *sigh* Well, it's neat what you can get a Ph.D for these days...

He's a Brit. That's about all I learned.




Olga Kuchinskaya "Art of the Poor"

I'm afraid. And another accent. I don't have trouble with people with accents, I just have trouble hearing. "New techonlogical systems are born with the apperance of the limits of the preceding systems, owing to which progress is essentially discontinuous" (Stiegler, Technics and time)

I'm not really sure what her point is either so far.

I'm wondering if she means poor as in 'poor information', not 'poor' as an economic class...if that's the case, that makes some more sense, but now she just made a reference to a russian saying that references poor as an economic class...

Okay, she says 'poor technology' has limitations and causes human creativity. Hell, you *don't* need technology to do art. Granted, there were beautiful hacks done when a computer didn't have enough memories, but I suspect that's *not* what she's talking about.

Why the hell is she using Shrek as an example?

Shrek was done by lots of computers at Dreamworks. I don't know a lot about how it was made, but I assume it's similiar to Pixar, and Pixar is a *huge* company. Pixar is not a poor company, nor is Dreamworks. To be honest this one doesn't make much sense either. and if Cal starts singing that hedgehog song, I have a laptop and I know how to use it.

...she seems to be implying that the Russian production (Hedgehog in the Fog) is superior because because it's Russian and they didn't have the money of a Dreamworks. That's about all I've gotten out of this talk. And now it's just me attempting to take notes, jrenken's battery is near dead.

Okay, this is *really* bad. She is talking about 'the art of Shrek' and judging the art of Shrek, and I'm starting to wonder where she got the drugs. I'm sorry. I'm just really fed up by what's going on. She seems to say that hand drawn cartoons are more artistic than computer drawn ones. Why the hell is she here? she says "The creative force between the lack of technological resources should not be underestimated." well, duh.




the fifth presentation...screw this, I'm going to lunch.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments