aevaI've been thinking a lot lately about the art education I got 20 years ago, and the importance that was placed upon learning how to really see what is in front of you, how to deconstruct the technical aspects of other works, looking at a lot of art, collecting good reference images, and talking about art.
This process is really important for developing and maintaining the technical skills of working in traditional media, because if you are not able to establish cultural and observational reference points you lose the ability to "see" as you work. Like, after you have been working on something for several hours everything sorta looks correct and wrong at the same time, and if you don't have something to ground it you'll drift in ways you don't want to.
It is also a really important set of skills for learning, because you can go to an art museum and look at works that inspire you and figure out (or make an educated guess at) the technical processes that their author used to make them, and then you can apply your learnings to making something new. You don't go to the museum to find things to copy without understanding.
One of my peers from that art program once remarked to me that she's seen interesting things happen in the works of artists that either don't have this training or only reference art made by other amateurs - work that is not anchored in either a cultural tradition or naturalistic observation or both tends to drift in strange ways
the example she gave was a self taught artist who only referenced manga, but was not familiar with the techniques or anchors the mangaka they were copying themselves knew, and so said artist's style ended up exaggerating all of the stylistic elements of the manga they were referencing
my point to all of this is, I don't at all believe you can look at / watch / read / listen to something and not be changed by it even in a small way. the human brain is a hungry for patterns to learn from, and everything you learn is eventually pruned or mutated through continuous re-encoding. you need to keep absorbing high quality examples and information throughout your career to preserve your skills. I think this applies generally.
this is why I think slop is so damaging, especially so as it gets harder to spot, because you're feeding yourself with vacuous garbage that superficially resembles information. if you accept it as valid, every related skill that you've worked hard to sharpen up to that point is fundamentally at risk because as they get re-encoded they will be adapted to accommodate the miscategorized noise.
now, not everything you see in the world is going to help your career as an artist, and I think it's true that there's plenty of things you can internalize that are destructive to your ability to make the things you want to make. that sounds pretentious, but I don't think it is: a simple example is internalizing the idea that you shouldn't make art because you don't already have the skills to do it with perfection is effective at preventing many from ever developing those skills.
anyways, my conclusion from this right now is it may be a good idea as a professional programmer who wishes to retain her hard earned skills, to make a regular habit of going to the museum as it were~~regularly reading the source code of successful projects that have non-superficial high standards, understanding how it works, why it works, why it is the way it is, and also looking at the history of how it grew over time.
I say "non-superficial" because strict adherence to a random grab bag of engineering best practices is not holding yourself to high standards if you don't understand any of them. That's just posturing.
Fabian Giesen@aeva These last few years have broken something deep within me and I have no idea what to do with myself now.
It's not about the generative whatever particularly, that's certainly not helped but it's mostly yet another manifestation of something that's been eating at me for way longer.
@aeva I want to understand, and to be understood.
That's not the only thing about me, but it's a core tenet about my personality and my construction of identity.
Almost everything I do flows from that in one way or another.
That's why I default to these long, rambling info-dumps, for example.
@aeva Probably my most formative single childhood experience is, over and over and over again, running into and beyond the limits of what my parents were able to explain to me (they really tried, but especially pre-internet, which this was, you run into a wall of how many difficult research-requiring questions of a precocious child you can actually answer in any given day), and likewise, my continuing inability to explain what's in my head.
@aeva My parents were gracious about this, other adults in my life, less so.
Shout-out to the teachers at my nursery school who decided that a 4yo couldn't possibly actually want to know how a differential transmission worked and that therefore I must be some attention-whoring little bitch who loves to pick up words I don't understand and who should really shut the fuck up. (Not in those words, mind - this was a CATHOLIC pre-school! - but the sentiment was there.)
Will@rygorous @aeva This anecdote makes me unreasonably angry. (Or maybe reasonably angry, I dunno, judge for yourself.) I have a four-year-old who was chattering about differentials because we had to replace one on our car, and he switched fixations (as four-year-olds do) but I was *absolutely* prepared to dig the Lego differential out of my childhood Mindstorms kit in the depths of the basement to demonstrate it to him. I certainly don't expect everyone to go to that sort of length to satisfy his curiosity, but if I heard of someone *attacking* him for it, I would be very, very upset. =(