- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The key line to this article appears near the end:
...they seem bent on providing information consumption devices, not tools that teach creative thinking and technological mastery.
For me, learning BASIC, FORTRAN, PASCAL, COBOL, etc., on punchcards in the early '80s was invaluable in my later computer career. The thing most people ignore about creativity and innovation is that it's based in logical possibilities. Learning the underlying logic of a thing, whether it be programming, biology, physics, pigments, whatever, gives you a window into more possibilities.
Understanding how things work on the basic level makes you more capable of seeing everything that can be done. It's the source of my own innovation in the workplace, and I'm sure of many others. It also gives you better powers of discretion and design in creating your own programs and "art" in whatever field you work. Today, when computer programming extends into nearly every field, it is essential to know what that programming is based upon when designing it to meet your needs. There's the flip side of this, too, in that deep understanding in any discipline is frequently applicable to another. Understanding systematics from biology opened up flexible ways of organizing information in databases, and taught me that how the data was organized and presented would determine the direction of future development and research.
To answer the question, Should artists grind their own pigment? Well, obviously not all artists need to do that in their daily work. But they should all know how to do it, if they want to be fully capable of instantiating their vision. Understanding pigment - and programming - means being aware of everything you can do, not just everything you've seen done.
