Note: this one has been edited until it disappeared.
I wrote over a thousand words on the specific case of Phil Robertson from A&E's Duck-something getting fired for calling homosexuality a sin. I wrote a list of all the books in the Bible that call homosexuality sinful and prescribe various retributions for it. I wrote about how what we call tolerance isn't really tolerance at all. Our society really sucks at tolerance so I think it's weird we use it to describe our awkward, unsteady, and continuously evolving pluralism. I think it's really weird that it is one of the central reasons most people will give for our society being, in some way, "good". But we are really awful at it. We don't know what tolerance is (in terms of our society) or what it would look like if we actually practiced it. The closest we can get is a long list of words you aren't supposed to use without looking around you to see if anyone to whom that word might apply is in earshot. It's the long list of words for straight white able-bodied and good looking Christians because they are the only ones who aren't going to be insulted by any of the words on the list. That should give you an idea of precisely how many people are tolerating and how many are being tolerated. It should also give an indication of how well all this tolerance is going.
If you leave something in the hands of the handsome, male, straight, reasonably young, Christian guys you should expect it to be completely fucked up and the way our society tolerates is no exception. As one of the people who are tolerating far more than I am being tolerated (although I am a free-loader, a leech on the system, a useless mouth, a do-nothing, a bum) I can tell you just how awful we are at it. I can tell you how thin that tolerance is and how it is limited to "words we agree not to use (in public)" and doesn't include one damn thing more. But I erased the whole post because when I read it again it was way too close to defending hate speech because no one is attacking the actual hate. And the latter doesn't make the former ok.
I think our society has a long way to go before we begin to approach the ideal of the genuinely tolerant and pluralistic community we currently hold ourselves to be. What I wrote wasn't helpful. I apologize to the one person this blog's counter says read it. Everyone else can piss off. Merry Christmas.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Friday, December 20, 2013
Notes on "Elementary"
It's pretty rare I take an interest in the clothes TV characters wear. Costume and wardrobe design is something I notice in movies but not in television. I watched the American version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo again last night and, while the Swedish version is still better and Michael Nyqvist's Mikael Blomkvist is more satisfyingly middle-aged and world-weary than Daniel Craig's, I did have to admire Craig's beautifully cut overcoat. And the accessory combo of wool hat and scarf with the architect-esque glasses (hung from one ear) is very cool. I would love to wear my glasses like that but, as anyone who wears glasses and can't afford a new pair each year will tell you, it fucks up the hinge and they fall off your face if you do it too often. And the pair he wears are from Mykita Helmut and retail for $500 (CAN). Anyway, back to Elementary...
When the show started the Jonny Lee Miller "Holmes" was fascinating for dressing from a bargain bin. He looked like he honestly didn't give a shit how he was dressed. I thought that fit well with his general anti-social behaviour but others have pointed out the discrepancy between the Miller version and the Conan Doyle version - whose clothes were described as carelessly worn but expensive.
Here is Miller in a crap t-shirt and a pair of sweatpants. I don't think I've seen clothing this careless since Roseanne went off the air. Maybe one of those reality shows about rednecks from the South who strike it rich, or just act out their insanity in front of the camera. Miller has an endless collection of crappy old t-shirts that make appearances on almost every episode.
In the first season Miller's Holmes had a careful lack of curation in his wardrobe. He was dressed to make a point that he didn't care what he was wearing. When it was cold, he wore absolutely awful sweaters and a really ugly winter coat. When he was at home, practicing single stick, he wore some version of the above - more typically with Levi's 501s and military style black boots (you can find the product name online fairly easily). All durability, comfort, and practicality. In the last several episodes his look has changed. Now he has a very studied formality, a buttoning both down and up that fits nicely with how careful his character is with his words and gestures.
This is fairly representative and nicely detailed. A 6 button vest, oxford shirt with rounded tabs and double buttoned cuffs. If you look at the large version of the image you will see a strange detail - the vest has 4 side pockets. I have to assume it was cut for Miller and isn't a vintage piece but that's a nice detail. The new version of Holmes always has the top button of his shirt done, even when he is wearing a casual plaid. It really calls attention to the fact he doesn't wear a tie, particularly when matched with his new jackets (very fit cut, kind of like the Huntsman signature one-button but in plain black or dark blue instead of a crazy tartan). He frequently wears shirts with buttons on the collar tabs, creating a constellation of buttons that's visible in all his close-ups.
When the show started the Jonny Lee Miller "Holmes" was fascinating for dressing from a bargain bin. He looked like he honestly didn't give a shit how he was dressed. I thought that fit well with his general anti-social behaviour but others have pointed out the discrepancy between the Miller version and the Conan Doyle version - whose clothes were described as carelessly worn but expensive.
In the first season Miller's Holmes had a careful lack of curation in his wardrobe. He was dressed to make a point that he didn't care what he was wearing. When it was cold, he wore absolutely awful sweaters and a really ugly winter coat. When he was at home, practicing single stick, he wore some version of the above - more typically with Levi's 501s and military style black boots (you can find the product name online fairly easily). All durability, comfort, and practicality. In the last several episodes his look has changed. Now he has a very studied formality, a buttoning both down and up that fits nicely with how careful his character is with his words and gestures.
Adding the vest really emphasizes the wrapping, the constriction. When he does wear a jacket, it is usually left unbuttoned and flapping (his pea coat, on the other hand, is always buttoned tight and he emphasizes the constriction by thrusting his hands into the chest pockets, making the whole coat seem to strain at the seams).
As I noted at the top, I don't think that much about how characters are dressed on television; I'm much more accustomed to thinking of wardrobe being consciously designed in movies - where the characters will be ten feet tall. But this is a nice example of using different means to tell the story and fill out the character. It's one thing television has over books - in a novel this kind of dedication to wardrobe would be a nightmare.
Of course, the whole thing only works because Miller is as thin as the recovering addict he plays. He might be a recovering addict, or am I confusing his personal life with Trainspotting? No one with even a hint of extra skin around their neck could pull this look off. I'm not overweight but this look would make me seem fat, pale, and hairy. The whole thing works because of the physical indications Miller conforms to Holme's backstory. You can strap a slightly flabby guy into a corset and shoot him in a tight shirt but there's no way to hide a neck roll.
There is an obvious comparison to the Patrick Jane character in The Mentalist, another modern Sherlock who wears vests without the jacket. I wonder if the two costume designers reached the same conclusion independently or if one is riffing off the other? Doesn't really matter.
Why write about this? I don't know. I'm a little pissed all my favourite shows are on hiatus until after Christmas so this is my way of getting a fix from that particular fantasy world. This is probably the least useful or interesting thing you will read about a show's wardrobe design. There are a lot of people who write and think about this stuff either professionally or as very keen amateurs. I googled "Daniel Craig girl dragon tattoo wardrobe" and it only took me about 30 seconds to find out who designed his glasses, how much they cost, and where I could get a pair. There are about a dozen blogs/sites dedicated to Daniel Craig's knitwear (which is pretty great). The only thing I couldn't find was the fantastic black coat and I think it was probably bespoke. Some with Elementary although, as you might imagine, Lucy Liu's Watson gets a lot more bandwidth.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
On Writer's Block
I've had the zap put on my brain by Xmas carols. And as a result I can't think of anything else.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
On Heads of State (and Technology)
I saw an interview of someone who had a very temporary celebrity talking about real celebrities. I wish I could remember who it was, it would make a better story. Anyway, this person said celebrities behave pretty much like you'd expect; the only thing that surprised him was they don't dial the phone for themselves. They say, "Get me [whoever]" and someone dials the number for them, gets the person on the line and then hands them the phone. I don't know how I got started thinking about this but it made me wonder, "Do they get someone to change the channels on their television for them?" Because that shit is complicated. Any idiot can dial a phone but you need a PhD in electronic engineering to figure out how to use someone else's television. I was babysitting my four year old nephew and I had to get him to turn on the TV so he could watch cartoons (I'm a crap babysitter). So I could easily understand it if celebrities, who are so above the pedestrian interface with simple technology, can run their own televisions. Then I started thinking about computers - because I've recently bought a new one and it's giving me a huge pain in the ass and I'm relatively computer literate. My parents can only work their email and nothing else. I've set their home computer up so the three things they want to do they can do by pressing one of three buttons (and then I wrote out the instructions, for the library press the button that says "Library"...). My parents aren't stupid, far from it, but they have been left behind by technology. They didn't even have TV's in their houses until they were almost adults. Radio was high tech when they were my nephews age. And since most Heads of State are either grandparents or old enough to be grandparents I started wondering how many of them can use a computer. How many Presidents and Prime Ministers can do something as simple as a Google search?
Doesn't that seem like a relevant question? These are the people charged with running our countries, our economies. Shouldn't they have at least a basic understanding that the internet (and massive computational and data storage capabilities) change the way the economy works?
I've been trying to put myself in the shoes of a Libertarian and, if you pretend you know nothing about any technology more advanced than the telegraph, it's a pretty seductive vision. Imagine a world where the government didn't make you do shit - no licenses to be renewed, no passports, no income tax forms, no paperwork of any kind. The government used a flat tax and you could figure out how much you owed by multiplying your income by .15 - that's it. No rebates, no deductions, no loopholes, no dependents, no "Add Column 15 with Column 9 and divide by sub-total A4". You and the calculator that has been sitting in your desk since you were in Grade 9. Imagine starting a business by hanging a sign. No files, no lawyers, no bullshit. You can pay for a big ad in the phone book if you want but your number will get listed for free. No websites, no tweeting, no "social media presence". It really is a strange kind of Utopia (although we know from the time that was actually the case, it wasn't a Utopia at all). It works if you forget you have about a thousand times more computing power in your pocket right now than NASA used to put Neil Armstrong on the moon (and you have really big, really bright rose glasses).
I have moments when I think Jaron Lanier is a genius and moments when I think he needs to get over himself but he is pretty much dead on when he writes about the internet revolutionizing the nature of monopolies. You don't need to crush your competitors, just make better software that is easier to navigate and faster. That's all you need to corner something - get there first with the most computational power. Let's use his example of taxis. I have no idea how taxis are dispatched right now but the person who creates the software that optimizes routes, reduces wait times and charges (because of efficiency and nothing else) is going to own that industry. And if that software is proprietary, goodbye independent taxis. One big button on your iPhone that calls the cab to your location, knows where you are going, knows road and traffic conditions, can optimize all of that for fleet and individual efficiency? Anyone else is fucked. That's one example and I think it's a good one.
Another example, not from Lanier, concerns commodities trading, oil in particular. It used to be illegal for anyone other than the producer or the end user to buy oil in the US. Each barrel of oil was sold either once or twice (twice being the average). The refinery sold it to either the business that used it or the business that retailed it. Then someone pointed out that farmers would benefit from being able to buy their oil at fixed prices before they needed it - the birth of the modern future. Farms had changed from animal power to diesel power - the cost of the animals was a relative constant but the cost of fuel varied. So to protect the farmers it became legal to buy oil futures. Now an average barrel of oil changes hands somewhere around 150 times before it is consumed. Each transaction resulting in a higher price (even if the price of oil decreases the transaction charges add up). And anyone can bid up the price when they know there is going to be demand - like Zuckerburg's friend in The Social Network (and presumably in real life).
Technology has enormous impact on politics. It's impact on the economy is almost impossible to overstate. Shouldn't the person in charge of your country be aware of how this shit works? Because, frankly, I don't see my Prime Minister programming his own DVR and that makes the complexities of applying changes in technology to economics way out of his depth.
Of course, I did just kind of fuck with my own argument. Stating I can't work my brother's TV and them declaiming on the effects of massive data storage and computational power. On the other hand, I don't run a G*d damn thing. I definitely don't set economic policy for a whole country.
Maybe the answer is to bring back the draft. But instead of drafting kids and making them fight wars for minimum wage, draft the people who know the most about shit and get them to help run the economy and suggest tax policy and consider issues of social welfare, education, socialized medicine, etc. And don't pay them minimum wage, pay them a good salary. Oh shit, we already have those people - they work in Universities and we call them professors.
I bet Obama can do shit on a computer. I doubt Romney could. He paid people to do that for him. Bush the Lesser probably couldn't turn a computer on. Good with a chainsaw cutting brush on the ranch, not such hot shit with modern technology. Clinton? He learned how to do whatever he wanted with his computer as soon as he found out he could watch porn on it.
Doesn't that seem like a relevant question? These are the people charged with running our countries, our economies. Shouldn't they have at least a basic understanding that the internet (and massive computational and data storage capabilities) change the way the economy works?
I've been trying to put myself in the shoes of a Libertarian and, if you pretend you know nothing about any technology more advanced than the telegraph, it's a pretty seductive vision. Imagine a world where the government didn't make you do shit - no licenses to be renewed, no passports, no income tax forms, no paperwork of any kind. The government used a flat tax and you could figure out how much you owed by multiplying your income by .15 - that's it. No rebates, no deductions, no loopholes, no dependents, no "Add Column 15 with Column 9 and divide by sub-total A4". You and the calculator that has been sitting in your desk since you were in Grade 9. Imagine starting a business by hanging a sign. No files, no lawyers, no bullshit. You can pay for a big ad in the phone book if you want but your number will get listed for free. No websites, no tweeting, no "social media presence". It really is a strange kind of Utopia (although we know from the time that was actually the case, it wasn't a Utopia at all). It works if you forget you have about a thousand times more computing power in your pocket right now than NASA used to put Neil Armstrong on the moon (and you have really big, really bright rose glasses).
I have moments when I think Jaron Lanier is a genius and moments when I think he needs to get over himself but he is pretty much dead on when he writes about the internet revolutionizing the nature of monopolies. You don't need to crush your competitors, just make better software that is easier to navigate and faster. That's all you need to corner something - get there first with the most computational power. Let's use his example of taxis. I have no idea how taxis are dispatched right now but the person who creates the software that optimizes routes, reduces wait times and charges (because of efficiency and nothing else) is going to own that industry. And if that software is proprietary, goodbye independent taxis. One big button on your iPhone that calls the cab to your location, knows where you are going, knows road and traffic conditions, can optimize all of that for fleet and individual efficiency? Anyone else is fucked. That's one example and I think it's a good one.
Another example, not from Lanier, concerns commodities trading, oil in particular. It used to be illegal for anyone other than the producer or the end user to buy oil in the US. Each barrel of oil was sold either once or twice (twice being the average). The refinery sold it to either the business that used it or the business that retailed it. Then someone pointed out that farmers would benefit from being able to buy their oil at fixed prices before they needed it - the birth of the modern future. Farms had changed from animal power to diesel power - the cost of the animals was a relative constant but the cost of fuel varied. So to protect the farmers it became legal to buy oil futures. Now an average barrel of oil changes hands somewhere around 150 times before it is consumed. Each transaction resulting in a higher price (even if the price of oil decreases the transaction charges add up). And anyone can bid up the price when they know there is going to be demand - like Zuckerburg's friend in The Social Network (and presumably in real life).
Technology has enormous impact on politics. It's impact on the economy is almost impossible to overstate. Shouldn't the person in charge of your country be aware of how this shit works? Because, frankly, I don't see my Prime Minister programming his own DVR and that makes the complexities of applying changes in technology to economics way out of his depth.
Of course, I did just kind of fuck with my own argument. Stating I can't work my brother's TV and them declaiming on the effects of massive data storage and computational power. On the other hand, I don't run a G*d damn thing. I definitely don't set economic policy for a whole country.
Maybe the answer is to bring back the draft. But instead of drafting kids and making them fight wars for minimum wage, draft the people who know the most about shit and get them to help run the economy and suggest tax policy and consider issues of social welfare, education, socialized medicine, etc. And don't pay them minimum wage, pay them a good salary. Oh shit, we already have those people - they work in Universities and we call them professors.
I bet Obama can do shit on a computer. I doubt Romney could. He paid people to do that for him. Bush the Lesser probably couldn't turn a computer on. Good with a chainsaw cutting brush on the ranch, not such hot shit with modern technology. Clinton? He learned how to do whatever he wanted with his computer as soon as he found out he could watch porn on it.
The Comments Section
I love the Toronto Star. Of course I do, it's Toronto's socialist daily. If I had any money I would probably subscribe. But there would be a considerable sacrifice in getting the printed edition - I wouldn't get to read the comments the online articles attract. The Star has the best comment section I've ever found. Maybe that needs some background.
If you aren't from Toronto (or within the range of its media coverage) our disgraceful Mayor has claimed the Star has a vendetta with him since he took office. Some animosity is understandable - he is on the political Right, the Star is Left wing all the way. The Mayor, however, doesn't see this in terms of legitimate debate. He has a persecution complex that is notable even in a Right wing politician. All over North America, the Right sees themselves as being persecuted by the "elitist" Left; Mayor Ford thinks the Star deliberately prints libels and falsehoods against him and his family. He has been served with a libel notice himself for doing everything possible to call the Star's city hall chief a pedophile without actually calling him a pedophile. Based on what evidence? None. Anyway, that's roughly the level of the acrimony between the two parties and, although the legal action is a peak, it is how the relationship has been since Ford was a counsellor. So why, you might wonder, do several very dedicated commentators attack every Star article from the Right? I'm definitely on the Left so I try to stay away from the National Post - very Rightist for Canadian media. I will read articles now and again but I don't pick a fight with it. It is what it is.
I haven't identified all the Rightist commentators on the Star's web page. They're easy to spot because they pick fights with other people and always attempt to rebut - they always want the last word. Some of the chains go on for 15 or 20 comments- back and forth between "TransitMan" and "7thGenCanadian". The fights frequently degenerate to "You just don't get it" or variations on the latte libel ("You and your elitist friends won't be happy until every taxpayer is forced to take a second job to support the leaches you are protecting!") These commentators hate transit, hate taxes, love Rob Ford, hate anyone who lives downtown (or seems like they might since no one gives their address), think the Left is against the little guy and the "pro-business party" is for him (or her).
Two things really strike me. First, they are relentless. Day after day, article after article, they read just to get indignant. How is that rewarding for them? I'm not suggesting they should stop (and deprive me of one of my favourite hobbies, comment trolling) but I wonder where they get the time and energy to keep it up. They hate cyclists and claim to drive their hummers (or Cadillacs or SUVs or whatever) everywhere they go but their presence on the web is a full time job by itself. If you look at the time stamp on the comments, it's one every 15 minutes or so over a period of several hours. So either that's all they do when they aren't working or they're doing it at work. I can see it being a fun time waster at work but still, wouldn't you get tired? In the opposite position (imagining the same kind of comment campaign on the NP I am exhausted just thinking about it). Second, they are actually trying to make arguments. I think the arguments are all flawed but, if I'm being fair, no more than the arguments they are trying to rebut. This isn't a meeting of great minds - it's a slug fest between the righteous, indignant and ignorant Rightists and the righteous, indignant, and ignorant Leftists. Almost every comment is based on a demonstrably false precept, has obviously flawed logic, or is nothing more than mud-slinging. And that's part of the reason I stay out of it. These people aren't stupider than I am. We have different areas of expertise. So when someone (on either side) claims Toronto's transit system is used more frequently by lower classes than upper classes, I know that's wrong. Toronto's transit system is a surprisingly accurate sample of Toronto's economic demographics - different levels of wealth are concentrated at different points but the system as a whole has ridership from all economic levels and the proportions are accurate. I didn't know that until about a week ago. Before then I would have assumed the statement about lower classes was true. That's a long digression to demonstrate a fairly small point, still it's interesting neither side is substantially more ignorant than the other (as far as I can tell).
So if you read this and are a daily commentator, please don't stop. I spend more time reading the comments than I do reading the articles. Someone is listening, so keeping talking (or, rather, writing). I don't know why you do it and I think you are a little crazy but you are crazy in a harmless and entertaining sort of way.
If you aren't from Toronto (or within the range of its media coverage) our disgraceful Mayor has claimed the Star has a vendetta with him since he took office. Some animosity is understandable - he is on the political Right, the Star is Left wing all the way. The Mayor, however, doesn't see this in terms of legitimate debate. He has a persecution complex that is notable even in a Right wing politician. All over North America, the Right sees themselves as being persecuted by the "elitist" Left; Mayor Ford thinks the Star deliberately prints libels and falsehoods against him and his family. He has been served with a libel notice himself for doing everything possible to call the Star's city hall chief a pedophile without actually calling him a pedophile. Based on what evidence? None. Anyway, that's roughly the level of the acrimony between the two parties and, although the legal action is a peak, it is how the relationship has been since Ford was a counsellor. So why, you might wonder, do several very dedicated commentators attack every Star article from the Right? I'm definitely on the Left so I try to stay away from the National Post - very Rightist for Canadian media. I will read articles now and again but I don't pick a fight with it. It is what it is.
I haven't identified all the Rightist commentators on the Star's web page. They're easy to spot because they pick fights with other people and always attempt to rebut - they always want the last word. Some of the chains go on for 15 or 20 comments- back and forth between "TransitMan" and "7thGenCanadian". The fights frequently degenerate to "You just don't get it" or variations on the latte libel ("You and your elitist friends won't be happy until every taxpayer is forced to take a second job to support the leaches you are protecting!") These commentators hate transit, hate taxes, love Rob Ford, hate anyone who lives downtown (or seems like they might since no one gives their address), think the Left is against the little guy and the "pro-business party" is for him (or her).
Two things really strike me. First, they are relentless. Day after day, article after article, they read just to get indignant. How is that rewarding for them? I'm not suggesting they should stop (and deprive me of one of my favourite hobbies, comment trolling) but I wonder where they get the time and energy to keep it up. They hate cyclists and claim to drive their hummers (or Cadillacs or SUVs or whatever) everywhere they go but their presence on the web is a full time job by itself. If you look at the time stamp on the comments, it's one every 15 minutes or so over a period of several hours. So either that's all they do when they aren't working or they're doing it at work. I can see it being a fun time waster at work but still, wouldn't you get tired? In the opposite position (imagining the same kind of comment campaign on the NP I am exhausted just thinking about it). Second, they are actually trying to make arguments. I think the arguments are all flawed but, if I'm being fair, no more than the arguments they are trying to rebut. This isn't a meeting of great minds - it's a slug fest between the righteous, indignant and ignorant Rightists and the righteous, indignant, and ignorant Leftists. Almost every comment is based on a demonstrably false precept, has obviously flawed logic, or is nothing more than mud-slinging. And that's part of the reason I stay out of it. These people aren't stupider than I am. We have different areas of expertise. So when someone (on either side) claims Toronto's transit system is used more frequently by lower classes than upper classes, I know that's wrong. Toronto's transit system is a surprisingly accurate sample of Toronto's economic demographics - different levels of wealth are concentrated at different points but the system as a whole has ridership from all economic levels and the proportions are accurate. I didn't know that until about a week ago. Before then I would have assumed the statement about lower classes was true. That's a long digression to demonstrate a fairly small point, still it's interesting neither side is substantially more ignorant than the other (as far as I can tell).
So if you read this and are a daily commentator, please don't stop. I spend more time reading the comments than I do reading the articles. Someone is listening, so keeping talking (or, rather, writing). I don't know why you do it and I think you are a little crazy but you are crazy in a harmless and entertaining sort of way.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
On Drawing
Last weekend I stumbled on a drawing tube I had forgotten for about a decade. When I was accepted into architecture school I was sent a list of materials I would need for the various courses. I, like an over-eager and naive jackass, bought all of them. The smart kids showed up with a pencil, a set of squares, and a scale. And then they borrowed the rest from me whenever they needed it. "Hey Sean, can I borrow your adjustable curve?" Sure, I only paid $20 for that thing and haven't used it once. Anyway, a drawing tube was one of the items on that list and I used mine to store all my hand drawings from my first two years as an undergrad. After that I stopped hand drawing, except in sketchbooks, and did all my final drawings in CAD.
Looking back at that material from a large enough distance (large enough that I had forgotten most of the work and so could approach it without any feelings of possession or personal investment) I could see I learned a lot faster when I was hand drawing. The computer is a fantastic tool for grinding work out fast. It's also great if you are particularly skilled in some kind of image software or modelling software. If you need photo quality images produced with a modelling software you happen to be expert with in a hurry the computer is indispensable. But it isn't a substitute for hand drawing. That I ever let it become a substitute has had an enormously detrimental effect on my skills as a designer.
This is something our industry should be more aware of. It's a truism that the most important tool for the most important person in any office is the telephone. The person in charge of any firm will spend almost no time drawing (compared to their subordinates), if they draw at all it will be by hand - quick sketches to show what they want drawn on a computer. Moving down the hierarchy means less time on the telephone, more time with a pen and a roll of paper until you get to the bottom - where paper is a luxury. The people on the bottom work on computers. The rarely use paper. I'm not writing this as a form of existential complaint (because my place in any firm would be mouse clicking and keyboard tapping). I'm writing it because the people at the bottom are at the bottom because they have so much to learn. Experience and expertise are what create the positions on the hierarchy (at least that's how it ought be and most typically is). The people at the bottom should be learning and, lucky for the industry, the way they learn is by cranking out drawings that have value to the firm that pays their salary. But mouse clicking and keyboard tapping is not an efficient way to learn. It is about the least efficient way to learn anything other than how to be really good at using the drawing software. Since a promotion will almost inevitably mean using the drawing software less, that seems kind of self defeating.
I used to think my experience in architecture school taught me I was likely going to be a better critic, thinker, or writer than an architect. I was in the top quarter of my class for the first three or four semesters and then I slipped down to the top half. I thought I had hit a plateau - caught up with the limits of some innate talent that couldn't be taught or measured except through experience. Now I think I just started learning a lot slower because I was relying so much on the computer. The down side of this is the realization I have to make up ground I didn't even know I'd lost. The upside is that since I started architecture school when I was 30 I think it is safe to say there isn't an age limit on learning. I start drawing by hand again, I start learning again. Or learning faster, catching up. This creates the paradoxical (or counter-intuitive) situation where I need to get a job where I will be sitting at a computer all day to have a place to learn from people with real expertise and getting that job will create an artificial barrier to learning because I will be working on a computer all day.
I suppose I could do a PhD in some combination of architecture and education where my position was "drawing facilitates learning" and I was my own test subject. And when I graduated I would still have people telling me they really like me but I need more experience in construction documentation. Ok, that last bit was existential complaint.
Looking back at that material from a large enough distance (large enough that I had forgotten most of the work and so could approach it without any feelings of possession or personal investment) I could see I learned a lot faster when I was hand drawing. The computer is a fantastic tool for grinding work out fast. It's also great if you are particularly skilled in some kind of image software or modelling software. If you need photo quality images produced with a modelling software you happen to be expert with in a hurry the computer is indispensable. But it isn't a substitute for hand drawing. That I ever let it become a substitute has had an enormously detrimental effect on my skills as a designer.
This is something our industry should be more aware of. It's a truism that the most important tool for the most important person in any office is the telephone. The person in charge of any firm will spend almost no time drawing (compared to their subordinates), if they draw at all it will be by hand - quick sketches to show what they want drawn on a computer. Moving down the hierarchy means less time on the telephone, more time with a pen and a roll of paper until you get to the bottom - where paper is a luxury. The people on the bottom work on computers. The rarely use paper. I'm not writing this as a form of existential complaint (because my place in any firm would be mouse clicking and keyboard tapping). I'm writing it because the people at the bottom are at the bottom because they have so much to learn. Experience and expertise are what create the positions on the hierarchy (at least that's how it ought be and most typically is). The people at the bottom should be learning and, lucky for the industry, the way they learn is by cranking out drawings that have value to the firm that pays their salary. But mouse clicking and keyboard tapping is not an efficient way to learn. It is about the least efficient way to learn anything other than how to be really good at using the drawing software. Since a promotion will almost inevitably mean using the drawing software less, that seems kind of self defeating.
I used to think my experience in architecture school taught me I was likely going to be a better critic, thinker, or writer than an architect. I was in the top quarter of my class for the first three or four semesters and then I slipped down to the top half. I thought I had hit a plateau - caught up with the limits of some innate talent that couldn't be taught or measured except through experience. Now I think I just started learning a lot slower because I was relying so much on the computer. The down side of this is the realization I have to make up ground I didn't even know I'd lost. The upside is that since I started architecture school when I was 30 I think it is safe to say there isn't an age limit on learning. I start drawing by hand again, I start learning again. Or learning faster, catching up. This creates the paradoxical (or counter-intuitive) situation where I need to get a job where I will be sitting at a computer all day to have a place to learn from people with real expertise and getting that job will create an artificial barrier to learning because I will be working on a computer all day.
I suppose I could do a PhD in some combination of architecture and education where my position was "drawing facilitates learning" and I was my own test subject. And when I graduated I would still have people telling me they really like me but I need more experience in construction documentation. Ok, that last bit was existential complaint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)