The Rise Of The Artist

yes. there are many techniques, mainly revolving around learning to see shapes.

I've never been great at drawing (freehand, I can do mechanical stuff okay), but I realize it's mostly because I don't put the time into it that I could and so I'm much slower at it than someone who is an expert and does it all the time (so that eventually leads to frustration). I do try to use that as a reference point for explaining to people that think they cannot learn how to program though (or learn to be better programmers). If I took the time to do draw more often, I would improve and probably learn to be halfway decent at drawing.

It's mostly about dedicating the time and working through the frustration and embarrassment (either from imaginary judgment or real). I would imagine to be an expert in drawing/painting, one has to delve into theory and concepts, such as much as a programming requires as well (Computer Science, Mathematics, etc). Sure there are people that are naturally talented in both, but to understand the "whys" of a subject, it takes more than a superficial approach to the subject.

First off, I definitely think learning how to draw is very valuable.

However, the main premise of this article is off in two ways. For one, what it terms "systems" thinking is not going away; if anything, increased computing power increases demand for this sort of thinking! This is something like Jevons Paradox[1]--the more computing power we have, the more we use it. And by extension, the more programming we do!

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I've recently been working a bit on program synthesis. This is perhaps the most direct and obvious way to use technology to eliminate programmers: we literally use absurd amounts of CPU to generate programs. But not to worry: this particular approach is not nearly scalable enough to replace programmers in the near future. In fact, it does the opposite--the most successful uses of synthesis I've seen are very limited and enable non-programmers to program rather than replacing actual programmers.

So as people have access to more and more computing power, more and more of them are going to have more and more reasons to use it effectively. Combine this with more accessible tools and we see much more programming in the future. However, this is not really going to supplant actual, professional programmers: after all, somebody is going to have to develop tools and abstractions.

Moreover, as we get increased computing power, demand is also going to go up for non-programming uses of computers. People are going to want to do more and more with there increasingly capable machines and so they're going to need more and more programs--more and more programmers.

Really, that's the keyword in the whole field: more.

The second fault of the article is in contrasting "creative" and "systems" thinking. In practice, the very best programmers stand out not because of their technical prowess or even logic capability but because of their creativity. There is a reason the ultimate compliment in math and programming is not "complex" or even "capable" but "elegant".

Perhaps I am biased, and perhaps I am simply envious, but I believe that the field with the most creativity and the most beauty is abstract mathematics. The interesting proofs, theorems, abstractions, constructs in mathematics require immense creativity and carry immense beauty.

Yes, math is a field of rules. But, just like music, the real innovation often involves changing or going around the rules. Or just inventing new ones. It is really not that different from art.

Programming is also like this, to an extent. I don't think most programming is quite as beautiful as much of math. But it is beautiful. That sort of beauty is a testament to creativity.

Anyhow, I really do think you should learn to draw. And a bit about design. Typography. Writing. But not for the reasons outlined here. And certainly not at the expense of math, CS and programming!

You try to make something perfect and don't succeed so you don't feel satisfied?

Welcome to the club of mere mortals!

Even Michaelangelo probably wasn't completely satisfied with some tiny spot on David or the Sistene Chapel that looked like an enormous blot to his trained eye and unmeetable standards, while virtually everyone else probably couldn't see it and considered the work a masterpiece.

If you set impossible standards for yourself you will get nothing but frustration and disappointment. Part of being an artist is learning to either set more realistic expectations or learn to work despite your own feelings of inadequacy.