Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

cycle-gap.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 83 posts

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#21

Post by huntse »

pg wrote: post #9
EAMiller wrote: post #5

"Cézanne could not draw, he makes the same drawing mistakes that every one makes in introductory drawing classes." This is not the case. Cézanne could draw exceedingly well. Drawing != photographic representation.

Obviously in this context I'm talking about drawing in the sense of rendering.

That doesn't make your statement any less false. It might suit your metaphor for that to be the case, but facts are stubborn things dude. Pretty good rendering here http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg

What about this one? Look like someone making mistakes in introductory drawing class to you? http://www.art-wallpaper.com/4056/C%C3%A9zanne+Paul/Sketch+a...

How about this? Beginner rendering perhaps? http://amica.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/AMICO~1~1~3...

The problem is you can't quite bring yourself to admit that you picked a really bad example. You wanted someone who's technical deficiencies were made up for by their conceptual skill, and you chose someone who could draft their ass off and also had an incredible ability to choose fantastic things to produce.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#22

Post by euccastro »

huntse wrote: post #19
idlewords wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, don't make me have to write another essay. http://www.frenchdrawings.org/search.php?dwg=460&vol=&#3...

That is a truly spectacular drawing. Astonishing.

You're being ironic, aren't you?

As a sketch that may well do the trick, but as a demonstration of drawing ability it's abysmal.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#23

Post by erikb85 »

First Idea in that statement: There are many people who are good implementers or good designers. Only a small group can do both. Second Idea: Normally companies employ the good implementer as an programmer. Third Idea: There is another person who designs the product, a product manager.

Maybe it is because english is not my mothertounge, but should the conclusion not be as I understood it "U should pay the programmer to design" but "companies employ good designers as product managers"? Than U don't have any problem with a designer who cannot implement and an implementer who cannot design. PG, what do I miss here that U think a company should make people to do both jobs, if they are most likely just good at one of both?

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#24

Post by [deleted] »

pg wrote: post #9
EAMiller wrote: post #5

"Cézanne could not draw, he makes the same drawing mistakes that every one makes in introductory drawing classes." This is not the case. Cézanne could draw exceedingly well. Drawing != photographic representation.

Obviously in this context I'm talking about drawing in the sense of rendering.

[deleted]

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#25

Post by jules »

huntse wrote: post #21
pg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously in this context I'm talking about drawing in the sense of rendering.

That doesn't make your statement any less false. It might suit your metaphor for that to be the case, but facts are stubborn things dude. Pretty good rendering here http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg What about this one? Look like someone making mistakes in introductory drawing class to you? http://www.art-wallpaper.com/4056/C%C3%A9zanne+Paul/Sketch+a... How about this? Beginner rendering perhaps?…

I think he means things like this:

http://www.navigo.com/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/sl/cezanne.coin-...

The color is wonderful, the objects are wonderful, but they are hovering above the table and the fruit on the platter is painted like it's going to roll out. The perspective isn't right either.

Does anyone else feel uneasy if they see a painting with wrong perspective? It totally destroys the beauty for me.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#26

Post by [deleted] »

pg wrote: post #9
EAMiller wrote: post #5

"Cézanne could not draw, he makes the same drawing mistakes that every one makes in introductory drawing classes." This is not the case. Cézanne could draw exceedingly well. Drawing != photographic representation.

Obviously in this context I'm talking about drawing in the sense of rendering.

[deleted]

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#27

Post by unalone »

idlewords wrote: post #16
pg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example of something I said that you think is false? Or is this just a sort of reverse argument from authority?

False statements you have made about art: "The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed." (easy refutation - go to sistine chapel, look up). "What made oil paint so exciting, when it first became popular in the fifteenth century, was that you could actually make the finished work from the prototype." This is not how people painted with oil until the 19th century. It was a very expensive medium requi…

"The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed."

Art has progressed so much in the last 500 years that this comparison is utterly absurd. Francis Bacon comes to mind as a painter whose works simply cannot be compared to earlier pieces.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#28

Post by [deleted] »

jules wrote: post #25
huntse wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make your statement any less false. It might suit your metaphor for that to be the case, but facts are stubborn things dude. Pretty good rendering here http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg What about this one? Look like someone making mistakes in introductory drawing class to you? http://www.art-wallpaper.com/4056/C%C3%A9zanne+Paul/Sketch+a... How about this? Beginner rendering perhaps?…

I think he means things like this: http://www.navigo.com/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/sl/cezanne.coin-... The color is wonderful, the objects are wonderful, but they are hovering above the table and the fruit on the platter is painted like it's going to roll out. The perspective isn't right either. Does anyone else feel uneasy if they see a painting with wrong perspective? It totally destroys the beauty for me.

[deleted]

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#29

Post by zimbabwe »

jules wrote: post #25
huntse wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make your statement any less false. It might suit your metaphor for that to be the case, but facts are stubborn things dude. Pretty good rendering here http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg What about this one? Look like someone making mistakes in introductory drawing class to you? http://www.art-wallpaper.com/4056/C%C3%A9zanne+Paul/Sketch+a... How about this? Beginner rendering perhaps?…

I think he means things like this: http://www.navigo.com/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/sl/cezanne.coin-... The color is wonderful, the objects are wonderful, but they are hovering above the table and the fruit on the platter is painted like it's going to roll out. The perspective isn't right either. Does anyone else feel uneasy if they see a painting with wrong perspective? It totally destroys the beauty for me.

You need to understand that this is entirely a subjective opinion. There are forms of art where accuracy is prized, but in any kind of modern art, any rule can be broken if the result is interesting.

Are you saying you like none of Picasso's later work? Or even Dalí's?

Post reply on HN