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

31–40 of 83 posts

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#31

Post by zimbabwe »

andrewcooke wrote: post #20

seems to me that, if this makes any sense, the interesting question is: why can't you have both? given that selection for "great art" is over a large number of people, why can't you find someone that is gifted in both areas? perhaps one somehow counteracts the other (for example, you are praised for "mechanical skills" and so never learn "abstract thinking")? or perhaps the market values the combination of "poor mech…

Yeah, Paul is talking up his ass.

Afraid I don't know enough about programmers or painters to spout names, but in any other artistic medium you've got a mix of all types. I'll use film as my example because film's a medium in which you have a hundred people working together, and very elaborate roles evolved to let people do exactly what they want to do.

Some directors function as merely directors. They decide what they like, and they have other people execute. But other directors can and do insist on controlling other parts of the creative process. I'm not a fan of James Cameron, but the guy writes, directs, and edits his movies, and he's very involved in set design as well. Some props he insists on making himself because he doesn't trust anybody else to do it right. So there's a guy who knows what he wants to do, and is also capable of the incredible technical feats required to pull it off.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#32

Post by dzuc »

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.

Cezanne was not in competition with photography.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#33

Post by zimbabwe »

euccastro wrote: post #22
huntse wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It certainly shows that he's got a good sense of perspective re: drawing bodies. And that's the suggestion Paul's making, right?, that Cezanne makes stupid goofy mistakes. The sketch here is just a sketch, but it shows he knows his shit.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#34

Post by EliAndrewC »

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…

Some of this speaks to PG's "Writing to Discover" (http://paulgraham.com/discover.html) observations. When he says, "The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed" then my impression is that he's just stating his opinion. But because he doesn't bother to preface it with, "Well this is just my opinion, but..." then it sounds like everything that he says is, as you say, "generalizations based on [his] own tastes, but presented as deep insights about the world".

So because all of his statements aren't prefaced with "sometimes it seems to me" or "I wonder if" or "Maybe it's the case that", then it comes across like he's speaking as if everything he says is absolute truth, whereas a lot of it is simply his musings about the world.

I totally understand why this rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Personally I prefer his current writing style, where he doesn't qualify everything he says with, "in my experience" or "among the artists I've known personally" or whatever.

With that being said, I can't comment on your factual corrections about the history of oil painting.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#35

Post by Kirby »

Of course, in reality, most people aren't exactly these two extremes, great implementer and great innovator. Everyone has both traits in different amounts, and if you have a functioning team, they can be split up unevenly.

In this way of looking at things, I'll freely admit to being more of an implementer. If someone asks for what they want, I'll do my best to make the software do it in a way that's efficient and delights the user.

Given vague instructions, I'll do my best, but with mixed results.

But when I team up with someone who always has new ideas - I can actually sort through them, figure out which ones will work, which ones will meet the goals, and synthesize them into great product. Most people can't do that with their own ideas.

I think the original quote - and it's short, not a full essay, so this criticism is mildly unfair - elevates the innovator too much over the implementer. When in reality, you win when you have both, that know their own strengths and limitations, and are grateful for the other. I produce better work when I pair up with an innovator, and so does he or she. And the two of us will dominate over a dual-innovator team.

Also, realize implicitly in everything Paul Graham says, you can add the words, "For a startup technology company." That's what he knows, that's what he values. There's a lot of work out there that needs implementers, and innovators would be frustrated, unsuccessful, and miserable at. Don't feel threatened if you're not Paul Graham's Ideal Entrepreneur/Programmer. I'm not. I'll never be extremely rich, most likely, but I'm happy, good at my job, valued by my company. I say this because opinions like this caused me a _lot_ of self doubt in my early twenties, and they turned out to not be the accurate predictor of DOOM that I feared. If you're smart, and willing to do a good day's work, success is out there - not at a company run by someone like Graham, but he wouldn't have success at a company for you either.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#36

Post by jules »

zimbabwe wrote: post #29
jules wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is no way to judge art other than by 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?

I do like Picasso's and Dali's work and also Cezanne's work. I even like the picture I linked to. But this is the key part:

> if the result is interesting.

I don't see how the wrong perspective and tilted platter add to the appeal of the painting. It seems to be an accident.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#37

Post by Retric »

unalone wrote: post #27
idlewords wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am always amazed when people fall in love with an artist I consider a talentless hack.

PS: In the tradition of things you can't say. Science killed philosophy as a meaningful activity. And the camera killed painting as meaningful activity. They have become the refuge of talented youths and over-educated idiots.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#38

Post by randallsquared »

zimbabwe wrote: post #29
jules wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In fields I know something about (unlike art, which I don't), "interesting" and "well-done" are not very correlated.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#39

Post by Alex3917 »

gjm11 wrote: post #18

Maciej Ceglowski, who is posting in this thread but evidently too modest to blow his own trumpet, wrote what seems like the definitive response to Paul Graham On Painting back in 2005: http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm .

Definitive? It doesn't even address the ideas put forth in the essay.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#40

Post by nuba »

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.

Any camera can do this, "rendering" in the sense of "an objective, accurate, realistic view of the world".

Distortions and imperfections in the artwork convey the artist's subjective view of the world, and you need an artist for that.

Imagine a perfect rendering of what's depicted in Picasso's Guernica. It wouldn't work. And that came from someone who could probably do academic realism in a handstand and blindfolded ;)

Post reply on HN