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

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#71

Post by idlewords »

pg wrote: post #65
idlewords wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frans Hals is actually my favorite painter, so if people take nothing else away from this thread, I would urge them to go check that shit out. The exact quote I was responding to in my essay: "When oil paint replaced tempera in the fifteenth century, it helped painters to deal with difficult subjects like the human figure because, unlike tempera, oil can be blended and overpainted." In support of which you now cite..…

Actually Franz Hals was my counterexample to your statement that no one painted alla prima till the 19th century. There are lots of others I could have picked (Fragonard for example) but I figured the most famous example of the style would do. My support for the statement that oil paint allowed painters to blend and overpaint is the example I gave earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentimento http://www.escholarsh…

In your essay, you implied that people were painting alla prima during the Renaissance, that Renaissance painters would start from a rough sketch directly from the canvas, and that they could repeatedly rework parts of the picture.

You can link every Dutch master you want without making your argument any less bogus.

Here's what I actually wrote:

"The allusion a sketchy, iterative style of painting that used to be called "alla prima", where you block shapes in in oil paint and then swoosh them around the composition as the painting progresses, perhaps repainting entire sections of the picture. This is the way Graham and I were taught to paint, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with painting in the fifteenth century."

If you want to refute me, show me the Renaissance master who painted directly onto a blank canvas, starting with a "blurry sketch" and iteratively refining it into a finished work, like Hals, or Manet, or Rubens, or Bob Ross, rather than working with underdrawings and thin glazes of color.

You can't, because no one painted like that then. But talking about painstaking preliminary design and a sequential, pretty rigid method would have been inconvenient for the purposes of your essay.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#72

Post by gatormax »

idlewords wrote: post #63
pg wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually you're mistaken in all 6 cases: 1. easy refutation - go to sistine chapel, look up You're claiming that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is better (not just as good, but better) than everything Leonardo and Bellini ever painted. The number of art historians who'd agree with that statement is zero. 2. This is not how people painted with oil until the 19th century. http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_ima…

Wow, you really want to do this? 2 - I like Frans Hals too! 3 - Yes, that's how painting is taught now, to the kind of people who read 'how to paint' books. 4 - Nice weaseling. 5 - Notice how those carefully fixed errors show fully-drawn hands, feet, etc., rather than a cloud of "rough drafts" like you would see in a painting done in the modern style? Another nice demonstration of the point that oil painting was not…

Weenis? Really?

From what I can tell, Mr. Graham, at best, might be wrong about a handful of (evidently fuzzy) facts about painting. I do not see the logical bridge from that to his status as "big ole weenis." That's disappointingly puerile.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#73

Post by pg »

idlewords wrote: post #71
pg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually Franz Hals was my counterexample to your statement that no one painted alla prima till the 19th century. There are lots of others I could have picked (Fragonard for example) but I figured the most famous example of the style would do. My support for the statement that oil paint allowed painters to blend and overpaint is the example I gave earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentimento http://www.escholarsh…

In your essay, you implied that people were painting alla prima during the Renaissance, that Renaissance painters would start from a rough sketch directly from the canvas, and that they could repeatedly rework parts of the picture. You can link every Dutch master you want without making your argument any less bogus. Here's what I actually wrote: "The allusion a sketchy, iterative style of painting that used to be cal…

In your essay, you implied that people were painting alla prima during the Renaissance, that Renaissance painters would start from a rough sketch directly from the canvas, and that they could repeatedly rework parts of the picture.

Let's check. These two paragraphs are everything I've written about the use of oil paint in the fifteenth century:

    It helps to have a medium that makes change easy. 
    When oil paint replaced tempera in the fifteenth 
    century, it helped painters to deal with difficult 
    subjects like the human figure because, unlike tempera, 
    oil can be blended and overpainted. (Taste for Makers)

    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. You could make a preliminary drawing if 
    you wanted to, but you weren't held to it; you could 
    work out all the details, and even make major changes, 
    as you finished the painting. (Design and Research)
These are pretty uncontroversial statements. Neither implies that artists started painting whole paintings alla prima from day 1. They say oil allowed artists to work out details and make changes after they'd started. And here is van Eyck doing that ca. 1430:

http://www.escholarship.org/editions/data/13030/d9/ft1d5nb0d...

I didn't (obviously) use Franz Hals to support my statements about the use of oil paint in the fifteenth century, since he worked in the seventeenth. I gave Hals as a counterexample to this claim by you:

    This is not how people painted with oil until the 
    19th century.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#74

Post by Retric »

foldr wrote: post #70
Retric wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The realization that philosophy is a dead end is vary common and vary old. Thomas Aquinas spent much of his life using the bible to make a hole host of philosophic treaties based on the infallibility of the bible. Then he realized that his entire work up to that point was "a house built on sand" and that for example trying to prove the existence of god basses on biblical teachings was pointless. He died in 1274. He i…

>The realization that philosophy is a dead end is vary common and vary old. Well yes, that point of view is very old, but then so is the opposite point of view. I thought your point was more substantial than this, i.e. that modern science somehow invalidated philosophy. This point of view is obviously at least no older than modern science. I'm not sure what your point is re Aquinas. He was a brilliant philosopher who…

If by modern science you mean Gregor Johann Mendel and Isaac Newton then yea it's only a few hundred years old. But, Archimedes also believed in testing his ideas when possible so "modern science" is probably not the best term.

Anyway, finding someone who in his youth wrote elegant treaties on the definition of justice says nothing about his latter beliefs and due to our limited lifespan from a historical standpoint they take place at about the same era. I said / wrote many stupid things as I child that I no longer agree with. All it takes is the realization that your assumptions are often wrong to realize that Philosophy is a dead end. However, once you understand that there is little more to be said on the topic unless you concoct a system that lets you ignore that fact. So you might go from "proving the existence of god' to saying it’s a question of faith.

PS: "I think therefore I am" is not necessarily true for a puppet reading someone else’s lines or a part of a far large hole. So, "Do I think?" is about as far as philosophy can take you.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#75

Post by akkartik »

gatormax wrote: post #43
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…

I would expect that you're correct, given your stint as a professional painter, something Mr. Graham cannot lay claim to. And it doesn't really matter. The "Hackers and Painters" essay is not about painting, nor the strict similarities between "hacking" and painting. It is about the fact that "hackers" do both design and development. This is different from the conventional notion of product development existing separ…

Turns out 'weenis' isn't sexual at all. But yes, the name calling is a huge distraction.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#76

Post by foldr »

Retric wrote: post #74
foldr wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The realization that philosophy is a dead end is vary common and vary old. Well yes, that point of view is very old, but then so is the opposite point of view. I thought your point was more substantial than this, i.e. that modern science somehow invalidated philosophy. This point of view is obviously at least no older than modern science. I'm not sure what your point is re Aquinas. He was a brilliant philosopher who…

If by modern science you mean Gregor Johann Mendel and Isaac Newton then yea it's only a few hundred years old. But, Archimedes also believed in testing his ideas when possible so "modern science" is probably not the best term. Anyway, finding someone who in his youth wrote elegant treaties on the definition of justice says nothing about his latter beliefs and due to our limited lifespan from a historical standpoint…

>If by modern science you mean Gregor Johann Mendel and Isaac Newton then yea it's only a few hundred years old. But, Archimedes also believed in testing his ideas when possible so "modern science" is probably not the best term.

What's your point? The idea of science as something separate from philosophy which could actually replace philosophy altogether is basically a 20th century one, and is certainly no more than a few hundred years old. (Science just wasn't impressive enough before then for it to be a reasonable point of view.)

>All it takes is the realization that your assumptions are often wrong to realize that Philosophy is a dead end.

I don't see how that follows. The vulnerability of initial assumptions is a problem for any form of inquiry, science included, but it isn't a fatal problem. Much of philosophy is precisely about questioning assumptions.

>PS: "I think therefore I am" is not necessarily true for a puppet reading someone else’s lines

I have no idea what you mean by this, but it doesn't seem to address Descartes' argument. (He was obviously not suggesting that anyone who merely says "I think therefore I am" must necessarily exist.)

>or a part of a far large hole

whole?

>So, "Do I think?" is about as far as philosophy can take you.

This is manifestly nonsense. Unless you are seriously claiming that there has been no progress in logic, political philosophy, moral philosophy, the philoosphy of science, etc. etc. in the past few thousand years. At the very least, the range of possible views, and the best arguments for and against these views, are much better known and understood than they were before. And in some areas (e.g. logic, and those aspects of the philosophy of science pertaining to it) there has been progress in a much more definite sense.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#77

Post by Retric »

foldr wrote: post #76
Retric wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by modern science you mean Gregor Johann Mendel and Isaac Newton then yea it's only a few hundred years old. But, Archimedes also believed in testing his ideas when possible so "modern science" is probably not the best term. Anyway, finding someone who in his youth wrote elegant treaties on the definition of justice says nothing about his latter beliefs and due to our limited lifespan from a historical standpoint…

>If by modern science you mean Gregor Johann Mendel and Isaac Newton then yea it's only a few hundred years old. But, Archimedes also believed in testing his ideas when possible so "modern science" is probably not the best term. What's your point? The idea of science as something separate from philosophy which could actually replace philosophy altogether is basically a 20th century one, and is certainly no more than…

Unless you are seriously claiming that there has been no progress in logic, political philosophy, moral philosophy, the philoosphy of science, etc. etc. in the past few thousand years. Excluding logic I would agree with that statement.

If you disagree then [citation needed].

Philosophy is the study or creation of theories about basic things such as the nature of existence, knowledge, and thought, or about how people should live. To be clear Philosophy does not encompass math and it does not require testing of those theories.

PS: Skepticism is a philosophical attitude that questions the possibility of obtaining any sort of knowledge. It was first articulated by Pyrrho, who believed that everything could be doubted except appearances. (ca. 360 BC - ca. 270 BC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#78

Post by pg »

euccastro wrote: post #67
zimbabwe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, but no. Left arm (right from the observer's POV) is orangoutan-sized, while the other (closer to the viewer) appears too small and thin in comparison, even accounting for perspective. Hip bone goes way too high, and thorax is amorphously portrayed in comparison. Neck starts behind guy's back. Head outline is missing. The thing that bites guy's ass is ridiculously sized if a lion was intended, and that front le…

Cezanne can't be blamed for the lion. This is a drawing of a statue in the Louvre. The sculptor may have made the lion small intentionally. But the human was pretty anatomically correct as far as I remember.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#79

Post by foldr »

Retric wrote: post #77
foldr wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If by modern science you mean Gregor Johann Mendel and Isaac Newton then yea it's only a few hundred years old. But, Archimedes also believed in testing his ideas when possible so "modern science" is probably not the best term. What's your point? The idea of science as something separate from philosophy which could actually replace philosophy altogether is basically a 20th century one, and is certainly no more than…

Unless you are seriously claiming that there has been no progress in logic, political philosophy, moral philosophy, the philoosphy of science, etc. etc. in the past few thousand years. Excluding logic I would agree with that statement. If you disagree then [citation needed]. Philosophy is the study or creation of theories about basic things such as the nature of existence, knowledge, and thought, or about how people…

>If you disagree then [citation needed].

I think you are confused about where the burden of proof lies here. You are asserting the worthlessness of the entire cannon of Western philosophy (and quite possibly other branches of philosophy too). This is an incredible assertion.

By the way, why do you "exclude logic"? Logic has always been a central element of philosophy, at least since Aristotle.

>To be clear Philosophy does not encompass math and it does not require testing of those theories.

Philosophy certainly includes some areas of math (for example, mathematical logic derives partly from work by philosophers). As for whether or not philosophical ideas "need to be tested", that is such a vague locution that it's difficult to respond. But certainly philosophical ideas are supposed to be subject to scrutiny (e.g. compared to alternative points of view, shown to be consistent, etc. etc.)

PS. Thanks for telling me what skepticism is. By the way, if you are interested in testability, you might want to read the ample literature on this notion in the philosophy of science.

Re: Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

#80

Post by Retric »

foldr wrote: post #79
Retric wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are seriously claiming that there has been no progress in logic, political philosophy, moral philosophy, the philoosphy of science, etc. etc. in the past few thousand years. Excluding logic I would agree with that statement. If you disagree then [citation needed]. Philosophy is the study or creation of theories about basic things such as the nature of existence, knowledge, and thought, or about how people…

>If you disagree then [citation needed]. I think you are confused about where the burden of proof lies here. You are asserting the worthlessness of the entire cannon of Western philosophy (and quite possibly other branches of philosophy too). This is an incredible assertion. By the way, why do you "exclude logic"? Logic has always been a central element of philosophy, at least since Aristotle. >To be clear Philosophy…

This is an incredible assertion. And yet you can't site a single example of progress.

Thanks for telling me what skepticism is. no I showed an example of "modern" skepticism that is over 2,000 years old. Think about this ~2,300 years ago people were having the same basic argument as we are having today I can think of no other field which has stagnated to that degree.

Post reply on HN