<p>Today RISD announced that John Maeda of MIT would become its next president, succeeding Roger Mandle.</p>
<p>[url=<a href="http://www.risd.edu/president%5Dwww.risd.edu/president%5B/url">http://www.risd.edu/president]www.risd.edu/president[/url</a>]</p>
<p>This is a very interesting appointment and I'm really happy to see someone in the post who has a reputation in design and who is also strongly committed to new media.</p>
<p>That said, I hope he does a great job in the "traditional" role of the president, which is part administrator/director, part diplomat, and part fundraiser. Being an intellectual leader, an idea-person, would be a real bonus that I hope he can establish and maintain.</p>
<p>Interesting. RISD is about 50/50 fine and applied arts. I wonder how his appointment sits with the fine art folk? Did RISD go for a name? Regardless, Maeda is highly respected, energetic, and progressive.</p>
<p>John Maeda at TED
TED</a> | Talks | John Maeda: Simplicity patterns (video)</p>
<p>Interview with Maeda in Business Week: Next:</a> Innovation Tools & Trends And RISD's New President is...John Maeda -- He answers our questions here - BusinessWeek</p>
<p>//...Today art and design schools today are inundated with computers that run the exact same software as with every other computer around the world — thus originality has been lost because the DNA of arts and design is not entirely encoded in software systems today. Only a fraction of what we know about the visual domain lives in core systems like PostScript and so forth — so it is no wonder that anyone who makes something in Adobe Photoshop is immediately identified as having made it with Photoshop. - - John Maeda</p>
<p>Quite frankly, I think this is baloney.</p>
<p>Statements like this have been made many times over and I challenge it's validity. Photoshop and software are tools, as are oil paint, brushes, canvas, chisels and stone. All media is identified by inherent qualities and limitations. I think one could argue against using one medium to imitate another - especially when the imitation falls short - but when someone masters their craft, be it digital or analog, their work begins to transcend the medium to the point where media is no longer part of the subject. The DNA of art and design is concept driven. No originality has been lost at all. How would the digitization of art and design eliminate conceptual thought and development?</p>
<p>I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't like this guy. He's just as confusing as the old president.</p>
<p>Well, I vehemently disagree. John Maeda is a brilliant thinker and an intriguing artist, who has done an amazing job at MIT's Media Lab. I've read a great deal more about him in the past few days, watched his TED presentation, and read his new blog at RISD for the RISD community. As a RISD parent, my conclusion is he will be fantastically energizing for RISD. I think we're lucky to have him. Can't wait to see what he does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Photoshop and software are tools, as are oil paint, brushes, canvas, chisels and stone. All media is identified by inherent qualities and limitations. I think one could argue against using one medium to imitate another - especially when the imitation falls short - but when someone masters their craft, be it digital or analog, their work begins to transcend the medium to the point where media is no longer part of the subject. The DNA of art and design is concept driven. No originality has been lost at all. How would the digitization of art and design eliminate conceptual thought and development?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Rainingagain, that doesn't mean the medium cannot be criticized, evaluated, or improved. Maeda makes a good point, even if the limitations of digital media are not the most pressing concern facing the art world. You have to realize that he is a tech-y guy. Look at his answers, all about harnessing the internet, innovation, and technology. I think that's a good thing, because these are relatively new to the art world, and they have to be dealt with. He's not a painting instructor or art history professor. RISD's got all that down pat already. Look at what he's trying to do: "Artists and designers are everywhere as consultants to projects for the NSF and NIH -- they just haven't made it to "first class" status to be perceived as bona fide researchers themselves -- which they are." He is acknowledging the state of artists in the changing world, with respect to technological and other change. Someone needs to address these concerns.</p>
<p>I agree with Alia - - from all we've read/heard, the potential is amazing. My oldest son is now watching the developments closely as he'll begin his graduate search in a year. (MIT's program was #2 on his list!)</p>
<p>When the time comes for me to pursue a teaching position, I would love to work for an institution that has John Maeda as its president. I simply don't buy into the idea that creativity and originality has been flushed down the drain because of digital media.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither do I, and I don't think he does either. But I don't think you can disagree with the notion that digital media has certainly made it easier for someone with no artistic ability to make something that "looks cool" because it does a lot for you.</p>
<p>Things like Photoshop ARE tools, but comparing them to pencils and brushes as equals is ridiculous. I realize that people who use photoshop don't have to know how to draw and vice-versa, but the tools that photoshop presents are one million fold easier to master than the tools of pencils and brushes. Does that mean it's wrong? No, but it means there's a whole lot of people running around that consider themselves artists, and certainly have no "creativity and originality." </p>
<p>A lot of digital media is terrible because people think if they do what we are capabe of with traditional media, then it's on the same level. It's not, its an entirely different set of tools, and an entirely different critique. I think digital media, taking into account the massive amount of tools it offers, needs to prove itself as something more than repetitive kitsch.</p>
<p>A good response RyanMac</p>
<p>//Does that mean it's wrong? No, but it means there's a whole lot of people running around that consider themselves artists, and certainly have no "creativity and originality."//</p>
<p>I agree. When I was in school, a student next to me exclaimed, "Oh Photoshop's easy." I thought it was a ridiculous comment because Photoshop could be the means to an end, but it is not the end itself. So too is a piece of charcoal easy; it allows for a limited number of actions. Apply it to paper and it leaves a mark - the same mark a student next to me might make. Change the pressure, use the side or point. Smudge it and erase it. Anything else? Seems simple enough. You can teach a 2-year old to repeat those tasks. What is difficult is mastering and controlling the quality of the mark to a degree where the mark transcends the medium. </p>
<p>People say that photography is easy compared to painting. Well, yes and no. It's a different skill-set. Lord knows how much money I spent on film and paper learning how to control tonal values in the camera and in the darkroom. I also had to learn how to compose and edit the possibilities. Sure, I could take 1000 shots of the same subject and hope that one turned out, but craft also is about seeing the end before you begin. Every time Ansel Adams took an image, he thought through the tonal reproduction process in order to anticipate and control the outcome.</p>
<p>//... but the tools that photoshop presents are one million fold easier to master than the tools of pencils and brushes.//</p>
<p>Sure and yes, I do think there is much greater appreciation for a well-crafted hand-rendered sketch than a digitally altered image, but regardless of the pre-packaged skill-sets inherent to digital media, I have seen them misused and abused without conception of or regard to quality of craft. The untrained or immature eye produces a lot of crappola.</p>
<p>I always advised applicants during portfolio counseling sessions to stay away from filters and plug-ins. No one is interested in the redundant application of canned effects which IS about the application and not about the artist = yuck.</p>
<p>Still, digital media should enable artists and designers to explore more complex ideas and concepts to a greater degree of creativity and originality by allowing for more expeditious explorations. This, however, does create a problem if the user/artist/designer lacks the ability to differentiate and evaluate the multitudes of variations that lie beneath their fingertips. </p>
<p>I simply do not agree with Maeda that digital media has sucked originality and creativity from the soul of art and design. It is still there.</p>
<p>BTW, a lot of the condemnation of digital media seems to center around the use of Photoshop. However, the introduction of page layout applications for publishing spawned an intense period of experimentation during the 1990s that significantly challenged established design doctrines.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Things like Photoshop ARE tools, but comparing them to pencils and brushes as equals is ridiculous. I realize that people who use photoshop don't have to know how to draw and vice-versa, but the tools that photoshop presents are one million fold easier to master than the tools of pencils and brushes. Does that mean it's wrong? No, but it means there's a whole lot of people running around that consider themselves artists, and certainly have no "creativity and originality."
[/quote]
Are you sure people who use photoshop don't have to draw? Have you ever used photoshop? Drawing is a skill that is essential for all mediums.</p>
<p>When professionals draw in photoshop, or any other program, they use a tablet. A tablet has a little tablet pencil. It's exactly the same as drawing with a real pencil, but less time consuming and messy.</p>
<p>I don't want to sound too confrontational here but I also have to disagree that computers are easier to master than traditional media. Look how many ugly computer animated movies there are out there. Pixar is the only studio that always does it right.</p>
<p>How come Maeda is talking about the dangers of digital media when he uses so much digital media himself? How come he thinks it's a bad thing that a photoshop drawing can be immediately recognized for what it is? Any watercolor can be recognized as a watercolor by someone who knows their paints. Is that really a problem? Why do so many artists think they can dismiss entire mediums as "not real art?" It's just weird to have someone who is going to be making statements about what is real art and what isn't as president of an art school that covers so many areas.</p>
<p>I know what a Wacom tablet is, and I realize that people who use them need to know how to draw. You also said "professionals." Are the majority of people using cameras professionals? You don't think "snapshot" cameras make a killing by tricking people into thinking they too can take "great pictures"? There is not difference with Photoshop; it's a public program that attracts a lot of people because it has so many tools. It makes it seem easier. Doesn't using a camera seem "so much easier" than painting? It's less work, it's easier to handle, and /normal/ people can do more recognizable things with it than acrylics. </p>
<p>Photography has proved itself as an art separate from painting. With the vast majority of "digital media" (I use that term lightly) being terrible, as I said before, it needs to prove itself as something separate. </p>
<p>If people can draw on Wacom tablets, whats the difference between a digital painting and an oil painting? The tools are different, just as a camera is different than a brush.</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn't know you where talking about how the medium seemed from the outside. I thought you where arguing that photoshop is actually easier.</p>