[Edu-sig] re: programming for artists

[Jason Cunliffe]

<Arthur_Siegel@rsmi.com> wrote:

> But I am  being stubbornly a bit school marmish by asking you
> to be precise/mathematical in flushing out what it is you are suggesting -
> if you are advocating a CP4E thrust.  Or asking you to be
> less ambiguous about it.

Very glad for the critique.
It is hard for me to be Mathematical about it because I am not very good at
a math. I need some help. I have several overlapping motives here:

- To help others like me full of curiosity and will, but frustrated by their
schooling. To add to the valuable resources for a CP4E vision.

- To expand the Python's multimedia horizons and culture. This is selfish in
the advocacy sense that I am the #1 guineapig who wants to see more people
implementing, thinking and sharing use of Python. This includes women of
course, many of whom are not alienated by male-geekdom but have love of
science and art.

- To dissolve hard distinctions between artist and engineer. To encourage
peopl to be have fun and be creative in ways they may not have been trainded
in. this works in both directions..

- To meet the needs of artists to develop their engineering selves and get
deeper control to do more out-of-the-box work. This is turn till can feed
the pool of resources for CP4E/CP4F.


> The argument goes that none of us are writing machine language code.
> The argument can be made that clicking Blenders GUI buttons is
> just another level up the high level language chain.  One is programming
> the Blender API in using its GUI.  The argument is not out and out
> ridiculous, which is why I think it needs to be addressed head on.
> And why I am scared of a media/game focused approached that
> doesn't have its definitions and intentions in a row upfront.

Yes all good points.
I believe any tools which give one interactive visualization of abstractions
are valuable: algebra, string, paper, Python, Blender..
How one uses them is crucial and I agree this must be done with clarity and
conviction. My thrust is to help people develop the skills to think
abstractly and to express those ideas in code. Python in the first instance,
but versions of this tree could be developed for JavaScript etc..

> Computer literacy is a worthy and practical educational pursuit.  But it
> is fundamentally a different pursuit in my mind than programming
education.

Yes good point.

> I guess I'm advocating coming to some defintions.
>
> I do significant VBA work.  By my lights, its not programming.
>
> In the end I  think  we need to respect the fact that programming
education
> has
> always been closely tied to mathematical education - generally
> coming out of the same department in institutes of higher education.
> The availability/use of Python changes the equation only very slightly,
> if at all, and only at the margins.

Aha! This strikes at one key question:
Why not also introdcuce Python in the art class?

> Just suggesting that you would be adding another level of complexity/
> contentiousness by tying it in any significant way to CP4E
> goals, objectives.
>
> Suggesting, I guess, the course of least resistance.
>
> Let it be what it is.  I don't think it requires any other justification.

Indeed, what emerges let it be..

Meanwhile the ambitious promoter/designer wonk in my head says:
- create a CP4E logo
- set up a simple web site to gather the resources, present the congruence
and diverstity of ideas
- draft a book foreward length CP4E 'intro_manifesto'
- Logo + Foreward are used as minimal ID on works which develop through
these channels & meeting with reasonable group approval agree to agree [and
disagree].
- Do the above gently and respectfully, Try not to distract but signal that
there are common threads here which deserve expressing to a broader public
in simple ways.

Thanks for all your replies

./Jason