Ken Perlin is a fascinating person. On the one hand, he's a genius. He's created the noise-turbulence technique for which he won an academy award. And early on, he recognized the potential in the spatial qualities of computer programming. Noise-turbulence is a little beyond me. The complex mathematics behind the technique prove to be a language that I no longer speak. But the fact that he has learned to use this language as a tool of expression is just beautiful.
PAD is interesting to me. Partially because it begins to realize the spatial qualities of computer programming. Mostly because the spatial qualities are not fully realized. PAD is a program that allows the user to zoom in or out as far as s/he pleases, a function that affords the user the ability to include an insane amount of detail. The ability to zoom in establishes the interface as a three dimensional one...sort of. The part that gets me is that while the interface appears to be three dimensional, the user is still not allowed to place objects and information behind one another. The program isn't quite complete (in my head).
But Perlin seems like a really cool guy. His blog isn't just filled with science and math. It's full of poetry and memory and speculation. It's human. He's human. Maybe that's what I'm so intrigued by. His thoughts are similar to my own. We're asking similar questions. He may come to different conclusions, but in a way, it connects us.
I just wish I was capable of expressing my conclusions in his language. Math and science are so definite. So concrete. But visual arts...Sometimes I have a really difficult time expressing the thought process behind my work. I try not to be too vague and abstract. But sometimes what I feel and think isn't concrete enough for numbers or words.
I feel like I'm from Saturn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know what you mean about having concrete thoughts.. sometimes I feel like all I think about is media/communicating and then I find it a struggle to actually communicate at the end of the day. It's not easy!
ReplyDeleteWow. You said it in a nutshell. I fully second all of the above Bryn
ReplyDeleteI'm going to third that. I've never been a math/science person, and some days I'm not even an english person. Words and numbers are not wholly efficient. They are just symbols we created for certain things that we share in common, but what about the stuff we don't have in common, that we have not developed universal symbols for yet? These are the things we find difficult to communicate, and I think this is where art comes in, in any form.
ReplyDeletei agree. PAD was really incredible, but yeah it did seem a tad but incomplete, but im sure had he continued it and developed it further it would have taken off. who knows, with all the these new ebooks readers and digital tablets maybe the technology will make its way back in!
ReplyDelete