 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.teamfortress.com/loosecanon/index.html
Check this lot out...
Damn, I wish to hell I had the skill to just casually doodle stuff like
that whenever I wanted. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 05.07.2010 23:20, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> Damn, I wish to hell I had the skill to just casually doodle stuff like
> that whenever I wanted. :-P
That guy probably sucks at Haskell though, and maybe can't tell the
black keys from the white ones on an organ ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:20:09 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> http://www.teamfortress.com/loosecanon/index.html
>
> Check this lot out...
>
> Damn, I wish to hell I had the skill to just casually doodle stuff like
> that whenever I wanted. :-P
What says that this was casually doodled? It could well be that it came
with decades of training and that each panel took hours of work to
complete. AFAIK, you have no way of knowing that it was sketched
casually nor in a relatively short period of time.
Or do you know the artist?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Damn, I wish to hell I had the skill to just casually doodle stuff like
>> that whenever I wanted. :-P
>
> That guy probably sucks at Haskell though, and maybe can't tell the
> black keys from the white ones on an organ ;-)
Oddly enough, many organs have the black keys and the white keys swapped
- as do many historic harpsichords. Apparently the "original"
arrangement for a keyboard was to have black for the natural notes. The
modern convention for using white developed later.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What says that this was casually doodled?
Nothing concrete. On the other hand, the frequency with which these
things appear suggests that it can't be a 2,000 hour masterpiece...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 07:32:48 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> What says that this was casually doodled?
>
> Nothing concrete. On the other hand, the frequency with which these
> things appear suggests that it can't be a 2,000 hour masterpiece...
Some artists struggle but persevere, others do have a natural
knack....And many have to be trained.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> What says that this was casually doodled?
>> Nothing concrete. On the other hand, the frequency with which these
>> things appear suggests that it can't be a 2,000 hour masterpiece...
>
> Some artists struggle but persevere, others do have a natural
> knack....And many have to be trained.
Well, these guys do work for Valve Corporation, so...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:57:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> What says that this was casually doodled?
>>> Nothing concrete. On the other hand, the frequency with which these
>>> things appear suggests that it can't be a 2,000 hour masterpiece...
>>
>> Some artists struggle but persevere, others do have a natural
>> knack....And many have to be trained.
>
> Well, these guys do work for Valve Corporation, so...
So they may actually have spent years learning how to draw. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Some artists struggle but persevere, others do have a natural
>>> knack....And many have to be trained.
>> Well, these guys do work for Valve Corporation, so...
>
> So they may actually have spent years learning how to draw. ;-)
I spent a whole year "learning to draw". As far as I can tell, I learned
absolutely nothing. (The book didn't really help either...)
Actually, no, that's not quite true. I learned why drawing is even hard
in the first place: because humans see things as 3D objects, not 2D
figures. And that means that when you try to copy something, you take
the 2D image, mentally convert it to 3D, and then try to convert back to
2D by hand... which doesn't work at all. The solution is to directly
draw what the eye sees, not what the mind interprets.
Of course, I still have *no frickin' clue* how to do that.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:32:19 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Some artists struggle but persevere, others do have a natural
>>>> knack....And many have to be trained.
>>> Well, these guys do work for Valve Corporation, so...
>>
>> So they may actually have spent years learning how to draw. ;-)
>
> I spent a whole year "learning to draw". As far as I can tell, I learned
> absolutely nothing. (The book didn't really help either...)
>
> Actually, no, that's not quite true. I learned why drawing is even hard
> in the first place: because humans see things as 3D objects, not 2D
> figures. And that means that when you try to copy something, you take
> the 2D image, mentally convert it to 3D, and then try to convert back to
> 2D by hand... which doesn't work at all. The solution is to directly
> draw what the eye sees, not what the mind interprets.
>
> Of course, I still have *no frickin' clue* how to do that.
I've spent the occasional time trying to learn to draw as well. There's
a difference between taking one class and spending *years* honing a
skill. Itzhak Perlman, for example, is a world-class violinist. You
don't seriously think he doesn't spend several hours a day practicing,
but just gets up on stage and performs without any preparation at all,
even with his decades of experience, do you?
Jim
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Actually, no, that's not quite true. I learned why drawing is even hard
>> in the first place: because humans see things as 3D objects, not 2D
>> figures. And that means that when you try to copy something, you take
>> the 2D image, mentally convert it to 3D, and then try to convert back to
>> 2D by hand... which doesn't work at all. The solution is to directly
>> draw what the eye sees, not what the mind interprets.
>>
>> Of course, I still have *no frickin' clue* how to do that.
>
> I've spent the occasional time trying to learn to draw as well. There's
> a difference between taking one class and spending *years* honing a
> skill. Itzhak Perlman, for example, is a world-class violinist. You
> don't seriously think he doesn't spend several hours a day practicing,
> but just gets up on stage and performs without any preparation at all,
> even with his decades of experience, do you?
I read somewhere (don't remember which book now) that you need 10000 hours
of experience in something to become an expert. Apparently if you research
many "experts" (including famous sports people, business men, artists etc),
almost all have surpassed the magic 10K hour mark.
So don't expect to do a 2 hour class for 52 weeks and become like them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> I read somewhere (don't remember which book now) that you need 10000 hours
> of experience in something to become an expert. Apparently if you research
> many "experts" (including famous sports people, business men, artists etc),
> almost all have surpassed the magic 10K hour mark.
Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell. Good book, very interesting, especially the Bill
Gates example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> So don't expect to do a 2 hour class for 52 weeks and become like them!
Well, sure. But you would expect that spending time on something would
result in *some* improvement...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I read somewhere (don't remember which book now) that you need 10000
>> hours
>> of experience in something to become an expert. Apparently if you
>> research
>> many "experts" (including famous sports people, business men, artists
>> etc),
>> almost all have surpassed the magic 10K hour mark.
>
> Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell. Good book, very interesting, especially the
> Bill
> Gates example.
Yes that's the one, I'm terrible at remembering which book was about which
subject!
Anyway, it really made me realise that it's no good just being in the right
place at the right time, you need to have put in a huge amount of work *and*
then be in the right place at the right time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/8/2010 3:07 AM, Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>
>> So don't expect to do a 2 hour class for 52 weeks and become like them!
>
> Well, sure. But you would expect that spending time on something would
> result in *some* improvement...
Interesting discussion. It parallels something a friend at work was
saying to me the other day. He was talking about how its fascinating how
the mind works when learning. When learning a new skill, initially you
gain ability quickly, then suddenly just when you're thinking you're
getting it, you actually decrease in ability. After a while when things
become automatic and you're not consciously thinking about them, you'll
then begin to get better at that skill again. I've experienced this many
times. It's usually when I hit that valley that I feel like giving up
(and often do give up) I think this applies mostly to motor skills,
things like playing a sport, driving a car with a manual transmission,
playing a musical instrument, drawing ... etc.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.07.2010 14:18, schrieb Mike Raiford:
> Interesting discussion. It parallels something a friend at work was
> saying to me the other day. He was talking about how its fascinating how
> the mind works when learning. When learning a new skill, initially you
> gain ability quickly, then suddenly just when you're thinking you're
> getting it, you actually decrease in ability. After a while when things
> become automatic and you're not consciously thinking about them, you'll
> then begin to get better at that skill again. I've experienced this many
> times. It's usually when I hit that valley that I feel like giving up
> (and often do give up) I think this applies mostly to motor skills,
> things like playing a sport, driving a car with a manual transmission,
> playing a musical instrument, drawing ... etc.
Yup. I gues this "valley" is when the skill is being "ported" from the
cerebrum to the cerebellum. At that time, you're effectively learning
the skill all over again, but with a different (and more efficient) part
of your brain.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> So don't expect to do a 2 hour class for 52 weeks and become like them!
>>
>> Well, sure. But you would expect that spending time on something would
>> result in *some* improvement...
>
> Interesting discussion. It parallels something a friend at work was
> saying to me the other day. He was talking about how its fascinating how
> the mind works when learning. When learning a new skill, initially you
> gain ability quickly, then suddenly just when you're thinking you're
> getting it, you actually decrease in ability. After a while when things
> become automatic and you're not consciously thinking about them, you'll
> then begin to get better at that skill again. I've experienced this many
> times. It's usually when I hit that valley that I feel like giving up
> (and often do give up) I think this applies mostly to motor skills,
> things like playing a sport, driving a car with a manual transmission,
> playing a musical instrument, drawing ... etc.
I don't recall any time when I got worse at dancing. Then again, I don't
have any objective way to measure it; it just enjoy doing it. Any
increase or decrease in skill is so gradual as to be completely dwarfed
by the day to day variations in performance.
Hmm, maybe that's why I suck at drawing. Because I don't like doing it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:07:37 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>
>> So don't expect to do a 2 hour class for 52 weeks and become like them!
>
> Well, sure. But you would expect that spending time on something would
> result in *some* improvement...
Depends on a lot of factors besides just time spent - focus, the
instruction provided, the feedback provided, etc. If you're being taught
by someone who doesn't know what they're doing, you could conceivably
regress (I sat in a day-long 'class' which ended with the 'instructor'
telling us she wasn't there to *teach* us anything; the group spent more
time arguing with her about what her role was than what the actual
subject matter she was supposed to teach us about.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:48:04 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Hmm, maybe that's why I suck at drawing. Because I don't like doing it.
It does make a lot of difference if you don't like something you're
learning. I sucked at pretty much every subject I didn't like because I
wasn't fully engaged in learning it (because I didn't like it). The fact
that I sucked at those subjects just made me hate them more.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> http://www.teamfortress.com/loosecanon/index.html
>
> Check this lot out...
>
> Damn, I wish to hell I had the skill to just casually doodle stuff like
> that whenever I wanted. :-P
this is more like a doodle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY1Lr-yGtd8
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-7-2010 9:03, scott wrote:
>>> Actually, no, that's not quite true. I learned why drawing is even hard
>>> in the first place: because humans see things as 3D objects, not 2D
>>> figures. And that means that when you try to copy something, you take
>>> the 2D image, mentally convert it to 3D, and then try to convert back to
>>> 2D by hand... which doesn't work at all. The solution is to directly
>>> draw what the eye sees, not what the mind interprets.
>>>
>>> Of course, I still have *no frickin' clue* how to do that.
>>
>> I've spent the occasional time trying to learn to draw as well. There's
>> a difference between taking one class and spending *years* honing a
>> skill. Itzhak Perlman, for example, is a world-class violinist. You
>> don't seriously think he doesn't spend several hours a day practicing,
>> but just gets up on stage and performs without any preparation at all,
>> even with his decades of experience, do you?
>
> I read somewhere (don't remember which book now) that you need 10000
> hours of experience in something to become an expert. Apparently if you
> research many "experts" (including famous sports people, business men,
> artists etc), almost all have surpassed the magic 10K hour mark.
that would be about 5 years (250 days a year 8 hours a day)?
Does that also work the other way and 10K hours implying that you are an
expert?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> that would be about 5 years (250 days a year 8 hours a day)?
I have actually read it's consistently closer to 10 years of practice to
become an expert at something, whether it be walking and talking, or
composing music or brain surgery.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
