What is Meant When It Is Said "Hollywood Needs Artists"

Many years ago in New York, a dear friend of mine who was head of NY SIGGRAPH called me up and announced "<Unnamed Studio> needs artists! <Unnamed Studio> needs artists!".

I laughed at her endearing naivete.

"Yes," I said, "Sure, absolutely, <Unnamed Studio> needs artists. No doubt. But what you mean by the word 'artist' and what they mean are completely different."

"Huh?" she said, completely baffled by my cynical response.

"When you say 'artist', you mean something along the lines of 'a person with a strong personal vision and an even stronger ego who works for years or decades to establish a unique or at least a personal style associated with their name, exhibits generally through galleries, establishes themselves within certain very specific contemporary art communities and strives within the very narrow bounds of whatever we currently call Contemporary Art, for grants, recognition and to become collectable. They cultivate their Art in America mentions, and other even more important critical venues whose name I do not even know."

"But when <Unnamed Studio> says they need 'artists', they mean something along the lines of 'a person who has been highly trained with certain specific technical skills associated with the visual arts who are able to use those specific skills under the direction of a hierarchy of other management and in peaceful coexistence with their fellow biped mammals, doing that exact same task, at a certain level of productivity in order to achieve on time and on schedule a very complicated entertainment-related consumer product. They are not expected nor are they likely to contribute any personal vision to the project, that vision is provided at another level and their input is generally not desired or tolerated. They will have no ownership of the project either creative or financial beyond very limited contracturally specified rights, generally of using material for a demo reel. They are the classic disenfranchised labor described by Marx and Engels and, when the project is over, the providers of capital expect them to attend a wrap party and go away.'"

The term "artist" is one of those terms, like "freedom" or "happy", that is layered with meaning that is culturally determined.  Not every culture, or industry, redefines all terms but when they do redefine a term, they do so with complete sincerity and, generally speaking, do so while being completely unaware that they are doing so.  It is important for a visitor or observer from outside to realize this and be sensitive to the issues.  So therefore, be aware, in the entertainment industry, the role of the artist is to manufacture consumer products in order to maximize shareholder value.

Also be aware that the term "artist" is often used as an insult, meaning self indulgent and difficult, as in "he/she is a real artist, if you know what I mean".

Art In America
http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/

revised 1/2/2015

The Aesthetics of Earthquakes in Southern California

Well we finally had a decent earthquake after a long time. Not that great, but a 4.7 which is just ok. About 60 miles away. Pffft.  One good shock.  Is that it, I thought?  That's all you got?  Definitely not enough.

I may as well tell you that I have been very disappointed by the earthquakes I have experienced in S. California since I came back from the East Coast. Let me be blunt guys, its for your own good.  S. California is less than the East Coast in almost any measure one can use, its crummy weather, its crummy non-transit system.   Its failure to deal with civic planning.  The only thing it has going for it imho is earthquakes and a few other things like surfer girls and beachside Mexican restaurants.

Before I left for NY and Aspen in 1994 or so, I could count on a solid interesting earthquake every few months. One that would rattle the house, rattle the windows, annoy the dogs and set off the happy chirping of car alarms up and down Lookout Mountain. It was the car alarms and the barking that convinced the observer that the earthquakes were real and not just the result of a happy dream.

But since I have returned that old earthquake magic seems to be gone.  Dried up. Every once in a while  a dreary little rumble is felt, occasionally a shock to the house, more your imagination than anything substantial.

What happened?

No one knows. No one asks, No one cares.  Its like the rest of Los Angeles.  Dreary devolved robots, joyless, idealess, soulless.  Going through the motions.  Hoping that nothing will shatter the fragile illusion of normality that they clutch to their bosom so tightly.  That nothing will happen to make them fall into the abyss like so many of their friends, screaming soundlessly into the night, and then gone forever.

What constitutes a good earthquake? 

1. The earthquake should have structure, periods of intensity, periods of quietness. It shouldn't just be on and off.  One boom equals boring.  No, there should perhaps be a solid and dramatic initial shock to get your attention, then perhaps an anticipatory pause, then a good solid series of shakes building in amplitude to the point where you wonder if you should get out of bed to stand underneath a door jam. Then a pause again, and a few more shakes as a finale. Many variations on this theme are possible, this is not a hard and fast prescription. The general principle is that a good quake will reveal a structure and not just be one blow.

2. The earthquake should have solid aftershocks. After the main quake, in a minute or two, or five, or an hour, there should be another good earthquake or two. More than one if possible. Maybe not as ambitious and complicated as the first one, these could indeed be just one shock without structure, but an aftershock or two.  (1)

3. The house should demonstrate harmonics and vibrations. You should hear windows rattle, doors creak, and see or hear other examples of wave interactions.

4. The neighborhood should come alive with noise. Dogs barking, car alarms going, wind chimes chiming, radio announcers announcing.

MCA/Universal's Masterpiece starring Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner

5. Going beyond "good" to "excellent", an excellent earthquake should be violent.  It should wake you up and make you think.  It should make you wonder if this is it, if this is when you die, or someone you know dies, your existence forever extinguished.   An excellent earthquake makes you think about your own mortality.

6. After "good" and "excellent" of course is "Apocalyptic".    The "Wrath of God" Earthquake.  The one like the one you saw in disaster movies, but without the happy ending and Charlton Heston.   The earthquake that announces the "Last Days".  The one that demands your complete attention.  The one that does more than shake up your day.  The one that lasts a minute or two or five, is off the Richter scale, and leaves Los Angeles flattened, an even 1.5 or so feet of crushed plaster, with an oil derrick or two sticking out of the ruins and millions of BMWs, Mercedes, Lexus and Acura's alarms demanding attention but getting none until they finally run their battery down and one by one go silent.

Miles and miles of cars protruding above the crushed plaster, silent, motionless.

They stand silent forever, monuments to the shallow greed and the shallow graves of their former owners.

Soon, maybe, soon.

[Of course we do not really wish for the Apocalyptic earthquake to happen anytime soon, at least not until all the people we care about have sold their property in LA and moved out, especially the surfers and people who run beachside Mexican Restaurants. ]

_________________________________________________

LA Times Article on Today's Earthquake:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/03/more-than-100-small-aftershocks-follow-47-quake.html

Information on 4.7 Earthquake

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/ci15296281#summary

Information on All Recent Earthquakes

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/

Earthquake (1974) on IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071455/

_________________________________________________

1. The managed news media in S. California tells me that there were over 100 aftershakes after the one this morning.  Well, maybe.  But if so, I did not feel a *single* one.

Modern Historically Correct Computer Phonetic Alphabet

v 0.1 Beta  3/10/2013

[in progress]

Tired of being told words over the phone that you can not spell correctly and have the person on the other end fail to enunciate what they mean and too lazy to use an approved phonetic alphabet for voice communication?  Then consider the following new, rationalized, technology appropriate phonetic alphabet.  The words suggested below are intended to be highly redundant and recognizable words that are unmistakable for any other word on the list, and either have some value in a computer historical sense, or allow the speaker to get out some of their frustration using good Anglo Saxon idiom.

Each comma separated phrase is as good as another, there is no particular expressed priority between the terms. In other words, Burroughs is as good as Burnout.

A -- Alpha, Alphabet, Analog, ASCII, ARPANET

B -- Burroughs, Burnout

C -- Collossus, Channel, Cantaloupe, COBOL

D -- DEC, Dogshit, Data General, Digital Equipment Corporation

E -- Echo, Enigma, EBCDIC

F -- Fuck, Fuckit, Fucking

G -- Geheimschreiber

H -- Hacker, Honeywell, Hollerith

I -- Idiot, IBM

J -- Jerk

K -- Kernel

L -- Lemonade, Lichtenstein

M -- Moron, MIT

N -- Negative, Nebula

O -- Ohbaby, Orion

P -- PDP, Penis, Process, Punched Card

Q -- Quasi, Quack

R -- Ramo, Rancid, Rogue

S -- Stupid, Spacewar

T -- Turing, Teletype, Tron

U -- Ubetcha, User

V -- von Neumann, vector

W -- Woolridge, Whirlwind, Washedup

X -- Xray, Xanadu

Y -- Yessir, Yes Maam

Z -- Zebra, Zork

Examples

Bolt := Burnout Ohbaby Lemonade Teletype
Scumbag := Stupid Cantaloupe Ubetcha Moron Burnout Alphabet Geheimschreiber

References

Category of Phonetic Alphabets on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Phonetic_alphabets

Nato Phonetic Alphabet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_phonetic_alphabet

The Tragedy of Reverse "Mercury Retrograde"

[Update 03-13-2013 We have ascertained that Mercury was Direct when I was born, but was retrograde when I was conceived.  More research to do.]

[Disclaimer: The author in no way espouses a belief in what is popularly known as "Astrology" in this country nor is it my intent to encourage you to believe in it either.  What we popularly call astrology is in fact a decadent pastiche of many ancient belief systems that were held in high regard throughout the ancient world, each in their various ways, cultures and time periods.  As a field of academic study in what people believed in various times of history, I think Astrology suffers from a non-benign neglect because of a fear of being accused of believing in it.    On the other hand, I do get a lot of amusement when Astrology does seem to predict events as I believe it tells us something about how we perceive coincidence, if it is indeed coincidence, to fit certain categories and beliefs.  It would be disingenuous of me not to admit that there have been some striking coincidences over the years that does give me pause, and which I will narrate in this blog from time to time, but I do not believe that Astrology predicted them.  Rather I think they are obviously related to Atlantean Crystal Wisdom.    For those who are interested, I am a Leo with moon and sun signs in Scorpio.]

In this post I am going to introduce the concept of "Mercury going retrograde", describe some case studies of events that have occurred when Mercury was retrograde, and tell you why I think I am completely fucked due to this eternal and immutable astrological principle.

My first exposure to the concept of "Mercury in Retrograde" occurred in NYC about 1996 or 1997 when the esteemed NY ISP Interport.com lost my email address. A bill had come through unexpectedly and my ill-prepared credit card could not handle it, so a payment bounced and my email stopped working. I paid my bill, called Interport and spent about three weeks with them trying to debug their system: they were totally unable to get my email to work again.  They put many people on the problem, they did a very responsible job as far as I can tell, and they were totally stymied.  About that time, I was in touch with my friend Trilby Schreiber who informed me that "Mercury was starting to come out of retrograde" and that the account would probably start working again in a few days. And it did.

Just for fun, I started tracking Mercury going Retrograde because I thought it was an amusing concept and about a year or two later, a client of mine's phone system started going flooey about the time Mercury went into retrograde. Their voice mail system was hopelessly screwed up and they could not fix it, and weeks went by. I knew everyone in the company well and just for fun I mentioned that Mercury was still retrograde and that it would start going out of retrograde in about a week. They laughed at me! Can you imagine that?  They laughed at me!!! And about a week later, finally, their phone system mysteriously fixed itself and started working.  Mysteriously.  Perhaps they will learn from this experience.

Mercury going retrograde is the phenomenon of Mercury appearing to go backwards due to the elliptical orbits of the planets around the Sun. Due to the different speeds and orbits of the planets, it can appear as though a planet changes direction and goes backwards relative to its location to earth, even though in reality it is moving forward as it always does. So Mercury does really appear to go backwards, from our point of view. This happens about 3 times every year and lasts for 3-5 weeks each time.  To know when Mercury is going retrograde in any year, just type "mercury retrograde 2013" (or whatever year it may be) into your favorite search engine.

The astrological impact of this logically follows from the God Mercury (aka Hermes) being the messenger kid for the other Gods in Greek and Roman religion.  "Mercury going retrograde" implies that communications go weird, unreliable and/or prone to distortion.   Communication, negotiation, deals, contracts, and the like are unreliable, and a deal signed during a retrograde Mercury period may in fact turn out to be something other than you expected.    Also, for some reasons, machines like computers start acting perversely.    The Greeks and Romans did not have computers per se, at least not digital ones (1), of course, but they did have a large number of mechanical engines which were in constant use, and there is nothing like a four-story crane at a construction site going weird while raising a couple of (Roman) tons of marble to ruin your day.

But there is an elaboration that I read about that takes this to a higher level.  In this variation, there are people for whom the normal retrograde effect is itself reversed.   When Mercury goes retrograde, communication does not get worse for these people, it gets better.   The downside is that for the rest of the year, when Mercury is going forward as normal, they also experience the reverse effect on communication, etc.  It is like one long horrible "Mercury is Retrograde" for most of the year, broken up by brief periods of constructive normality.   This would be very bad of course for the individual who was so affected.

Who might be susceptible to this variation?  One explanation is that one is born during a retrograde period.  I do not know what other situations or events might cause this.  But I am highly motivated to know, because I have noticed for many years now that for most of the year I am completely paralyzed and isolated, unable to get anything moving.  Then, for some reason, things start working normally, for a brief period of time, but then stop and revert to their previous paralysis.

Just recently, a number of things started working and started showing progress after months of nothing.   A beloved and unique camera, a Contax AX, had been drop-kicked 20 feet along a concrete street and had sensibly stopped working, suddenly just started working again.    A friend indicated that he was working on getting me a project.  I started talking to the chair of next years SIGGRAPH on a variety of important issues.  This may lead nowhere, but it is such a delight to be able to talk to a real human involved at a senior level on these issues.  An old friend asked me to participate in a charitable visualization project.   I came up with a possible, amusing idea for a consulting business, and became more convinced than ever that a kind of software I have considered writing would be quite valuable if written.  This is all very odd and mysterious, I thought.   Why should anything good be happening to me?

Then I had a horrible thought and checked, and yes, it had all started when Mercury became retrograde about two weeks ago.  I think you see the obvious implications. If I am right, then the only time that communications, machines, ideas, deals and so forth can make progress and work for me is when Mercury is retrograde, three short periods of the year.

Mainstream post-enlightenment culture sees no other rational explanation for these events beyond sheer perverse randomness.    It is not about my effort, or my attitude, which is consistently bad, or because of how much energy I put into things because I always put a lot of energy into my work except when I hold my head in despair.   If not reverse Mercury retrograde, what other possible explanation is there beyond mere randomness or the untested power of Atlantean Crystal Wisdom?

_______________________________________

More about Mercury Retrograde

http://www.addictedtoastrology.com/p/mercury-retrograde.html

http://solarisastrology.blogspot.com/2013/02/mercury-retrograde-trickster-of-night.html

http://www.universetoday.com/22135/mercury-retrograde/
http://www.thespiraljournal.com/2012/03/mercury-retrograde-2/

The following is a table of all the times that Mercury went Retrograde in the last century (e.g. 1901 - 2000).  The term "MR" means "Mercury Retrograde" and the term "MD" means "Mercury Direct".

http://www.astropro.com/features/tables/geo/me-sta/me-sta26.html
________________________________________

1. Actually the Romans did have computers, but they were analog and mechanical ones.  A sundial is a computer, so are many navigation devices etc.  These people were not dummies.

Toaster Oven or Computer? How Can We Tell The Difference?

[Note, I use the term "computer" here to refer to both the hardware and software.  Did anyone think that a computer did not include software?]

As citizens of our modern world (1), we are expected to promiscuously hop from computer platform to computer platform at the slightest hint of trendiness or novelty. To fail to do so is an unmistakable sign of imminent and unstoppable senility and creates the genuine possibility that you will be thrown under the wheels of the train of progress by your helpful and loving friends and colleagues.

So we embrace our new platforms and devices and pretend to be excited by whatever bad implementation of an old idea that is poked in our face as "the latest thing".

But some of us, for reasons that may not be our fault, are also called upon to do our "work" on these exciting new platforms (3) and that can cause a lot of problems, especially if the new device claiming to be a computing device actually turns out to be more like a toaster oven than a computer.

Does that modern looking toaster oven have an ethernet interface?   How about wireless routing?

Now this is not to in any way put down the noble art of the design of a good toaster oven, far from it. Toast can turn a formerly inedible piece of old bread into a tasty culinary element, no small feat.  Most of us would not consider having a toaster oven in our kitchen that did not have a satellite uplink and at least 1GB of main memory.  But a toaster oven is still conceptually different from a computer in at least one important way.

I maintain that the key distinguishing concept separating the computer from the toaster oven is the need to get work done beyond the controlled burning of bread. It is this idea that a computer is used to "get work done" that is considered so revolutionary and so threatening to the computer manufacturers of today who believe that a computer is first, last and always a device to extract money from the consumer.

A computer is not just to demonstrate a bankrupt user interface idea discredited 20 years ago at SIGCHI and implemented by morons: a computer is actually a tool intended to accomplish something that the biped mammal thinks is worthwhile... something as simple as writing a letter or as complicated as mapping the human genome.  (4) Or that was the naive and idealistic belief held by many of the original users of computers back in the day when we thought computers were going to help the world and not just torture it.

How can we easily spot the computer from the toaster oven in actual practice?  We have developed a procedure which is outlined here.  First find a comfortable location within easy view of a clock.  Cozy up to your computer candidate, note what time it is, and then try to perform the following simple tasks, taking note of how long it takes you to complete them.

A. How hard is it to find a command line interface? How hard is it to find a text editor that does not insist on changing your data in order to "fix" it?   Can you create a file without the computer screaming bloody murder and asking stupid questions about whether you want linefeeds in Vietnam? (2)

B. How hard is it to create a new program for the computer, even the simplest program, and run it on the computer?  Not their program (or "app" if you insist), but your program.  Almost any computer language will do, whether or not it is the "native" language of the computer.    Do you need to get permission from Jesus or the Pope before you run this program of yours?   Boy that would be pretty fucking arrogant if computer companies were actually trying to control the software you could run on the computer you just bought from them in a sleazy bid to extract more money from you, don't you think?

C. How hard is it to find good (e.g. useful) technical documentation for the computer?  Documentation that a reasonably knowledgeable technical person would want to know when programming or operating that computer?  Does such documentation even exist?  Or is it carefully kept only for the elite in order to avoid giving actual users the information they would need to program their computer?  They might hurt themselves!

D. Does the computer support open standards and protocols or did the manufacturer work with tremendous diligence and cynicism to make sure that any application written for this platform could never in a billion years be ported?

E. Does the computer allow you to easily get data on the computer and off of it again? Why would anyone want to do that?   

There are cases where something may not fulfill all the five categories above and still be a computer, but generally it is a special purpose computer that has a large support team around it, say the kind of computer we might use to blow up Iraq.

Consider the following four case studies: Redhat Linux 9.0 circa 1988, the DEC PDP 8E circa 1970, MAC OS X and the Android Nexus 7.

Redhat Linux circa 1998.    The subject was able to find a shell within about 30 seconds, a text editor in about 5 seconds, write a program in about 1 minute, find a compiler in about 20 seconds and compile and run a program in about 30 seconds after that.  The subject had trouble finding documentation because he had inadvertently not installed it by default, and he had to learn about the stupidity of the Info system for which GNU should be shot.  Definitely a computer.

DEC PDP 8E.   The subject discovered that the DEC PDP 8E, which his high school acquired about 1970, came with a built in line editor, a built in compiler (for FOCAL), and was running his own program within about 5 minutes.  One got data on and off with paper tape.  Definitely a computer.

A Real Computer

MAC OS X.  The subject had a project that required him to port a program from Linux to the MAC.   He was able to find wonderful technical documentation instantly, a good text editor in seconds, a compiler in a few minutes, and run a program in about an hour. Definitely a computer.

Android Nexus 7.   Subject had to deal with the immensely patronizing bullshit surrounding programming the Android for something like 6 weeks before getting a simple "hello, world" like program to run.  Said program was a page of insane java calls and the program itself needed to be embedded in a crazy hierarchy of useless directories and was painful to get to the designated tablet and to figure out how to run it.  There is no serious technical documentation. Anything involving a text editor, or getting data on and off, relies entirely on unsupported third party software that you have to find and install yourself without help or documentation from the manufacturer.

More toaster oven than computer, I think.

_______________________________

1. And "modern" is such an old-fashioned word, too.

2. In order to discourage users from using public and open standards, Microsoft Office would put you through a battery of questions before allowing you to save a .txt file, including about line feed encoding in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, or whatever that socialist paradise is called these days.

3. Sarcasm intended.

4. Or, conversely, as complicated as writing a letter and as simple as decoding the human genome.

What is the Greatest Joy? Lizardo's Inspirational Speech in Buckaroo Banzai (1984)

One day there will be a real post about the following scene.  It is of Dr. Emilio Lizardo giving a speech to his fellow aliens in the style of Mussolini (more of a parody of Mussolini, I suppose).

The movie, Buckaroo Banzai into the 8th Dimension (1984) is a classic in its genre and this is John Lithgow giving a great performance for what is a very low budget movie.  It is always the most fun to play the villain.

The famous Scott Squires who is getting around a lot as a spokesperson for visual effects, a voice of reason in an unreasonable world, was one of the founders of Dreamquest Imagery that worked on the effects for this film, with effects supervisor for the production none other than my friend Mike Fink.

I love this speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd56CIFSMI4

He says something like this:

Whorfin: Lec's are on this planet, here in New Jersey, coming to destroy us. We must act, escape or die! We must work faster to finish the great vehicle itself, so we can enter the 8th dimension and free our trapped comrades, so we can return home and seize power once again! What is the greatest joy?
Workers: The Joy of Duty!
Whorfin: Louder!
Workers: The Joy of Duty!
Whorfin: History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark. We must work while the clock she is ticking!
Worker: Lord Whorfin destroy them!
Whorfin: We Hide!  They Seek!
Worker: Death to the Black Lectroids!
Whorfin: Where are we going?
Workers: Planet 10!
Whorfin: When?
Workers: Real soon!

The Red Lectroids Cheer!

Buckaroo Banzai on IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086856/

Applied for a Job at the California Academy of Sciences

Every year or so, a perfect job appears.  Now, I wont get it, but a tremendous amount of psychological energy is required for me to even apply.

So I did.

Cross your fingers!

Lets Be Realistic about Realism

[Please forgive the implied frustration of this post.  But you have no idea how tiring and irritating it is to have this discussion 30 years into this field.  By high end computer graphics we do not mean realistic or photo realistic in any way.  We are sorry you got that idea, but it is not what we meant, ever, so will you, whoever you are, please get over it.  It is irritating and demeaning.  Thank you]

My recent discussions about the failure of computer graphics to be useful to non-fiction fields, its utter failure to be used in Science, Finance, Architecture, and so forth, has brought up another worthy issue: the tyranny of the stupid belief (1) that high-end graphics and animation is about realism, and only about realism, and furthermore, that it is about what the badly educated think realism is.

I am holding back my real feelings here, so read between the lines.

I despise this tyranny of so-called realism or photorealism, I consider it the clear sign of mediocre minds and mediocre artists, of people who have been badly educated or completely uneducated in the arts. I hate having my creative potential limited by having to work with such people. Whenever I heard the desire for "photo realism" in my job as head of 3D at <company name deleted>, I wanted to throw down my pencil and walk out the door, as I knew I was working with people who did not have a (fucking) clue what they were about.

I was filled with self-hatred that frankly I had lowered myself again, to work with such swine. Again.

So is that clear, please, is it clear what I think about realism and the people who espouse it as the highest goal of anything?

Now you are welcome to believe what you want, you can believe that a movie about plastic toys is a work of art and is photorealistic if you want to, but do me a favor and do it far away from me. Because I am offended by your ignorance and your bad taste.

Sorry, just telling you what I believe.

But for those who are reading this blog, unless otherwise specified, "reality" per se is not a particularly desirable or required goal in imagery, unless we have some specific other goal in mind, which under certain circumstances we very well may have.  But then I will be specific in those circumstances what is desired here and why.  Oh yes, since many people reading this may not know what most of the words mean, good "visual effects" do not require "photorealism" in any sense of that word in any element. Good visual effects, to fool you into believing it is real, is completely different from requiring realism in computer graphics. I hope to explain why in this blog, although this should be completely obvious already.

So do not, repeat do not, ever believe that I am implying that computer graphics or any other form of imagery is naturally intended to be realistic.   Nothing could be further from the truth.  Do not limit my philosophy or discourse to your rather restricted views of reality, please.

No offense or anything, but that would be a very unrealistic thing of you to do.

____________________________

1. Of course by using the term "stupid belief" I am holding back my real feelings.  You should read between the lines to understand what it is that I really mean.

Employment for Computer Graphics in Non-Fiction Areas

[Some people who read this post think I mean the use of "photorealistic" computer animation in non-fiction fields.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I do not say it, I do not mean it, try to read what I say.  Thank you]

Now since most of the people who read this blog are friends of mine, and it never seems to be a good move to alienate friends (and if these are my friends, just imagine what my enemies must be like), nevertheless there has been a point of disagreement among my crowd. And it goes like this. I maintain that computer graphics / animation / whatever has failed in the non-fiction world and they maintain that I am wrong and that it is everywhere.

What would computer graphics in the world of non-fiction entail? It would entail the use of original, not canned, original 3D graphics techniques to visualize data for the purposes of non-fiction. Finance, medicine, science, transportation, urban design and other areas.

What would be the criteria for this success from my point of view?  It would be a healthy employment market for people who are skilled in these areas.

But no such market exists.

You don't think so, you think I am wrong, you think that this market does exist! Excellent! Fabulous! Show me.

I have looked and found nothing. In the area of Astronomy Visualization (one small subset of the potential area we are talking about) I know for a fact that nothing exists.   In the area of architecture, I have heard that most architectural visualization that is done is purely for sales (which I do not have a problem with per se), but that it is not used very much.  I can certainly agree that if it is used, it must be that they hire from within, which would make sense but does me no good.  

But in other areas, I am drawing conclusions from samples in the employment market, and could be guilty of being unsystematic, or perhaps just plain old sampling error, not knowing what to look for.

So if I am wrong, and you are quite sure that a market like this exists, for people to be hired in, please do not hesitiate to tell me where this market is. As I have been quite unable to find it and I have been looking for years.

Why does this matter?   It matters because when I chose to specialize in this field it was with the belief and understanding that I would be able to make a living in this field, whatever this field of computer animation would be.  So, lets us say the field of entertainment graphics is oversubscribed, which it is, but you can still see people advertising jobs and hear of people getting them.  But you do not, I maintain, see such things in the non-fiction side.   And that is a surprise to me, and if I am right, a surprise to all my friends who believe I am dead wrong, again.

So if there is work in this area, where are the jobs?  Show me.  It doesnt mean I will get these jobs, just show me where they are.

This all leads to a larger point that I am trying to establish, that SIGGRAPH should not encourage people to go into this field.  To do so would be disingenuous or destructive and certainly immoral.

So one more time I understand that I am wrong, but indulge me here as you correct the obviously misinformed, indulge me:  show me where the jobs are.

200 Motels (1971) on Youtube and Administrative Notes

[I just got back on the internet after 36 hours for failing to pay my 30.89 $US to the rich conglomerate that owns my access to the world.  Thanks to my many friends who are lending me money to get me through this insanely excruciating period.   I am for similar reasons going to be off my meds for the next few weeks, see if you can tell the difference!  I certainly can.  ]

[This post is being written in place, online, today and will become more detailed as the day goes by].

My friend Steve Speer has pointed out to me an immense and under recognized cultural resource, Frank Zappa's 200 Motels (1971).

It is very low quality youtube, which is what I would expect, and it has subtitles, whatever that means in this case.   Low quality Youtube is an abomination but we are lucky to have this work of genius in any form so we have to put up with it.

See it at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL63MuKDyIg

Frank Zappa was the acknowledged genius of the generation before my own, the man we recognized as having the sense of humor and talent and accomplishment that we all wanted.   1971 was the year I went away to college and I remember listening to Zappa albums over and over again as a freshman in my dorm.

The IMDB page for 200 Motels is at:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066732/