Architecture Is To Engineering As ??? Is To Computer Science

Q: I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to have a computing field in the arts, which would have a similar relationship to computer science as architecture does to engineering. See my proposal here: http://weblog.fortnow.com/2006/07/science-and-art-of-computation.html Do you think creative people who would major in architecture might think of majoring in such a computing field in the arts? It seems to me that it would be at least as creative but with the added benefit of having more varied creative projects (i.e., not restricted to any particular domain).

A: > I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to have a computing > field in the arts, which would have a similar relationship to computer > science as architecture does to engineering. University and college programs already exist for various aspects of both 2D and 3D computer arts. > See my proposal here: > http://weblog.fortnow.com/2006/07/science-and-art-of-computation.html > Do you think creative people who would major in architecture might > think of majoring in such a computing field in the arts? Such as a degree in 3D, you mean...? I don't know of any schools that offer archetecture-specific degrees, but there are a number of 3D people who do focus upon archetecture - check out http://www.cgarchitect.com If I recall correctly, which I might not, they also have some info re" programs offered by universities, colleges, and specialized schools (such as Gnomon in CA). > It seems to > me that it would be at least as creative but with the added benefit of > having more varied creative projects (i.e., not restricted to any > particular domain). Um, computer graphics has specialties and sub-specialties in the same way as does any other professional field. Creativity is a personal matter. There are vast arrays of computer graphics types who are technicians rather than artists, as well as other people who are more artist than technician. Computer graphics is more than just the digital version of finger-painting - especially for 3D, the programs used by professionals have a long learning curve because of theor complexity and capabilities. Learning to use a 3D program is helped by having a good bit of technical understanding of not only of computers, but also, of things such as the basics of the physics of light, the former so as to understand the capabilities of the software and hardware, and the latter so as to accurately model light - it's often said that the most difficult part of 3D is "getting the lighting right", and I agree with that.

The best model can look trite if the lighting is done poorly. Of course, if one is simply using a program that plops a single light into the scene and that's the end of it, that part is a great deal "easier", tho' the results are also less satisfying. 2D also varies between the print and the digital industries. "Restriction" and "creativity" exist at varying levels in pretty much any area of human endeavor. Just because a job is "art-related" does not mean it cannot be boring and repetitive. There are computer graphics tasks that'd make most people cry from the tediousness of it - it's nowhere near being all freewheeling laissez-faire "do what one wants" stuff.