A.K.A “Well this is my interpretation of this painting.”.

How many solutions are there to 2+2? 4 is correct and so is |4|, but you wouldn’t usually write down |4| because 4 is the most concise and accepted notation. 2+2=5 is always wrong in math, but may be correct if you’re trying to make an Orwellian political statement. Although the literary (2+2=5) is more subjective than the mathematical (2+4=4), 2+2=6 will be pretty a damn incorrect interpretation in any situation–objectively wrong, even in subjectively formed systems. You should believe this if you believe that you can spot a terrible English essay among your peers.

Art is considered subjective in that there isn’t as definitive a way for a message to attain theoremhood as there is in math, but that doesn’t mean that anything goes. Many artists explore concepts in series because it is easier to interpret meaning within a formalized system (the project parameters, including axiomatic motifs). An artist’s intuition is sometimes mistaken for subjectivity, but since an artist works in systems–like anyone else who does–they get a feel for how that system works. A machinist gets a feel for how tightly a screw should be turned without stripping the threads; an artists learns to dictate materiality and subject-matter just so.

Myth: Art is a personal expression of the artist.

A.K.A “This sculpture is about my feelings.”

I’m a Graphic Designer; Graphic Design also known as Commercial Art. The most successful designers are the ones who know NOT to put their personality into a project that is supposed to be tailored to the specific needs of a specific client (It’s… design). It took some time for Graphic Design to be accepted as a legitimate art because of this commercial aspect, but even beyond Graphic Design there are other areas of art where the subject-matter has little to nothing to do with the artist’s emotions.

Institutional critique is the art of making statement pieces that point at the very context in which art itself is created. It asks questions like: Where is the line drawn between client and patron; Are there ethical lines of private interest? (See Andrea Fraser.) Successful artists know that they don’t exist as a lone entity of expression, and some of them have made very successful careers out of this–Jasper Johns, Andy Warhol, Lichtenstein, etc. legitimized the use of iconography in art. This highlighted the strength and ubiquity of pre-existing images in culture, and paved the grounds for newer artists to manipulate those cultural assets. Visual communication cannot exist in a vacuum.

Myth: Art speaks for itself (art for art’s sake).

A.K.A “You don’t get it because it’s abstract!”

A couple of you were in my room when Johnny picked up my copy of What is Contemporary Art? and read the sentence, “No idea about contemporary art is more pervasive than the idea that one can–even should–have no idea about it.” There’s no secret word or breath spray that will instantly make you understand abstraction, just as there is no secret word or breath spray that will instantly make you understand the context of any other set of information. Again, visual communication does not exist in a vacuum; different modes of abstraction came about to serve different intent, and if an artist can’t speak about their work, then we have ample reason to be–and should be–entirely suspicious about it. Is it abstract because they’ve denied realist painting due the advent of photography? Is it abstract because they’ve prescribed to expressionism? If so, then the formal qualities should match this sentiment, or else it is just be a blank statement.

Myth: Art is a talent, not a learned skill.

A.K.A “I wish I could draw, but I’m not artistic enough!”

I wish I could do math, but I’m not mathy enough!” This makes you sound as intelligent as, “I wish I could get better at X, but I’m not willing to invest the time to practice X!” If you don’t want to do art or math then fine, but don’t refer to someone’s patience and hard work as some sort of magically imbued talent.

Myth: Art opposes science.

A.K.A “Art and science are two different ways of thinking.”

There are origami-artist-engineers out there who specialize in protein-folding solutions for the pharmaceutical industry. That may be only one obscure and oddly specific example, but there’s no reason that art and science should remain so diametrically opposed in the notion of how things are. I’ve said to Alan that art is very intrigued by science, but science is very suspicious of art.  I don’t blame science because I get the feeling that the reason behind this is, not because science hates art, but because science doesn’t want to be associated with the general public’s ‘woo-woo’ interpretation of art. This is the same reason science finds it so hard to co-exist with faith, but unlike faith, art is based on formal qualities and honors rhyme and reason.

That was a lot of yapping, but let me get this out of the way: trying to gear the intent of art in one direction is like asking the builders of very different machines to assemble all their parts together into one giant machine; it doesn’t make any sense, and it won’t have any clear function. I’m not trying to define art–that is the job of a continual dialogue among many. I mainly want to dispel myths that I think often befuddle the understanding of art.

Failure is caused by stress. Many people who have taken a basic physics course would immediately intuitively understand that an excessive force causes things to break, and this isn’t far from the truth. In any real situation, any applied force is distributed over an area. Apply the same force over a smaller area and the material is less able to withstand the load. Stress, therefore, is defined as force divided by area. I’ll spare you the exact mathematics.

The basic strength properties of a material, especially metals, are often well described by a stress-strain curve. Strain is a sort of (dimensionless) measurement of how much a material is being stretched. An example is provided below:

Typical stress-strain curve for metals

Sigma is commonly used to represent stress, and epsilon is generally used to designate strain. It is evident that there are two main regions. The first is where the stress-strain curve is generally linear: this is called the ‘elastic region.’ If a piece of metal is stressed up to the peak stress associated with this linear region, or what’s called the ‘yield strength’, and then subsequently left alone, the metal would return to its original shape with no permanent deformation. However, if stressed beyond this point, permanent bending will occur as the metal enters what is called the ‘plastic region.’  You can try this on a metal clotheshanger. Bend it just a little bit and it’ll return to its original shape. Bend it some more and it’ll stay that way. Simple.

The highest stress level seen on the curve, which in this case is denoted by the ’1,’ is called the tensile, or ultimate, strength of the material. This level is generally that associated with breakage of the material.

As an engineer, your job is often to minimize stress levels to make sure it does not exceed yield/ultimate strength levels. Perhaps the biggest contributor to what are called ‘stress concentrations,’ or localized areas of increased stress, are geometric features. A large portion of structural analysis and design is therefore dedicated to recognizing and alleviating geometric irregularities which could produce elevated stresses. Three common techniques towards achieving this goal are the fillet, the chamfer, and the gusset.

A crappy image showing fillets and chamfers

The above image shows fillets, or radiuses, which are basically just rounded blends in between two adjacent surfaces. These have the advantage over sharp corners both in machinability (it is surprisingly difficult to machine a sharp interior corner out of a solid block of metal) and in stress reduction. Sharp inner corners have the tendency to concentrate stress.

The above image also shows chamfers, which are angled triangular-looking surfaces which usually replace sharp 90 degree exterior corners and replace them with two 135 degree corners instead. This has the effect of increasing the relative strength of exterior surfaces, similar to how an arch is more structurally sound than a lintel.

A gusset is essentially a webbing between two surfaces or objects which provides some material for stress to travel through, again with the aim of avoiding sharp interior corners. Another example shameless stolen from Google is shown below.

Gussets being used between two I-beams

Gussets are shown reinforcing the structure between two connected I-beams. (Why are they I-beams? The topic of a future nerdy engineering article!) Intuitively you can see how this would be advantageous.

That’s all for now. You’ve read this far? What’s wrong with you? You must be another engineer or something. Nerd.

You’re welcome.

I also found this papercraft automaton a few years ago:

And also this one which I’ll eventually buy the schematics for and make:

And lastly, I don’t know how familiar people generally are with the Lumiere brothers, but I saw this piece in a design documentary and was pretty blown away by the fact that it’s been hand-tinted frame by frame.

My contribution: A racist 1920′s automaton performing a magic trick! Completely inappropriate techno music included.  -Alan

Spoilers ahead

[Insert ridiculous melodramatic artist tantrum in England-France]

If I were George Melies, I’d be extremely offended, but since I’m not, I actually enjoyed the film because I love looking at these old hand-tinted films. I’m also fascinated by automata (stemming off a deep appreciation for orreries).

Just an addendum to maybe alleviate your disappointed experiences.

Categories highlighted in color of the person who scored highest in that trait. If more people take the test, I’ll add your results.

Most similar category:

Confidence

Dissimilar categories:

Femininity, Attention to Style, Earthy vs. Imaginative

Outliers:

Openness: Johnny

Extroversion: Tannie & Susie

Empathy: Susie & Johnny

Trust: Johnny & Tannie

Agency: Tannie

Masculinity: Tannie

Spontaneity: Johnny & Susie

Style: Alan

Aesthetics: Susie

Donald, Ranny & Johnny are tied for monopolization in categories.

Tannie and Alan have the smallest number of monopolized categories.

Tannie and Alan also are tied for the largest number of low outliers.

Susie and Alan are tied for the most retarded, inappropriately in-post argument.

Johnny is a wank.

Hasty Generalizations:

Donald & Ranny are man-woman chimeras.

Susie has less empathy than Alan has fashion sense.

Tannie is being drowned in a sea of testosterone.

Tendency to kidnap is directly linked to spontaneity bar.

I all ready posted this on my own blog, but I wanted to post it here as well.

Please choose your favorite animal, 1 being most favorite, and 5 being the least. It’s best not to look past this line if you’re doing the test yourself until you’ve chosen your order.

———————————————–

Positions:

1. Your present moment. (Moral law). This is what you are feeling or thinking subconsciously at the moment; things you truly believe in or think about.
2. What your goal is right now (Heaven). Something you are looking forward to.
3. What is grounding you right now (Earth). Who you really are, your true inner nature.
4. Hopes. (The Commander). Your hopes and dreams of the near future.
5. Fears. (Method & Discipline). What you fear about yourself or your environments currently. What you need to work on improving.

• Dragon: These noble creatures appear throughout Chinese culture and represent the Emperor of China. They are powerful, majestic, eccentric creatures and often considered “lucky.”

• Fenghuang: The Chinese phoenix is the ruler of all birds. It represents the Empress. It has no connection with the Western phoenix but shares similar positive traits. It is considered the pair to the Emperor’s dragon symbol. During times of trouble, it tends to hide away, and during times of peace and prosperity, it appears.

• Snake: Many tales are told about snakes all over the world, most are thought to be conniving and evil, but others are thought to be powerful deities. They embody the femininity and seduction of the woman — this is different from the femininity of the phoenix, whereas one has much more of aristocratic-like feminity. The snake to me represents the raw female that society teaches is bad to indulge in. I am not sure if I agree about that. But Nü Wa is a half-woman, half-snake deity  who is the creator of the world according to the Mao tribe. That is to say, not all snakes are here to make you eat a certain fruit from a certain tree.

• Tiger: The King of all beasts is another power animal that is the rival to the Dragon. These agile creatures loves challenges. It is easy to say that they are wild and feral, and running toward things at full speed. The white tiger is thought to symbolize wisdom in Chinese culture.

• Turtle: Turtle, in many Asian tales and myths, represents longevity. They live for many years, some even longer than humans, and thus, aquire much wisdom and sagehood. They are also guardians, or gateway animals that give people guidance. These creatures are also one of four animals that possess “spirit” according to the “Book of ceremonies.”

“Bandits” Buck 65 

My introduction into the genre started with Buck 65. Its quite amusing: he’s French-Canadian, but his music draws heavily from two very American traditions (blues and hip-hop). I don’t know how Buck manages to be so pragmatic and evocative in his lyrics at the same time, but hardly any other artist can hold a light to the wit of his spoken word poetry. (I chose a catchier song as an intro to Buck 65, if you’re yearning for more I highly recommend “Blood of a Young Wolf“)

“Rebel Yellow” Cecil Otter 

I found Cecil Otter through a collaboration band called Doomtree. I’m fairly sure all the blue tones in Doomtree’s music are coming from him. Another savant of the spoken word, Cecil somehow manages to take a line derivative of Pee Wee’s Big Adventure and dredge it in robust pathos. He’s got mastery over inflection and manages to sound powerful instead of cheesy.

“3030″ Deltron 3030

If this is sounding very familiar to you, that’s because Del tha Funky Homo Sapien collaborated with Gorillaz back in Demon Days. Deltron 3030 could easily be mistaken for Gorillaz sans Damon Albarn; all the post-apocalyptic themes and offbeat folk tones are there. The concept album narrates the plight of Deltron Zero against a sprawling universe-wide corporation; the soulful twangs of that slide guitar really lends its support as a humanistic element that only the Blues could elicit so well.

POST -JACKED!

I felt your title was representative of my most recent photoshop twiddling.