Well at least one can talk together about stuff and then see if the other suffered and dislikes certain parts or maybe finds it great and exactly why. Then you know quite fast how many experience he/she has in the field.
In the end there is just paint/words. The question how to find and apply the right/wanted paint/words involves many aspects. By training one aspect it doesn't improve the other, but it may or may not improve the overall outcome.
Imho he did not be became better at "painting" but he made better designs for paintings. He trained one important aspect of the whole piece of art, the design. The aspect of applying paint was not trained, so that probably has not improved.
The question is does the person performing the job him/herself finds it usefull what he/she does. Is doesn't matter if it is useful in your eyes. Because it has to do with appreciation, selfconfidence identification, finding satisfaction. If your are just being giving the feeling to be stupid useless replacable person by letting you jump trough useless hoops to please undefinable goals for more powerfull and this happens in a statistical signifant amount
then it tells something about current state of society and gives you some questions: why ist that ? , how do we handle the other humans around us?, what is causing that mindset and in what future, how would you/we like to live together?
Nice but the most interesting is left out imho. It stops at the human retinas. But the way color then triggers perception would, I assume, also have a very high influence.
For example we relate warm and cooler colors to turning forms relate the distribution of brightness and saturation to form, distance etc. Then the precieved forms and colors are related to feelings. So a better suitable colormap for medical images would require more to prevent misinterpretations.
'Pretty' is maybe also subjective but probably not arbitrary...
Well the fact that the companies own the stuff that was researched with tax payer money, which then tax payer money must buy again also doesn't help to scale. As there is no real market but just an oligopol of producers. If the formulas would be public domain, the producers can compete who is fastest and there would be much more and they still earn good money...
A museum is not just an amusement park. If you want to see less art be more selective in what to see or go to the advertised shows and be amused.
A museum preserves cultural heritage.
The roman books about the greeks hidden in monasteries, sculptures buried in the earth that inspired the renaissance where not seen by the public for hundreds of years.
Until some start reading them again,a fire, a hope for a different way of thinking was born, accumulating to democracy land of the free etc. and probably your way of life as it is now.
So do not underestimate the value of currently unseen cultural heritage.
Selling it of now to a rich dump head showing it around until it rots in a basement as it is not envogue anymore is a filter but will put it on high risk.
Salary is higher in areas where the source of money creation is. The current source by our economic design is currently in the banking credit area. Then the business type, telling the story that appears to be the most interesting for these kind of guys, gets most credit, with this credit, all saleries are paid (so independent from real market or need, just based on a 'market' of imagined future value, if we would sell it would be..remember finance crises, people lost real jobs because money creation stopped). So it is no wonder that health care workers get less and others a lot more. Its not really earned but shared along story telling lines. One fairy tail is "market". Unless the banking investment guy gets sick, once in a while, he has no interest for biology or health care, but he likes big machines and cars. Its hard to imagine how biology is usefull for him, unless just to make a lot more money to buy more cars and penthouses, why not 'invest' in that directly?. Just my little theory :-D
Not too crazy to accomplish... mmm maybe a typical scientist attitude imho. Professionals who draw even just static portraits will likely tell you otherwise. With that stuff they will look like botox robot zombies for years :-D ...we will see..
Eyeopening. When "follow your Dreams" leads to this....well did you really dreamed about it that way? Where is the fun?
Looks like one becomes a "business" brainwashed robot spending way to much lifetime at doing ???????? just playing 'respect' to ego psychos for an in fact empty basket filled with $$$ paper.
Listen to signals your body sends, if there is no fun soon, it means STOP. Oh yeah you can watch datapoints, brainscans and talk to experts for years, but listen to what you feel is enough. It is hard to beat that "intelligence" sensor encorporated in the human shaped by thousends of years of evolution.
I wish this guy al the best, this maybe is the best thing he ever did.
I hope he can find back to a more satisfying life with lots of lifetime, enjoying doing fun things with his family!
No need to track down that destructive board member. He is sitting at work right in front of you on a basket with $$$, you listen to him as you think you need it for food and if you are priviledged for "dreams".. maybe just look in a mirror ?
A prerequisite of drawing is knowing the thing you draw p.e. the human anatomy and knowing the perception tricks your brain does with the visual input and being able to master the physical use of a drawing tool in its variety. Then you compose with a goal in mind and observe very open, patiently and detailed while you make suggestive visual marks such that some details will work together to form a whole unity, and the whole supports the natural detailed variety. Playfully arranging paths for the eye of the viewer, such that while it travels over the drawing the perception meeting the viewers inner mental model of the world triggers an emotional response. Each of these things can be trained, and even non gifted can achieve reasonable results. You can use simplest tools and as long as human brains do no change too much they can relate to drawings which are 2000 years old.
For coding you must know how a program statement works, how hardware and virtual resources are working and ideally have a systematic analytical approach to construct and to define, identify and resolve misbehaviors. Have a mental goal how all peaces should work together, how they form a rigid stable architecture of unity, while also allowing a variety in further desirable transformations. Envision all possible desirable state and machine changes during runtime and later system extension and avoiding unwanted ones. At this point it leaves the right/wrong world view. Cutting an architecture out of the solution space of all possibilities, growing from bare bones, little peaces to a complete system. Each of these things can be trained, and even non gifted can achieve reasonable results.
While we can learn from good drawings it is not so easy to learn from good programming examples.
The problem with code is that while we are often working with same principles like imperative functions and stack machines since 50 years, the technical application environment is still constantly scaling up and while it is conceptually never new it keeps working only during short periods, so no long term solution are envisioned. Further more the result is not open to an easy perception or naive judgement (besides app rating maybe) and the result is often unlinked to the creator. An envisioned whole system is no longer needed as we have monopolized systems, wich updates we all follow frightened to 'reduce' risk. Resources like memory are scaled up without limits, the number of programmers rises and we are told to work in teams achieving very well paid very mediocre short living results. So the art of coding is on decline and while the 'management' of churning out buttons on 'app' screens, pasting stuff and fiddling in frameworks called consulting is on the rise. In absolute numbers maybe good programming examples where never as easy accessible as today, but is often buried below all the noise and not very rewarded. Probably the result of the economical success of the applied art of coding.
So for an coding artist fiddling with a pencil and paper to make something out of nothing can be again very rewarding... or maybe fiddling with vi and compilers etc. :-D
Kubernetes is a software varnish how a puppet master thinks how puppets should behave. Thing is, the puppets turn out to be almost humans and are a big heap of undeterministic behavior. But hey it is all in a sandbox so you can try and try again forever. It is like an avoid work machinery creating endless work and fun. It doesn't really matter... as an achievement.
I would recommend looking and producing Art. Software-perls or paintings, poems whatever you like and admire. The more artist you are the more you suffer from applied art, it is not your fault :-)
What if we would give every person a fix amount of money every week during lifetime. Where money older then a year becomes worthless?
No inherithing, no accumulation, no positive interest.
Because every person is worth the same and all we do, is spending our lifetime doing stuff keeping us busy.