The base for technology and science, mathematics, can have yes/no answers. Art is not based on yes/no answers. It is not possible to be RIGHT in an English essay. It is not possible to be RIGHT in an art exam. With a mathematics exam it is possible to be 100% right.

John Maeda in his foreword for Processing (see previous post):

Hybrids that can fluidly cross the chasm between technology and the arts are mutations in the academic system. Traditionally, universities create technology students or art students—but never mix the two sides of the equation in the same person. During the 1990s the mutants that managed to defy this norm would either seek me out, or else I would reach out to find them myself…

These ‘mutants’ lie somewhere on the scale between technology and art. I’m naturally in the latter camp, but I want to be closer to the middle. I’ve chosen to design systems and services which make use of technology, so I need to know my platform. Technology needs ambiguity, too: as without creativity and ambiguity, a technology is an unused palette.

Image by Jared Tarbell (Complexification), made with Processing—this is rather brilliant, so look at the others.

I’m playing with Processing.

At the same time, I am making my way through this lovely book by Casey Reas and Ben Fry, which is “a programming handbook for visual designers and artists”. It’s not just a pretty book (the book is very pretty); it’s a compelling philosophical collection of essays and practical tasks for visual designers-who-wanna-be-programmers. The chasm between code and art has never been so narrow.

Processing is definitely an art platform but if you can do maths that helps. People can do some very cool interactive stuff with it. Though it’s also used for making quick interactive prototypes (I want to see what mobile-design extraordinaire Bryan Rieger has been up to with it.)

I don’t expect to accomplish anything particulary grand with it; at least not yet—I’m having fun typing out the code and seeing what I can do, and picking up the syntax.

Oh, and here’s some lines that stick to your cursor.

Pretty cool, eh?

Just a recap of what I’ve been up to:

• Mobile Design UK’s inaugural event was held on Wednesday 3rd December. (Expect a brief recap post soon.) We’re extremely happy with how it went and 25 people turned up to see presentations from Nokia, Trutap, Lastminute.com Labs, and Flirtomatic. Photos are on Flickr. The next event will be in February, so watch this space! Meanwhile, subscribe to the Mobile Design UK feed.
• RCA Open Day. I’ve been following the design interactions department at the RCA for a while. They do a lot of cool stuff and I’m really glad I went: the students are quite brilliant. Check out Nelly Ben and David Benque. It is always nice to meet interesting, creative, talented, passionate people. As well as being all these things, I found that everyone I spoke to was very friendly and approachable, and patiently answered my questions.

  As for the course itself: I absolutely love everything it stands for. Some of the projects students are working on are quite out there (see James Chamber’s “Blowout” project). The RCA wants to encourage “skeptical fascination with technology”, for students to “play a part in shaping a technological future”, to “have skills for making ideas tangible”, and to “think about implications as well as applications”. Fantastic, right?

  At the end of the day, though, I felt strongly that I want to stay within the industry and continue to work on great commercial products. So for now I am resisting the siren call of academia.