Can an Analytical Person be a Good Artist?

In my opinion, the best artists seems to be the ones who’ve effectively leveraged theory and practice.

Comparing analytical artists to emotional artists is like comparing iterative neural networks to algorithms. With an iterative neural network, it just tries and tries over and over again until it “learns” how to achieve a desired output with a slightly different technique each time. In contrast, an algorithm – the analytical artist – repetitively follows an instruction set formulated through pre-existing theory that is known to generate desirable results.

The problem with algorithms is that you cannot really improve if your instruction set is static. This means the method you use to create art is not updated when a superior algorithm is developed. Furthermore, human brains are not designed for lossless multithreading. The more things your brain has to focus on, the more things can go wrong and end up ruining the desired outcome.

The problem with only iterative learning, is that you have to basically start from the ground up. This is akin to trying to invent a sports car without even inventing a wheel. You will spend a lot of time trying to get things right, if you see no improvement, you may give up.

In my opinion, algorithmic theory is extremely important. But if you just sit there with what you learned, you ought to forget it. Humans are very bad at retaining information through passive learning and time. It is estimated that 80% of what you learn is forgotten in within 24 hours.

Hence it is extreme important to train those neural-pathways and solidify the theory in non volatile mental capacity before you forget what you learned.

Comments |0|

Legend *) Required fields are marked
**) You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>