4 ms·

Hypothesis formation is art. Without it there would be no physical experiments. Every scientist is an artist at heart.

the_af 2y ago
I think the point is that what looks good in art (even in "realistic" art) is not necessarily what is "more like the real thing". The Simpsons made a joke about this ("cows don't look like cows on screen, that's why we use horses") but it's true. More importantly, what the author intends to convey sometimes requires emphasis that isn't present in real life. There was an extremely cool blog post about photography on HN a year or so ago, where the point was made that there are no "real" photos (in the sense of "accurately representing reality"), there's always a choice by the photographer (colors, framing, distance to subject, distortion, etc).
- brookst 2y ago
  Very true. And not just the photography, all of the people who produce the tools. Like even film chemistry: https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias Everything we interact with is the product of generations of people, shaped by artistic choice, and filtered by distribution and our own perception and cognitive biases. Which sounds like I’m complaining but really I’m not… I think it’s inspiring and empowering to see the whole stack, imperfect as it is. So yeah, conversations about computational photography that veer into “but it it doesn’t capture reality” betray an oversimplified view of how all this works.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    The next logical step is to notice that the eye also processes the optical signal heavily, and the visual cortex,... etc. Any kind of perception, of making sense is a transformation. To perceive something "truthfully" is just to be aware of the kind of processing involved, and the kind of information altered or lost in the process.
    - brookst 2y ago
      Exactly. Most of what we perceive is fabricated in our heads anyway. Brains are amazing and positively not designed for 100% pure reality perception.
    - weard_beard 2y ago
      Keep going. https://tpp2014.com/catherine-malabou-concept-plasticity/ https://tpp2014.com/catherine-malabou-concept-plasticity/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262720212/the-embodied-mind/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262720212/the-embodied-mind/ The camera is our nervous system and chemical transports. Whenever a friend tells me about the latest AI experiment resulting in AGI my stock response is, "Have they put it in a rat suit yet?"
- ianburrell 2y ago
  Movies have score of noises that aren’t real. Most action scenes are filled with them. If considered part of the score, then fake starship noises are fine. They are signaling that ship is going somewhere, not would the camera would hear.

I think the point is that what looks good in art (even in "realistic" art) is not necessarily what is "more like the real thing". The Simpsons made a joke about this ("cows don't look like cows on screen, that's why we use horses") but it's true. More importantly, what the author intends to convey sometimes requires emphasis that isn't present in real life. There was an extremely cool blog post about photography on HN a year or so ago, where the point was made that there are no "real" photos (in the sense of "accurately representing reality"), there's always a choice by the photographer (colors, framing, distance to subject, distortion, etc).

brookst 2y ago
Very true. And not just the photography, all of the people who produce the tools. Like even film chemistry: https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias Everything we interact with is the product of generations of people, shaped by artistic choice, and filtered by distribution and our own perception and cognitive biases. Which sounds like I’m complaining but really I’m not… I think it’s inspiring and empowering to see the whole stack, imperfect as it is. So yeah, conversations about computational photography that veer into “but it it doesn’t capture reality” betray an oversimplified view of how all this works.
- nine_k 2y ago
  The next logical step is to notice that the eye also processes the optical signal heavily, and the visual cortex,... etc. Any kind of perception, of making sense is a transformation. To perceive something "truthfully" is just to be aware of the kind of processing involved, and the kind of information altered or lost in the process.
  - brookst 2y ago
    Exactly. Most of what we perceive is fabricated in our heads anyway. Brains are amazing and positively not designed for 100% pure reality perception.
  - weard_beard 2y ago
    Keep going. https://tpp2014.com/catherine-malabou-concept-plasticity/ https://tpp2014.com/catherine-malabou-concept-plasticity/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262720212/the-embodied-mind/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262720212/the-embodied-mind/ The camera is our nervous system and chemical transports. Whenever a friend tells me about the latest AI experiment resulting in AGI my stock response is, "Have they put it in a rat suit yet?"
ianburrell 2y ago
Movies have score of noises that aren’t real. Most action scenes are filled with them. If considered part of the score, then fake starship noises are fine. They are signaling that ship is going somewhere, not would the camera would hear.