[iDC] Re: Undermining open source: iTunes U

[Patrick Lichty]

Andrea Polli schreiben:
> It is more and more apparent that digital art/media in academia has 
> been hijacked by the software industry.  

I completely agree.  And many programs are openly complicit!

I see two approaches.  For example, I've been on the job market, and up for 
some program head positions.  Now, if there were not impositions on the 
student that imply their commercial viability, my goal would be to 
dissociate from the corporate infrastructure.

I have four possible ideas.

1: Delay/minimize requirements for corporate media production program 
proficiency as much as possible, teaching only as much as necessary to give 
the students a core proficiency for commercial viability.  All the other 
times, use underground/OpenSource software as much as humanly possible, 
i.e.using Blender for 3D, Audacity for audio, etc.

2: Structure the academic program for a digital fine art focus, stressing 
concept and using the 'most appropriate' tools, as there are many wonderful 
tools out there for most of the functions that the commercial software 
provides.

3: Go completely LINUX, and ban Win/Mac, and structure the program as a Mac/
WinTel Free Zone.  From this, likewise structure the parameters of the 
learning environment to focus on LINUX-based digital art. Make that the 
trademark.

In some ways, that could be very attractive, as LINUX is not without its 
(sizeable) markets.

4: Dissociate the technical from the conceptual.  Have the students learn 
basic technique in a tech school/Viscomm program, then learn the art/
conceptual aspect at the art school.  Not sure how I'd do that, I think 
Trinity does this (has tech classes outside the art school).  That would 
male it clear that if they just want to be the equivalent of illustrators, 
then they can go to a Viscomm program, and that there is a different intent 
in fine digital art.  Of course, that would mean aligning with the art world 
and not industry.  How scared is the art academy, of turning away from 
commercial applications when it is presented with them?  (Perhaps to find 
others...)

> Requiring the use of open source tools by not providing access to the 
> industry standard software applications in a digital art/media program 
> seems like an extreme position that would require total restructuring.  
> It seems a program would have to:
> 
> -replace software budgets with full time technical and research staff 
> to work with the often buggy and undocumented open source tools

There are a lot of pretty solid tools out there, but getting the kids over 
into LINUX in case 3 could be a little daunting.

> -sacrifice the moderate learning curve that allows almost immediate 
> visual expression for a steeper learning curve and a limited (at least 
> in the short term) expressive capability

-and perhaps stress concept/context more than the tool.  Again, there are a 
lot of decent tools out there, and Blender even has some capabilities that 
Maya doesn't!  Its interface is so strange, though.

> -abandon the idea that students will be gaining entry level design 
> industry skills for the idea that in the long term their highly 
> developed design ability will over-ride their lack of industry standard 
> tool experience.  

Exactly.  My contention is that technicians will be increasingly offshored, 
and the intelligent/proficient/visionary kids will be the most viable.  I 
understand that this is a somewhat elitist/Darwinian attitude, but I see is 
(at least in the States) as pragmatic.

 I struggle with the idea of addressing 
> tools or the 'craft' aspect of digital art and media in curriculum. In 
> our embrace of open source, can and should we expect students to learn 
> commercial industry tools outside of school if they want industry 
> design jobs or to take unrelated jobs until they are at an art 
> director/non tool-specific professional level?

Well, this _is_ a huge problem. It'd actually be easier if digital art did 
not have the huge industry around it.  For example, does painting have this 
problem?  Not really.  The truly scary position would be to tell the parents 
that we have absolutely no intention of giving their kid industry-recognized 
skills, that we intend them to be digital fine artists, delving into the 
innermost realms of expression of the machine through open sourcing, non-
commercial tools, and, God Forbid, _CODING_.

Maybe a cross between Columbia and MIT, except without the corporate focus 
from the latter?  A truly risky model - probably little chance for survival, 
but perhaps worth the experiment?

Best,
Patrick