Slashdot Mirror
Creating a New Yorker Cover On the iPhone
Jaime Leifer writes "The cover of the June 1, 2009, issue of The New Yorker, entitled 'Finger Painting,' was drawn by Jorge Colombo entirely on his iPhone — a first for the magazine. Colombo, a New York-based artist and illustrator, uses the iPhone's Brushes application to vibrantly depict New York street scenes." There's a video recapitulating the creation of the piece, omitting all of the undos.
Artist using new technology is nothing new. I like Apple and the iPhone but this is just a plain "Apple PR News" story, nothing for nerds, nothing that matters.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
This is kinda cool. Not so much that it was an iPhone, but that it was a handheld device. How much longer until these phones replace a laptop for most of our day-to-day computing?
Peaple are drawing Mona lisa in MS Paint. THIS is an achievement.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
The video of the process is a work of art all its own, capturing the evolution of the scene. There is a sense of change and even of loss, which you wouldn't get from the finished work alone.
sure, it's not the first time, but the point is much more subtle: why use a laptop or desktop computer?
What this is is the next level of miniaturisation, and it is an important one. There is fundamentally no difference between an iPhone or iPod and a computer - they all have input devices (keypads, sensitive screens, cameras), RAM, Storage, and output (audio, video, files).
an iPhone with a beefier processor, some USB ports and a mini HDMI port (a la Macbook) and you have your next desktop replacement device. Not only would you have phone calls, but with an HDMI - VGA adaptor, you have a screen to do world processing, image editing, video editing, audio editing, 3D, whatever.
It's the next big deal.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
to refrain from complaining about a kdawson post, but I saw this early this morning and thought it was cool as well. So sue me. Yes, people have been drawing on computers for a Long Time with lots of different input devices; and no, it's not the best tool (portable or otherwise) for drawing with. And I detest all the often-unmerited love that Apple gets...but this was cool, it is an example of how, even on a converged device that can't touch dedicated devices, technology has become accessible enough that people are able to do real worth with it, no matter where they are. It's similar to Chase Jarvis and his iPhone pictures. It's not the best camera, not even the best camera phone, but it's both a demonstration of how art isn't about the technology, it's about the artist; and it's a demonstration of what we could each accomplish with even these limited tools if we had the talent and discipline to use them to their fullest. It's not, to me, about it being an Apple product, it's about art, talent, and the progress of technology.
Calling an iPhone a communications device is like calling a computer a word processing device. Apple has made damn sure with all of their marketing that people associate more than communication with the iPhone, it's made out to be more like a PDA with a phone program than a phone. And I doubt this is the first time an artist has made "print-ready" work (for various definitions of "print-ready") from a PDA. This still seems like a piece of Apple fluff.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
an iPhone with a beefier processor, some USB ports and a mini HDMI port (a la Macbook) and you have your next desktop replacement device. Not only would you have phone calls, but with an HDMI - VGA adaptor, you have a screen to do world processing, image editing, video editing, audio editing, 3D, whatever.
This is a joke right? No serious professional is going to be doing image/video editing or drawing on a color-inaccurate 3.5" screen.
Guess what, you're wrong.
Why bother
In their defense the articles are often pretty good, generally 20 pages longer than necessary, but the writing is good. Now the New Yorker cartoons are simply indefensible.
I've been going through one of the New Yorker desk calenders this year and it is about 1 out of 20 strips that actually work. The rest are simply lazy. I mean am I supposed to create the scenario? Is that how it works? Is that why it is so clever? Because it makes me feel like I'm smart? That isn't a joke, that is the sound of an armless man masturbating.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2007/07/BadNewYorkerCartoon.jpg
Guess what, I'm not. If you think no work was done to that picture outside of the iPhone before it was printed then you clearly are stupid. Secondly, show me a real professional image or video editor doing work on a color-inaccurate 3.5" LCD screen. I'm not talking some random dipshit on the internet who claims to be a professional, I mean someone who works at a real film studio or a post-production house.
A "real artist"? I don't even know what to say to that. You must have been living under a rock for the past 4000 years. If there's such a thing as a "real artist" it's the artist who challenges conventions, like by presenting a finger painting as print-quality commercial art. Art is all about expression, and I can't think of anything artsier than noticing a poignant urban scene and sitting down on the spot and spending a few hours capturing it. Not a color-accurate, realist perfect reproduction but a blurry finger painting just enough to communicate what the artist was feeling.
Agreed... just the fact that this piece instigated a "what is art?" debate, IMHO, shows that it is art.
There are a lot of folks on Slashdot who try really, really hard to hate Apple and iPhones, but I think this story really is news for nerds, and really does matter. If you disagree, go click on another story.
E pluribus unum