From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: I'm a Bo-oo-zo and I'm okay..
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:48:52 GMT

In article <Bx8KIL.8p8@world.std.com> dillon@world.std.com (John T Dillon) writes:
>
>I'm a Bo-oo-zo and I'm okay,
>I sew all night and I sleep all day.
>(Enough of that...)
Hi, Boze!
>
>Hmmm,  Sounds as if we have an overly sensitive Bozo alarm here.
Alarms are protection devices;  sensitivity is an asset.
>
>Is some one a Bozo simply because they have a project that they would like
>to finish within a short period of time and with professional results.
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's a key statement:  an amatuer who wants quick *professional*
results.  Not quick "amatuer" results; results that are equivalent to
those of a professional.  Eliminating the need for professionals.
Denying the value of professionals.  Making it so that in the yellow
pages under "Embroidery" you find listings for bowling pro-shops who
will put names on team shirts, and nobody who will prepare a set of
linens for a bridal bed.

>
>Is it wrong to attempt to utilize a machine or a computer to assist in this
>task?  
The point was never that using a machine is wrong; the point (which so many
of the flamers have missed) is the use of machines to eliminate human
participation.  Have your banner mania program design the logo, then have
the computer send an output stream to a computerized embroidery machine.
Have the machine cut, sew, trim, etc.  Push a button and out comes
art?  I'd prefer that the design be brought to a place where they produce
machine embroidery, where a designer and crafter could look at the design,
suggest how it could be best interpreted in thread, and then have the
skilled workers produce the machine embroidered pieces.  But the idea that
the entire process should be automated, that items should be produced in
absolute robotic uniformity I feel is insulting to the artform.  And
destructive.  It no longer is acceptable to do a "good" job;  "perfect" is
the goal (several of you said that was your standard).  Perfection is
a daunting thing that keeps people from flexing their creative muscles.
Grace said something to the effect that the computer could draw better
than she could.  Is perfect always better?  Perfect can be very cold
and inhuman.
and inhuman, like typing a dear John letter.

>
>The person asking for the information on postscript capabilities for 
>embroidering on jackets could have included more info on the task at hand,
>but did not come off as a bozo.  Indeed the task is ideally suited for 
>automation, with several standard fonts already programmed into the 
>embroidering machines at ALL major jacket manufacturers.
>
>How many hand embroiderers would want to do 20-30 near identical satin stitched
>emblems? (The size of the average frat or team.)  How many would like to, or 
>even could do them within a one week period for about $10 apiece?  I don't 
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Again, destructive standards are set.  Again, the market is steered in the
direction of low-cost imitations of the work of crafters, leaving crafters
less and less chance of survival in the market and for the perpetuation of
the craft.  Few enough survive as seamstresses and tailors today; there are
fewer embroiderers.  And here again the value to be added by the craftsperson
is denied;  would the emblem look even better done with filling stitches
other than satin stitch (which is the only stitch the machine can do)?  Would
the eagles feathers done in chain stitch and feather stitch give a more
three-dimensional effect?  Would other stitches provide a texture that
would eliminate the need for some of the detail lines?  Could a change
in stitch density accomplish the shading better than a color change?
With all due respect to technology and the advancement of artificial
intelligence, it will be impossible to create a computer program that can
do all of that if there are no crafters left.  And if we continue to
perpetuate the concept that machine perfection is superior, then why
would anyone bother to learn to produce something "inferior".

>
>Yes there are tasks that a person can do far better than a machine, but
>just because some one is attempting to find out about a machine to do a
>job, it does not automatically mean they are bozos.  That attitude died
>at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
For all the flack I have been given for my "Bozo alarm" assumption that
Michael might want to do something harmful to the perpetuation of
artistic crafting, my detracters have continued to make their own
mis-assumption that I am opposed to all technology, conveniently
ignoring my technical suggestions (like use a dot-matrix printer
with an iron-on-transfer ribbon).  And an also unwarranted charge
that I would not share my expertise has also been leveled, ignoring
all the information which I provided in my answer to Michael.

So, do you want a witch hunt?  Or does it hurt to have your conciousness
raised?  To think about the people who are being put out of work (or
at least out of the work they would like to do) by computers?  For
every graphic designer who is working on a computer design tool now
there are several graphic designers who are now out of work because
the tools enable one designer to do the work of many and amatuer
designers are now producing their own signs and bypassing the "art
department"?  Or are you so egocentric that you believe that you
can do everything perfectly yourself, if only you had better computers?
That is what you are asking for;  for the power to wield the creativity
and talents of others as if they were your own, and to eliminate the
need for others.  To be able to create in a self-absorbed vacuum, things
of the same quality produced by designers and crafters who have dedicated
significant effort into learning their art.

I was right to trigger a Bozo alarm for Michael's request.  Michael was
able to get a really nice 300 dpi printout of a logo design from his
computer and felt that since he had already short-cut the design process,
now there just had to be a way to short-cut the fabrication process,
in so doing, eliminating all craftspeople and designers.  Just Michael
and his machines.  Complete digital perfection, never touched by human
hands, and of course, quick and cheap.  All he had to do was type in
the team name, and, *zap!* instant "art".  Not.

Think "Bozo" when you hear someone put down "home-made" as inferior.  Think
"Bozo" when someone thinks you give handmade gifts because you're cheap.
Think "Bozo" when you see mass manufactured "quilts" in the department
store.  And think about how these things reflect on the perpetuation
of these arts and crafts as a part of our creative heritage.

Mary Otto