Submitted by “I’m an art professor, and last semester I embarked on an exciting new adventure by erasing Mac OS X from nearly all of the Macintoshes in our digital media lab and installing Ubuntu in its place. I began seriously planning this change last school year, when I realized how fully the current feature sets of free software programs could satisfy the technical needs of the students in my classes. I decided that the time had come to teach our undergraduate art students about free software programs such as the GIMP, Scribus, and Quanta Plus, instead of proprietary programs such as Photoshop, QuarkXpress, and Dreamweaver.”
if that would have happened when i was in college it would have been enough to make me look for a new school. talk about alienating the students from the industry, lol.
Actually the problem with what was decided by the art school was not in the best interest of their students. If the Art Professor’s input was the deciding factor for the Director/Dean of the school then it’s apparent he hasn’t had much experience in post-production studios, etc. My reasoning for this is simple. An art school can switch to Linux in the LAN while still ensuring to meet the needs of their students and the requirements set by the entertainment industry. The way to have done this was to use either Novell SUSE Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux which are supported by highend commercial software developers such as Autodesk, Softimage, SideFX, IFX, etc. The Linux distributions would need to be installed on either Intel or AMD x86 systems due to commercial software used in studios such as Maya, XSI, Smoke, Shake, etc that is ported to Linux is for x86, not Linux for PPC. This way students can have access to both commercial and open source software which is similar to how it’s done in major studios such as ILM, Sony Pictures Imageworks, Rhythm & Hues, etc. Some studios run in a cross network with Linux and Windows or even like Pixar Linux with OSX. Students shouldn’t be so concerned with what hardware their software used in school is running on. Though they should care if the school is not providing access to software used in the industry they are trying to enter.
So, If my university is to teach me about Ancient Greek Mythology or Religion; then I have to bag my lagguage and leave, all because there are more common recent hollywood stories than Greek Stories and very popular religions in the current world than Greek Gods.
My Friend, he/she who study the uncommon things will be the one to unleash the future. One example for you, Massive black holes in the universe were thought to be uncommon first, now they are announced to be a vital constituant of every galaxy and a sign of its health!
My thoughts exactly! This jackhole professor is doing a great diservice to his students my forcing them into an application (and OS) environment that is fundamentally inferior and fails to prepare them for the market they will enter. I’d be shopping for a new school right about now.
You are missing the point completely. He is, and this is forced by his choice, not teaching them a particular package. He is teaching photo manipulation. Not Photoshop, photomanipulation. They are different.
Not Word, word processing. They are different.
Not Access, database design. They are different.
Not Excel, how to use spreadsheets. Its different.
You and most others have misunderstood the difference between college and vocational training. He is educating them. If they don’t want to be educated, maybe they don’t belong in college.
I’m not saying its right, but its a lot more interesting choice than you guys seem to realise.
I have similar feelings about the presence of Windows machines in our CS labs
.
Of course, they were already there, and it’s still a Unix world in the backend and the Unix (now just Linux, they pulled the Solaris boxes :/) lab.
I think it’d be better if he tried to get students to use both tools. Giving them experience with multiple tools may help them if they need to learn yet another similar tool. But they should concentrate on getting a workflow, they’re not secretaries.
In one sense he’s hurting his students by not teaching them what they’ll use out there (probably, it could change).
In another sense he’s saving them about $150 per chunk of software and giving them tools which they can use now to make sellable art. (If you make sellable art on a student copy, you can’t sell it).
I agree that students should learn the free software tools, but they also need to learn the tools used in most of the industry today. So, I agree that they should learn GIMP, Scribus, et.al. However, you COULD have installed those all on Mac OS X (they are supported – look at fink or darwinpackages for example – or a native build).
So, I think a better approach would be to leave Mac OS X, install the freeware, and the commercial. Teach them both. Software is just a tool – it’s always good to learn as many tools as possible.
Remember – Mac OS X is *nix underneath (FreeBSD, basically).
“Remember – Mac OS X is *nix underneath (FreeBSD, basically).”
no, not really, or at least not more than say Plan9 would be. as someone who’s used osx (have a powerbook) and linux/solaris extensively (am an admin), osx is not unix… it uses some of the freebsd toolset, but that’s about it. it doesn’t share it’s kernel, and the part most people are familiar with, aqua et al., is apple proprietary and closed. even when you open a terminal and do an ls -Fl / you’ll see how very different the layout is from most *nixes.
as to loading on the free stuff onto OSX, have you tried this? ie running X11 and running programs on top of it installed via fink or darwinports or some such. it bites.
personally since I’m a free software (mostly) zealot, I’ve been strongly considering lately to load on some linux distro ontop of that pbook of mine.
Good point, there’s nothing wrong against learning both.
The fact that most posters here seem to ignore is that it’s not the UI that students learn, it’s procedures and techniques. These techniques can be carried out in either Photoshop or Gimp, and it only takes a small adjustment period to use different GUIs.
This is just like someone who’s used to 3DSMax and must learn Maya. There will be a learning curve, for sure, but the modeling and/or animation techniques he learned on one software will still apply to another.
You took students that will leave your college and work in jobs where QuarkXpress, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, etc are the STANDARD and forced (notice there was no choice) them to use Gimp, Scribus and Quanta Plus?
You’ve done a great injustice to these students and the unfortunate people that will hire them in the future.
*Of course i realize that the person who wrote this may not be reading the site…it was just in response…*
Edited 2006-03-23 14:12
You are miserable. He is saving his students a lot of cash. Allowing them to know there are alternatives. And most importantly he is not a vocational program instructor he is a college professor. The class he is teaching is not “How to Use Photoshop”. The other tools are available to them for work on their portfolios. People like you stand firmly in the way of innovation and progress. Don’t learn or expand horizons by any means, stick with the status Quo like the rest of us. Go take your pirated Photoshop CDs and play. Don’t pretend to have anything of interest to say, because you don’t.
And indecently most graphics shops want product, if you can provide the desired end result for 1000’s cheaper annually they will be happy.
You are miserable. He is saving his students a lot of cash.
How is he saving his students cash when considering these FACTS:
1) The discounts students get for software is massive – you honestly telling me, that a student studying time, and working a combined 30hours work a week, couldn’t muster up a few dollars to purchase the necessary software? Sorry, software is a necessity for university, just like books, if you don’t have the cash before you start, maybe it would be a better idea working for a few years and getting some funds behind you.
2) You’re setting these students up to never get a job – great, they leave university, and the only experience they’ve ever had was using obscure opensource applications that no one in the real world uses! great!
Thats akin to getting students to work on a tractor when their focus is aeronautical engineering, then turning around claiming, “an engine’s an engine!”
Allowing them to know there are alternatives. And most importantly he is not a vocational program instructor he is a college professor.
Which is a waste of time – learn the alternatives that the market actually uses, Quark and Indesign, Photoshop and Painter IX, Freehand and Illustrator, and, GoLive! and Dreamweaver.
They would be good skills, learning how to use GIMP may scratch the intellectual curiosity a little, and hey, in their spare time, they might wish to give these applications ago for their own person enjoyment, but like I said, if the universities aren’t giving these people the necessary skills and knowledge for the real world – the world that will eventually help the individual pay back his or her student loan, then the individual might as well should never attended it in the first place!
“Thats akin to getting students to work on a tractor when their focus is aeronautical engineering, then turning around claiming, “an engine’s an engine!”
You know, many Navies around the world still train their officer candidates on sailing ships. It’s proven to be highly effective. Jet pilots start their training on light prop-planes.
An engine IS an engine — teach the students the basics of mechanics and the physics of thermodynamics, and it doesn’t matter where they start. They pick up the concepts, and the complexities become much more manageable.
How is he saving his students cash when considering these FACTS:
Not facts, rather arguments based little more than opinion.
1) The discounts students get for software is massive – you honestly telling me, that a student studying time, and working a combined 30hours work a week, couldn’t muster up a few dollars to purchase the necessary software? Sorry, software is a necessity for university, just like books, if you don’t have the cash before you start, maybe it would be a better idea working for a few years and getting some funds behind you.
It’s not about having the money or not, it’s about it being free. And the upgrades to it being free. And the upgrades to that.
Or perhaps you’re lucky enought to get a free version of the new photoshop when it comes out because you still have Version 4?
You’re setting these students up to never get a job – great, they leave university, and the only experience they’ve ever had was using obscure opensource applications that no one in the real world uses! great!
This is ridiculous. You honestly believe that a single class is going to be all the experience they’ll ever have of image manipulation programs when they hit the job market? Heck, I never took art classes and I know how photoshop works. 12-year old kids can use Photoshop!
The real tricks of the trade are the techniques you lear, not the program’s UI – which changes from version to version anyway. There have been big UI changes since version 5. Once you know the principles and tricks of the trade on one program, it’s easy use the same ones on another.
What if they apply for a job in the film industry, where cinepaint is increasingly used? What if – gasp – they never learned it in school?
I’ll give you an example. We use Maya where I work, not 3DSMax. If someone who’s a very good modeler applies, but he only knows 3DSMax, what do you think we’ll do?
A) Not hire him
B) Hire him and install 3DSMax just for him
C) Hire him and arrange for him to get a training course in Maya
This is a real-world business situation. What would you do?
——–
I’ll give you an example. We use Maya where I work, not 3DSMax. If someone who’s a very good modeler applies, but he only knows 3DSMax, what do you think we’ll do?
A) Not hire him
B) Hire him and install 3DSMax just for him
C) Hire him and arrange for him to get a training course in Maya
This is a real-world business situation. What would you do?
———-
Well, I’d interview the next few and see if anyone else comes along who is familiar with the tools we use, because we need him/her to step right into a project.
He is not! He’s taken what was likely already PAID for and trashing it. It’s a silly whim, nothing more.
So you propose forcing them to use the standard apps? The main difference is that those are probably what they’ll use in the field.
It might be good to make them learn both though.
Anyway, students get forced into all kinds of things we don’t like. There’s a special word for it in english actually: Undergraduate
.
It might be good to make them learn both though.
Assuming they would come accross both; if they’re going to teach both, wouldn’t it be best to teach InDesign and Quark? that would make a whole lot more sense than trying to teach students how to use obscure open source applications that aren’t used in the real world (besides that small newspaper which hyped about moving to Scribus).
University is not only about teaching the fundamentals but also giving the students the necessary skills so that they can hit the ground running, when it comes to a job – they can actually say, “yes, I know how to use Photoshop” and “Yes, I know how to exploit the features of Photoshop and InDesign so that they can work together and produce a great output”.
>It might be good to make them learn both though.
Seriously? How much extra time did you have while learning even the basics in college to learn multiple tools to get your work done?
If you think you can use the GIMP and do a professional-looking work, I wish you good luck!
We should do an art contest using Photoshop and the GIMP. I would would be amazed if the Photoshop guys didn’t win!
I don’t know. I believe the tool doesn’t matter as much as creativity… I mean, a generic Joe won’t best a skilled artist just because he is using Photoshop while the latter is using the GIMP. In other words, Photoshop is no subsitute for talent.
That said, I believe you have an easier time with Photoshop. I just can’t stand the GIMP interface and its quirks. Not to mention that Photoshop got thousands of plugins to automate tasks and that GIMP is no longer the ultimate OSS alternative… In my opinion, Krita is now even better.
For non-print work, Gimp can do all that Photoshop can do.
It is in fact possible to use GIMP for professional use. The only hurdle is UI familiarity. (By the way, Gimp can use .PSDs, so it’s even possible to use both software).
FYI, FilmGimp is already used by professionals in the film industry.
archiesteel,
Re: “For non-print work, Gimp can do all that Photoshop can do. It is in fact possible to use GIMP for professional use. The only hurdle is UI familiarity. (By the way, Gimp can use .PSDs, so it’s even possible to use both software).”
What it can’t do is handle 32-bit HDR (High Dynamic Range) images. While it’s true this can be handled by the less friendly Cinepaint (formally called Film Gimp) the question Gimp users should be asking is why should we have to? If the Gimp developers want to be taken seriously in this industry then they should provide similar features found in Photoshop CS 2.0. One of which is support for 32-bit HDR. This has been asked repeatedly to have HDR support but continuely the Gimp developers fail to provide their end users this feature. To successfully market a product a developer should meet the needs of those in the market they’re targeting to, not the other way around.
Edited 2006-03-23 17:45
The question as to why the GIMP team has not included 32-bit HDR support yet is a valid one…however, as you have mentioned, there are alternatives, such as Cinepaint. There is also Krita, which is progressing at a breakneck speed, and might actually challenge Gimp’s crown in the open-source graphic software world.
To successfully market a product a developer should meet the needs of those in the market they’re targeting to, not the other way around.
That’s true in the proprietary world…in the F/OSS world the dynamic is little bit different.
That’s true in the proprietary world…in the F/OSS world the dynamic is little bit different.
Nope. It’s the law of offer and supply. We’ve seen in the F/OSS area that when the developpers create and lead deafly the project the way they want without taking care of the community, the project gets abandonned, there are less and less releases, and eventually, everybody forgets about it.
Pretty obvious.
I don’t think Gimp is in danger of being abandoned, except if Krita becomes more popular. Even then, the competition between the two would probably be a good thing.
yeh I was gonna say. Film gimp now called cinepaint, is in use at pixar and ILM. its mostly a brush up tool. but its pretty mainstream these days. besides. whatever you see in gimp now is gonna be in photo shop in a couple of years I mean come on. the whole interface came from gimp to begin with……
I can’t believe anyone in their right mind would do this. It just goes to highlight how out of date some college/university staff are with the real world.
I know from personnal experience (my girlfriend is a graphic designer) that the industry is bases around apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, Dreawweaver etc etc etc. I’ve seen enough graphic design job ads and magazines to know that nobody is looking for anyone with skills in any apps that our open sourced (ie GIMP).
Somone should report this guy and get him removed from the faculty asap.
Basically, one big reason these tools are industry standard, and for the most part the reason other various tools are standard, is because people went to school and learned the tools and people own the tools themselves.
I think that its a very good move to install open source tools, and train people how to use them, however, it won’t prepare students. Interestingly enough, in the article, under “Student Reactions” he mentions some students bringing this question up. He goes on to explain that during their fourth year they will be able to use the tools of their choice.
Im not sure if this is the right way to go about it. Now, I learned how to use the GIMP before photoshop, and personally feel that the transition(not really the best word to use since I use both depending on the machine im on or what im doing) was fairly smooth. However, I would hope that students learn how to use both programs. In established industries, this is the best way to adopt new software, that way the students will have the skills necessary to compete for jobs AND will have the advantage of being able to use free packages.
Where I work this was a huge advantage for me. We had a project, and the software we needed(in this case we needed photoshop) would have taken us about a week to get, so I installed the Gimp and we had the project done before we even would have gotten Photoshop, much less got it on the machines. Now its on all the machines. Now, we don’t normally do any sort of design graphics work, thus the reason we didn’t have it, however I can see similar situations where having the knowledge to use OSS packages could be very useful.
-Mike
I think that its a very good move to install open source tools, and train people how to use them, however, it won’t prepare students. Interestingly enough, in the article, under “Student Reactions” he mentions some students bringing this question up. He goes on to explain that during their fourth year they will be able to use the tools of their choice.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I think this is ridiculous. Why should students have to wait until the 4th year to use what they want?
Furthermore, I find it ridiculous that students are forced to learn tools. Sure they should learn at least one tool, but that’s it. Once you know one, an educated person in that field can easily learn most of the others.
To put this into perspective, at any decent CS Department you learn one language (not counting languages from a Programming Language Concepts course, like LISP or specific languages like Maple or postscript). Hopefully that language will be something standardized and powerful, like C/C++. From then on students are free to learn any other language they want such as C#, Java, Obj-C and use them. Sure there should be artificial limits to save grading time for the professors, but that’s it.
If I attended a school that was so critical of the tools used, then I’d get out of there quickly. Students could be made aware of these tools, but they shouldn’t be forced to use a particular one.
“Furthermore, I find it ridiculous that students are forced to learn tools. Sure they should learn at least one tool, but that’s it. Once you know one, an educated person in that field can easily learn most of the others. ”
Very true, the advantage to using open source software in this case would be that the students can aquire the software for nothing.
Your comment brings up an interesting question. What do you think about the school teaching Photoshop then? Afterall they would then be forced to learn a tool. It seems like most of the posts are about the teacher “forcing students” to learn these tools, yet, thats the same thing that was happening before. I fail to see a difference. I would hope that a wide range of tools are available(see my previous comment on this).
-Mike
I’m not sure whether he is doing the right thing. But the thought provoking and interesting thing about what he is doing is this. By teaching people to use, say word processing, or spreadsheets or photo manipulation, on a platform which is not exactly what is in general use, you are forced to take an unusual approach.
You are forced to teach people about the underlying principles. So you do not teach them how to get a certain effect in Photoshop. You teach them about filters, what they do, how they work, and then about how this package does it. But probably with the caution that other packages may do it a bit differently. Or you may have to get to it differently.
Same with spreadsheets. Instead of teaching them, this is the key sequence to keep your references unchanged, you have to teach them absolute and relative references, and how this package evokes it, as well as how others do.
The great advantage, especially for the young, is that you teach the underlying principles. Once you understand these, you’ll find yourself looking around for the same function in a different word processing package, and you’ll pick it up in no time.
Now, you may say, who cares? Just learn the one everyone uses. Yes, but by the time you are working, Vista will have come out. Or a new version of Photoshop. Or new plug-ins. Which is more important, to know how to get effects, or to understand what the packages are made of?
See it most clearly with Filemaker and database products. You can teach people to creat databases with Filemaker without them ever understanding what a database is or what its concepts are. Or, teach them what any database package must necessarily do, and this is how this one does it, and they will find their way around Filemaker or Acess or Rekall with relative ease. No, with absolute ease.
Anyway, if you ever find yourself in the charity sector, wondering how to teach volunteers how to use your obscure free computer packages that were all you could afford, and how at the same time to teach them something that will be generally useful to them outside the charity, the approach he took is an interesting pointer to one way to go.
alcibiades hit it right on the head. I work at a university and a good university teaches concepts. It just doesnt train you how to use a piece of software. Take networking for example. I can teach anyone to configure a cisco router. However, if I teach them the concepts of networking, it wont matter if they are in front of Cisco, Extreme, or anyone elses equipment. They will still know what they need to do. Not to mention that a large part of the cost of running an IT department goes to software. Wouldnt it be nice if your tuition went down once instead of always up?
I think you are giving this guy too much credit. I don’t think that is what he was thinking about at all.
I think too many of today’s design students and professionals are so reliant on their “industry standard” tools of trade that they don’t really develop any true talent, they just get really good at using Photoshop. This professor is teaching his students how to be intuitive when they sit down to a design application and to not be limited by what program they are using. Sure the Gimp isn’t nearly as feature packed as Photoshop, but why should that inhibit a true designer or artist? It shouldn’t. Once these students learn the Gimp and Inkscape and Scribus they’ll be able to learn and appreciate Photoshop, Illustrator and Quark that much more. (Not to mention they might actually know what SVG is which is another technology too few design students know so little about).
Not to mention, how will we ever challenge the industry standards if we don’t tell our youth that it’s okay to not to use them? Change is good people.
Edited 2006-03-23 14:35
//I think too many of today’s design students and professionals are so reliant on their “industry standard” tools of trade that they don’t really develop any true talent, they just get really good at using Photoshop//
1. How the hell would that be any different, if GIMP were the standard?
2. Real talent shines through, no matter the app. This was a pointless excercise by this dope of a prof.
1. How the hell would that be any different, if GIMP were the standard?
GP never suggested that GIMP be the standard.
2. Real talent shines through, no matter the app. This was a pointless excercise by this dope of a prof. (emphasis added)
Now you are agreeing with GP.
//GP never suggested that GIMP be the standard.//
Obviously, I’m pointing out the fact that it’s inconsequential which app is standard.
//Now you are agreeing with GP.//
No kidding. Is it impossible to disagree with some of his argument, but agree with the rest?
Unless … are *you* the prof in question? That would make sense.
Me an art professor…HA…not on your life. I can’t even draw a straight line.
I think you are missing the point though. GIMP is not the standard and GP never said that people should use it if it is the standard or not. GP was saying that people know photoshop and are good at photoshop but nothing else. Exposure to different software is a good thing and as always the cream will rise to the top, despite their lack of knowledge about OSS.
To add to that, all the students probably already know how to use photoshop if they are art students. I don’t think it will kill their chances in life if they use GIMP. The version of photoshop that they had at the school is probably not even going to be the same where they work anyway. A friend of mine uses Photoshop 6 and he is an artist that owns his own company. Another friend of my is a graphic designer and she uses Photoshop 9 (or whatever the newest one is). It is even more diverse when it comes to SVG. Two programs come to mind right away, Corel Draw and Adobe Illustrator, and I know there is at least one other big name program but I’m not an artist so I cannot remember the name. My point is that it doesn’t matter which software you use, it matters how good of an artist you are. In the end it is a win for OSS and a win for the students, except for the lazy ones who only know photoshop. School is for learning isn’t it?
Not one of the computer tools that I have used at school is in existence today. It is that simple. Multiplan is not around, claris word either, and of course PROF mail on the schools IBM mainframe. And most people over 45 never saw a computer at school so relax people !
Now, I don’t really believe in the whole story… Seeing how people bitterly complain if you force them to change email client, I find it hard to accept that trend conscious arts students would have smilingly accepted not to get trained on these software they heard off before getting into arts school. How about a link to the project page on the schools website ?
Now they will not be able to use applications that businesses actually use! Wonderful of you.
By teaching different programs (not necessarily Open/Free, just variety), they learn more “why” and “how” things work… wich is a good thing, because they usually know how to work even in different situations or even different versions of the same program.
…But not teaching industry standards (doesn’t matter how good your intentions are… it’s a political one with they can’t choose), will probably bring some difficult to them to find jobs latter on…
…Specially because they’re artists, not hackers! =]
…But **adding** the programs to their learing experience is a great idea for sure!
So let me get this straight, this art professor erased Mac OS X, and threw in Ubuntu FOR AN ART CLASS?
Excuse me, but the whole arts / graphics sector still pretty much belongs to Apple and Adobe. Those students are supposed to be learning to do art with Adobe, not GIMP. What are these students going to do when they go out and get a job when Adobe products are mainstream? Tell their employer that they were using GIMP in college?
If the college can afford Apple computers, then they can afford the academic pricing for Adobe’s software. There is no excuse for what this guy is doing. Sure it sounds cool from a geek’s point of view, but when you look at it from a student’s point of view it’s a horrible move!
I’m sorry, but none of these apps come even close to their INDUSTRY STANDARD counterparts. As nice as the GIMP is, nobody, I mean NOBODY uses it in real world yet for anything more than your average amateur geek’s website. I am a web developer and work and have worked with many graphics artists along the years and I can tell you that the app that has been and still is being used 1000% of the time is Photoshop. Need print work? QuarkXpress or Adobe InDesign.
I can see Quanta Plus used as a viable IDE since most coders that actually know what they’re doing usually only use the source view of their IDE’s (whether that be Dreamweaver, Visual Studio .NET or whatever) and it doesn’t really matter since at the end you produce the same HTML/PHP/ASP/JSP/etc you would with even Notepad. Yes, there are the bells and whistles like code-completion, etc but I beleive Quanta has these too (haven’t personally used Quanta in few years so I don’t even know where they’ve gotten it to since then)… but still – go to Monster and look at the Job ads – you won’t see Quanta mentioned anywhere as a requirement or a plus – if it’s a web developer position the name of IDE’s that the PR department has been given are either Dreamweaver or Visual Studio .NET…
Check the comments of the original story. The author and professor writes:
I submitted the article a few weeks ago, and it took a while for newforge.com to publish it. Since then, students have started their final semester of portfolio development, for which they have the option of doing paid work in class for real clients if they desire (and if they can get the clients).
I’m happy to say that the students have plenty of paying work. Transitioning from free software to proprietary has been easy. They’re focusing on Web design and graphic design projects, and they’re not finding it difficult to get clients with interesting projects. And they’re doing excellent work that is making their portfolios look great.
So much for the need to be trained on the industry “standard” applications.
To ME that’s not the point. You don’t take systems that are paid for (Macs running Mac OS X, and likely all the applications the art dept. uses regularly, at least our college had them pre-installed) and then just erase them. That’s throwing away $$$ and really not making it necessarily BETTER for the students. He hasn’t proven to me how what he has done could be better. Free software? Feh. Edu. discounts make everything cheap.
You don’t take systems that are paid for […] and then just erase them. That’s throwing away $$$
Not if you still have the disks, which you should. Unless you use pirated software, which you shouldn’t do, despite the fact that it happens a lot in shcools, unfortunately.
> Not if you still have the disks, which you should.
Verbal swordplay.
But you aren’t USING the software you paid for. What’s the point of buying it?
I wonder how this “professor” (and I use those quotation marks on purpose) plans to teach his students how to deal with colour profiles, spot colours, and process colour separations. Oh wait, he can’t, because none of his replacements support them.
If I was a student at this school, I would contact the board and have the teacher fired or severely reprimanded. NOBODY uses anything but pro software in the graphics world, which incidentally is almost entirely Mac OS X-based. Wiping the hard drives and replacing grade-A software such as Mac OS X, Adobe CS2 and Quark Xpress with some obscure Linux crap does these aspiring professionals a great disservice. This teacher is incredibly moronic.
Based on the professor’s own (biased?) description of how students are taking this change, it actually seems to be quite positive. Students learn about free software, pay lower lab fees, and seem to be having fun along the way. When it comes time to make the transition to “real world/industry” students can train on photoshop and other standards in their last semester. This way, they actually get exposure to a wider variety of software, which it seems should help, not hurt them.
Ultimately, it is the student’s development of their artistic sense and ability to creater art that will allow them to perform well in industry. Software should merely be a means to acheiving artistic ends quickly and efficiently. Once they get past the interface, an artist should be able to use any roughly comparable piece of software to produce their best work.
A better tool will ALWAYS produce better work among equally skilled users.
this is just wrong. I am a foss advocate, but I believe people should switch of their own accord, not be forced into it.
I read this article earlier this morning and thought “here is another forced migration to Linux”. Where is the “choice” in this switch? I thought one of the tenets of F/OSS software was freedom of choice, I don’t see this so much a choice as a Linux “user” (and I am being very friendly here) forcing his students to use Linux and OSS applications.
If this was a mutually agreed upon decision to switch from MacOS to Ubuntu and F/OSS apps, I would have no problem with it. However a “professor” deciding to change the OS and applications on a whim is wrong! I would like to see what the students have to say about this, because I am sure some of them weren’t too happy with the decision, especially if the course is advertised as a means of learning industry standard applications. And if I was one of those students paying for a course on graphics where the course specified PhotoShop and the professor was teaching The Gimp, not only would I want my money back for the course but I would want the professor at a minimum admonished for his poor judgement.
Since when do students have a say in what is taught and how it is taught? If they don’t like the course they have the choice of not taking it.
Students don’t get to have input about what books they use, or lab equipment. This is no different. Professors change their methods of teaching whenever they want, sometimes on a whim.
Anyway, TFA clearly states that the students still get to learn those precious proprietary apps if they want.
If the course is described as using “those precious proprietary apps” and the instructor changes the course then the students have a legitimate gripe. And the “When students asked if they were learning the industry standard applications that they felt they might need to get a job, I pointed out that in our department fourth-year students spend a semester developing their portfolios using the technologies of their choice” is just wrong.
The program should either be based on F/OSS or commercial software, not both. I see it as potentially problematic for those students whose computer skills are less than your typical system administrator and having to unlearn applications to learn others and do it in only one semester.
“The program should either be based on F/OSS or commercial software, not both. I see it as potentially problematic for those students whose computer skills are less than your typical system administrator and having to unlearn applications to learn others and do it in only one semester.”
Very valid point. However, one of the things I have done in the past is migrate people(not technical people either) from Photoshop and Office to the Gimp and openoffice, and I have found that the trasition has always been pretty smooth. I have found that Gimpshop is a pretty good app for Photoshop people as the app is more similar to Photoshop, however once the people know the GIMP they can work between them without much trouble. I don’t really look at it as learn/unlearn apps, more like adding another app to your skillset.
-Mike
That’s fine, I just hope the university takes that into consideration when the students get to the point where they are using the commercial apps after several semesters of using the F/OSS equivalents.
Conversely, where is the choice is using any system that is provided for you? When a student sits down at a computer on any campus they are “forced” to use whatever operating system that is on it. Now, from the article, I think its pretty safe to assume that they still have machines with Mac OS and proprietary apps.
Also, on the topic of choice, you might want to refer here: http://www.sincerechoice.org/ The idea of choice is that you aren’t locked into a propriety format or protocol.
Most “forced migrations to Linux” have been in the governement or private sector. In either case its not up the employee to decide what they use – its no more forced than any other software package a company uses. What IS forced is when a government agency releases documents in a proprietary format. That is the only case where someone is being unduly forced, as they are being required to purchase software which could be avoided by using open standards.
-Mike
The forced migrations to Linux I have read about are individuals “moving” their family members and friends to Linux because the person doing the migration likes Linux over whatever OS they are using. As I have said before, if this is an informed decision where the users are going to be trained in how to use Linux and F/OSS apps, that’s fine. I somehow don’t think that is the case here.
And which Government agency are you refering to that forces its user base to use Linux. As someone who works as a contractor for DoD, the standard desktop is Windows. And that is based on policy made far above my decision level.
There are other governments than the US 😉
Besides, I know a lot of US government contractors that exclusively use Solaris or Linux. Windows might be a distant target for development, but its surely not even close to being a priority.
What choice is there in being forced to use MacOS and proprietary apps? None.
In the meantime, I learned to use Photoshop first, and when I first used the Gimp I had little problems adjusting. Do you want to know why? That’s because, apart from a few UI differences, the programs are very similar. They use the same tools, most of the same dialog boxes, nearly all the same filters, etc.
If the course didn’t specifically specify Photoshop, then there’s nothing wrong with teaching Gimp instead. Chances are the students are still going to be able to use Photoshop anyway, since the programs are so similar in the first place.
I’m amazed that the university’s tech support department didn’t throw a fit when he started erasing commercial software and installing OSS.
Weren’t those computers on the university network? I imagine installing Linux without due care could cause some major security issues, especially if those PCs have internet access. If I was working as tech support there I’d want to closely supervise the transition to Linux, it would probably be the IT support staff who’d get the blame if it all went wrong.
The last time I was in a university it was totally forbidden for any unauthorised person to install software, or even change settings. Even professors had to approach the IT managers and discuss it with them before any additional software could be installed. If anything the IT department was a little over paranoid about security, at the time there was a lot of argument about whether USB flash drives should be banned. It seems strange to me that an art professor would have so much control over the university computers.
Are schools employee-making factors, or houses of learning? I thought the point of schools was to teach, not to help people get better jobs.
Edited 2006-03-23 16:54
And why do people educate themselves? I would safely assume it’s so that they can make better money than their friend at the local burger joint.
No. At least that wasn’t my motivation, when I started to study physics after I left an engineering school. Some of my former school mates earn more money than my professors , I’m generally not aware of some billionares in my profession (beside the ones, that write very successful books like a certain – no doubt ingenious – physicist in a wheelchair).
For some, it’s about passion.
For some, it’s about the joy of learning.
And it’s about earning enough money to sustain the former two things.
At least for me it’s this way, and I know a lot of similar thinking people (not only in academic circles btw.), so please don’t make that general statements like that, thanks in advance
“I began seriously planning this change last school year”
Why ? No clue about that.
He is changing the infrastructure of the entire school despite the fact all is already working for what ? Just because GIMP works ?
It seems they are just trying to make economies on the licence cost and justifying it by telling that open source tools are industrial ready …
“Next year, I plan to replace Maya with Blender”
lol…
First off, I’m studying art as minor, and I can
tell you some people in my classes could do
impressive work with a piece of shit on a stick.
I fully respect the profs decision to save money on
licenses where another tool will do the job
just as well and spend it on things the uni/school really needs.
The transition of learning a tool with some few
more features can be expected from someone who
actually understood what the software does
in the first place.
If not, hey, what the hell do they need a > 2k programm suite for?
I’ve seen too many people in the last years
talking down The Gimp because it lacks this and
that feature. But these same people are only
capable of producing fancy crap with filters.
A pro. will use filters “carefully” if at all.
(cloud filter anyone?)
There was recently a study covered on slashdot that
made that same assumption about Office users.
It’s true.
I’ve always looked into talking about alternatives
when being forced to use a proprietary software
for classes (Autodesk, Office, MSVC) where
alternatives exist.
Usually the missing killer feature of either application turned out to be unused anyway
or was bad research on the OSS side
(google?, missing feature must be compiled in,
is maintained as individual project, etc. etc.)
I also happen to major in computer-science.
People with the most diverse technical skills
ask me for proprietary software all the time
but refuse to believe me that they don’t need
half the features of that software (most
of the time).
Then, they start whining that the Software is
not doing what they want it to, the interface
sucks, blablalba…
Blender, is an excelent piece of software for
the fact that such software is very complex.
Most people are just too ignit to realise wtf they
are actually doing themselves and/or expect the
computer to find out for them.
Frightening to find such people here!
Excellent post, my thoughts exactly. It’s not as much the tool that matters, it’s the person who uses it.
The “missing” feature that everyone always mentions when talkinga bout the GIMP is CMYK and Pantone support. But if you don’t do print, what do you need these features for?
Can any of the anti-GIMP critics give me a single reason why GIMP isn’t adequate if you don’t have to do CMYK/Pantone?
The “missing” feature that everyone always mentions when talking about the GIMP is CMYK and Pantone support. But if you don’t do print, what do you need these features for?
They’re art students, who knows if they’ll need to print or not? I wouldn’t take any chances. If I were a student I would make a complaint, and if nothing changes, I would simply go to another school.
It is possible to print from GIMP, and you can make high-quality prints as well. There are ways around the lack of CMYK/Pantone.
Fact is, you didn’t answer my question: apart from CMYK/Pantone, what’s missing from GIMP?
If you deal with the visual arts and you can’t save images for output at a service bureau then you need to choose a different application. It’s really that simple. Not being able to save to CMYK/Pantone is a huge limitation for creating documents capable for output. How can you deal with trapping or type setting, handling rich black, ? Forget it! Pro graphic artists need to know and work within these limitations for jobs that are running in spot and 4 color output. This directly affects the creative process. At some point even if you use GIMP your image will need to be tweaked on Photoshop at some point before going to output. So why make it hard on yourself as the service bureau will nail you for time spent on adjusting your files.
I’ve been working in the graphic arts print field for over 10 years. I know what it takes to get a major publication to the press on a deadline. If your bureau uses Corel Draw to pump out film, then guess what…plan on getting acquainted with it. I haven’t heard of any bureau using OSS for pro output to a press due to a fundamental shortcoming of CMYK/Pantone. GIMP is pretty good for web stuff sure, but what about GIMP’s ability to handle EPS files with clipping paths and other print related features? Until GIMP has these features, it negates itself from a significant part of the Graphic Arts industry.
Chris
If you had actually read what I’d written, you would have seen that I made a point of saying that Gimp was a good alternative if you didn’t need to go to professional print quality.
I think the fact that you work in the printing field gives you a bias against non-printed visual arts. It’s not just web sites, as you so casually dismiss. The world of the electronic image is vast, from TV to film to video games. Lots of images will never be “printed”.
The one thing this discussion makes me realize is that Photoshop’s dominance hangs on very few things…as soon as Gimp get CMYK, EPS clipping paths and support for a proprietary Pantone plugins, it can be used for professional print work. Until then, it (and Cinepaint) can be used for professional non-print work.
Using Gimp Myself, I can say that The Worst Interfase Ever Known (WIEK)™
😉
Working with the Gimp is a pain. If you ever used Photoshop that is. I don’t care weather PS is the Standard or not. When you have to use both, Photoshop rocks (with some ugly flaws). Try them. Try to work with both for some time and you’ll know.
And I have the Gimp version for OS X that is tweaked to look and behave as much as possible like Photoshop. Not even THAT makes it much more usable.
The same happens with other tools. Comparing Inkscape with Illustrator is plain wrong. Adobe apps are the standard tools for pros, because they have YEARS of experience, Loads of Money and, in the end, the applications aren’t bad. You can have the same and still sell crap, you wouldn’t get too far. (Ironic comments about windows are forbidden).
😉
I don’t know, maybe we’re too used to them. But they work. Now.
I don’t agree. I work with both Gimp and Photoshop, and I don’t find anyone harder to use than the other.
What is it specifically that you dislike about the Gimp interface? The fact that there is no workspace window?
Gimp version 2 is quite easy to use. And I use both of them in a professional setting.
I love how every comment that opposes this article gets voted down.
There a lot of comments railing against the professor in the article, and they’re mostly saying the same thing. It’s not that they’re being voted down, they’re just not being voted up.
funny to see all the anti-OSS Zealots going frantic at this.
It’s only right that people should learn the free tools. Actually taxes are used on these “educational centres” and therefore teaching pupils to be slaves of proprietary-only applications is ethically wrong.
It’s not a problem for companies that students are used to free tools. It’s however a problem if the students are only used to non-free tools.
They learn to create art with free tools. This knowledge is easily ported to proprietary tools. Add to that the much wider horizont they get from using free tools and learning that “world”.
And look at all of the F/OSS zealots pitching a fit and modding down posts that don’t agree with the F/OSS mindset. I have watched a number of posters (myself included) get modded down for not agreeing with the F/OSS zealots, so our opinion is not valid or worthy of consideration because we don’t see F/OSS as the answer to every computing problem?
As someone who spent almost 4 years doing graphics and assisted in the transition from MacOS to Windows NT (1997-1998), it isn’t just a case of switching the OS and applications, giving people a couple of hours of training and their “talent” takes them the rest of the way. Not everybody is a geek, so just because some people here know PhotoShop and the Gimp doesn’t mean everybody does. People learn things at different rates and have different skill sets. I watched a number of experienced MacOS users sweat bullets over the transition, and I am sure it was no different for some of the MacOS users in the art course described in the article. One cannot assume that everybody has years of experience with computers either and that they will “magically” get it. I can tell you right now they don’t! I watched a number of people who loved their Mac’s never quite master Windows NT because it was so “different”. I hope the university has a good support staff.
Do I think the decision to replace most of the machines using MacOS with Linux is a poor one, yes I do. Does that make me an anti-F/OSS zealot, no it doesn’t. It just means I do not agree with the decision making process of that professor and the possible effects it might have on his students.
Actually the posts being modded down in this thread are pro-F/OSS and those being modded up are anti-F/OSS.
No, initially the anti-F/OSS posts were modded to zero, I bumped a few up that I thought deserved it.
The students liked it.
Besides that, they are there to learn, and probably don’t know any of these applications beforehand or only at a beginner’s level.
That is according to the professor, who another poster has already pointed out his bias.
Prove the students did not like it, and you might have an argument. Otherwise, it’s simply your own bias showing.
As for Gimp, we have already started using it to replace expensive Photoshop licenses at the place I work. We’re on Windows, so we use Gimpshop to minimize UI confusion.
>Prove the students did not like it, and you might have an argument. Otherwise, it’s simply your own bias showing.
Sound like a pissing match.
Sound like a pissing match.
No, it’s a rebuttal. He’s the one making an assertion based on suppositions instead of facts.
“Prove it!” is not a rebuttal. It’s something you used to say to the kid next door, fighting through the fence.
> It’s only right that people should learn the free
> tools. Actually taxes are used on these “educational
> centres” and therefore teaching pupils to be slaves of
> proprietary-only applications is ethically wrong.
Except that art students are concerned with art. Most of them are not interested in issues around their computers. It is yet another question whether using proprietary software and teaching its use is ethically wrong, which you have just assumed here but which is heavily discussed even among those that *are* interested in this field.
Now that you want artists to care about free software at all, and prefer it whether they agree with your arguments or not, to what extent do you care about fields that are not your own? When you buy your computer hardware, do you check whether it was assembled by children? Do you choose hardware companies in a way to encourage a healthy competition in the hardware market? Do you buy computer science books based on their contents, or do you also check whether they’re printed on recycled paper?
Remember, software freedom is *not* the primary concern of an art student.
Of course it’s not their primary concern. It shouldn’t be, and that’s why it has to be somebody else’s concern. And that’s what it is. Whenever tax money is used it must NOT be spent on proprietary solutions.
And to the questions about computer hardware. I don’t check whether it’s assembled by childen, nor do I mind buying hardware assembled by children. It gives them food- And it’s better than starving even if they have to work under terms we find unreasonable.
Define “healthy competion”. I buy books based on their contents. It doesn’t matter if it’s printed on recycled paper, but I prefer it’s not, since recycled paper is bad for the nature. The trees used for paper are industrial trees and nature does not suffer from the cutting of these trees. It does suffer from not cutting the trees, because the trees will stand too close and suffer from many diseases. This happens in Sweden and Norway.
> Of course it’s not their primary concern. It shouldn’t
> be, and that’s why it has to be somebody else’s concern.
Unless the students agree with the prof’s decision, he’s making it the students concern, because they are going to need training for Photoshop and other tools that are used in the industry. These students will only profit from experience with, say, the GIMP, but they will suffer from not having experience with PS (of course, making the transition will be some kind of proving ground). The point is, it’s the future of the single art student which is at stake, so it should be his/her decision whether to focus on free but less-known tools. You wouldn’t like others to risk your future for their own purpose either.
> And to the questions about computer hardware. I don’t
> check whether it’s assembled by childen, nor do I mind
> buying hardware assembled by children. It gives them
> food- And it’s better than starving even if they have
> to work under terms we find unreasonable.
Actually I agree with you on the issue of children’s work, but that is not my point. Many people find it unethical that children assemble that hardware. You disagree, and hence don’t mind buying such hardware. But what if these people tried to interfere in your buying decision the same way your want to impose free software on others, because they think they have to fight children’s work the same way you fight against proprietary software?
I don’t mind proprietary software as such. I mind because tax money is being spent on training students to use proprietary solutions. Taxes are my money stolen by the government, and therefore I mind them being used on proprietary solutions. I wouldn’t give a damn about the used software if the educational centres were fully privately financed.
It doesn’t harm their skills in PhotoShop that they have to learn the artistic basics in GIMP. When they have learned the basics and become skilled artists it’s no brainer switching to another app. If they have problems switching then they aren’t skille artists.
But it does harm their skills not to (at least) let them try out the freedomware options.
Not all universities in this country are federally funded, and from the information provided on their website, it is probably funded at either the state or local level. So from a tax standpoint it would only affect you if you lived in that state. I’m pretty sure the universities get a real sweetheart deal on proprietary software, so I wouldn’t cry too much.
And how does not using F/OSS software harm the skills of an art student? Quite a few people have made a successful living without F/OSS, and I am sure that is a trend that will continue.
“I don’t mind proprietary software as such. I mind because tax money is being spent on training students to use proprietary solutions. Taxes are my money stolen by the government, and therefore I mind them being used on proprietary solutions.”
Do you mind the university filling its library with books, which are proprietary and bought from publishing companies, rather than only using books in the public domain that can be printed on-site?
Or that the music department requires students to learn the piano, a complex intstrument that costs a lot of money, instead of a cigar-box rubber band ukelele they could build themselves for free?
X
Yes I do, if they’re bought with taxes.
> But it does harm their skills not to (at least) let
> them try out the freedomware options.
I begin to think that our opinions are similar
Yes, learning yet another tool will only teach you more understanding of the fundamentals. I have made the same experience with programming languages – You should know a lot of them, even if you don’t use them. Likewise, knowing Photoshop will be a valuable experience for an art student.
The point we disagree about (I think) is only that I consider the use of proprietary software (Photoshop) to be a cost that is worth paying. If we want art students to use free software, then I think it is at us to produce free art tools of comparable quality (according to other comments here, GIMP still lacks some important features), and if possible similar user interfaces. All else will follow.
No, but forking out a couple of hundred dollars when there are free alternatives might be of concern to them. Most students I know are quite poor.
“funny to see all the anti-OSS Zealots going frantic at this. ”
This is OS News. Many of us run obscure operating systems, probably more than one, and wish they had greater support and market penetration. We are OS enthusiasts, which is why we’re here.
And that means many of us dual boot, or multi-boot. There is no reason we have to pick one OS and fight for it in a giant religious war. I think that explains much of the reaction to this article: the guy didn’t just install Ubuntu, he wiped the other OS before doing so. Why?
Aside from being a waste of money—you already have that OS that came with the machine—you’re going to create friction with students if they eventually need to use an OS-specific application. It is also counter to the mindset of an OS enthusiast to clobber one OS when installing another one. Like putting your cat to sleep before bringing home a new kitten. Basically I think it’s a bad idea, even though I advocate alternative OSs and open source.
X
Quite lame, what will these students do when they get out in the real world and not have good practice on proven app’s, Adobe, Apple etc!
Obviously, using tools that the students wont be using after graduation is a bit air-headed.
On the other hand, I think this is one step in the right direction; students shouldn’t be tied to tools. Teach them using a few different tools so they don’t get caught up in specifics and focus on the technique.
He is a Art teacher he should concentrate on giving them a design background rather then teach them differing OS philosophies, if they wanted that they would have enrolled on a Computer course
How is this any different from a Lecturer trying to force his political views onto his students
The point of schools, especially colleges, is to teach students the fundamentals of different branchs of study and to teach them how to learn. If a person can’t use anything but one kind of paint-brush to make art, then that person should go to school and learn how to use all kinds of brushes. They should also go to learn how to improve their abilities with other brushes that the class doesn’t teach. That is to say, the teacher teaches the student how to learn how to use all kinds of different tools to make art.
Teachers don’t make employees better at doing their job, teachers make learners better at learning. No decent employer will expect employees to know everything, but they will expect that they’ll be able to learn what they don’t know! That’s the ability teachers give.
Gimp is sufficient a tool for this task, since it has all the fundamental tools needed by the teacher to teach his students.
The University that I attended was negligent!
They required me to work with g++, vi, and make — even worse Motif!! How many jobs in the real world use those tools?
The vast majority of all programming jobs use Microsoft Developer Studio, yet I was never once exposed to it there! For my entire professional career I’ve been held back — an outcast as I continue to use Vim on Windows! Everywhere I go they scoff at Unix and only want Windows tools! How much further could I have progressed if I’d only been taught the MS way?
wait… Oh yeah.
Exactly
So they paid for OS X and software for it but then they decided in effect to throw away money by wiping it off their Macs and putting ubuntu just so they can avoid the “evils of proprietary software” when they could have installed open source software in OS X. Uh.. yeah.. ok smart move. =p
I personally wouldn’t have been happy with this move.
BTW, standards are more important than being proprietary or not if you are expecting the students to go on to doing professional work then that means using what the industry is using. The best schools base their curriculum and tools around what the jobs will need when the students graduate. So sure it’s good to teach the students open source software but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water not giving them enough exposure to industry standard software whether it’s proprietary or not.
So I really think the better solution would have been to install those open source packages under OS X. I personally would like to see colleges or universities teaching both types of software to their students. The particular school I went to didn’t even hear about The GIMP so at least in one way this is a good thing but like I said the students need as much exposure to industry standard software as they can.
Edited 2006-03-23 21:04
So I suppose you people think MIT should switch from Scheme to Java as their language of choice for teaching purposes? I’m sure students that go there are scarred for life by not getting taught Java!
If you are responding to me I’m coming from and talking about going to a college that trains for the commercial art industry. If they taught only The GIMP at for example The Art Center Design College it actually wouldn’t do the students as good a service as it might seem on the surface because when they get hired for a job and they are expected to use photoshop they are not well prepared for it.
I actually am not against The GIMP or other open source software as I use them all the time. But you can’t discount learning what the jobs will actually use because your job will depend on it.
Learning the principles of a tool may take you some but not all the way into teaching you everything about the subject you still need photoshop experience for example in order to make the most out of photoshop not just gimp experience. I know this because I have a lot of GIMP experience but that doesn’t easily transfer to the latest photoshop for example.
So I would like for them to teach programs like The GIMP and more power to them as far as that goes but don’t throw away the choice etc. of being able to use programs like photoshop.
I know nothing about what MIT students might need so I can’t make any comment on that.
Edited 2006-03-23 21:43
The GIMP may very well do as much as photoshop or even more, but unless they redesign the user interface, it’s not worth the hassle. I have nothing particular against GTK but the UI is so goddamn ugly (yes, it does matter: do you drive a car that is covered with rust and be happy with it ’cause it does what it’s supposed to? or do you wear trashbags as clothes because they cover your body as clothes are supposed to?) and unusable that no sane-minded person would dump Photoshop for the GIMP unless threatened to be killed. And, while we’re at it, graphics people generally need a decent environment to work (the way artists are constructed, i guess) and the GIMP is not decent.
Btw, how is it that GUI buttons on Open source platforms (KDE, Gnome etc.) tend to be larger than on Windows? The tool buttons in photoshop are conveniently small and handy, whereas their equivalents in Krita are considerably larger. I’m not even going to start bashing the GIMP for this… This tends to be the case with other programs too (OK, Maybe not [Windows] Explorer vs Konqueror but certainly Office vs. Openoffice/Koffice etc.)…
I have nothing particular against GTK but the UI is so goddamn ugly
Try Gimp 2, which uses GTK 2. The UI is lovely.
I think there are a lot of posters that have no idea how the creative industry works. As a former videogame programmer (still uses Linux daily) turned art student, let me clue you in.
In the past, art students just had to learn their medium, whether that be oil painting, sculpture, etc. Today, art students have to learn both analog AND digital creation. It might not seem like a huge deal to learn GIMP and then learn Photoshop later, but there’s already a lot on the plate because we’re forced to learn twice as much technique (analog and digital). That cuts into the time we spend on form study, color theory, etc. <bold> We want to focus on the art/design, not the tool, get it? </bold>
Some people here seem to have it in their heads that moving from one program to another is going to be easy. In some cases, it is. But some programs (like Maya) have very complex user interfaces and scripting languages. To go from such different user interfaces as Blender to Maya is a HUGE jump. I don’t know a single person who knows every feature of Maya in and out (very DEEP application). It isn’t like switching word processors.
We’re already paying a lot for tuition (my bill is $13k/term)… do you really think that the cost student licensed software is going to make that big of an impact?
Finally, MUM doesn’t have what most people would consider an elite art program. Maybe this overzealous professor can pull this shit there, but at any other art school (Art Center, CCS, RISD, etc.) that wouldn’t fly at all. The curriculum at Art Center for example is WAY too rigorous and too expensive for this type of experiment.
It might not seem like a huge deal to learn GIMP and then learn Photoshop later, but there’s already a lot on the plate because we’re forced to learn twice as much technique (analog and digital).That cuts into the time we spend on form study, color theory, etc. <bold> We want to focus on the art/design, not the tool, get it? </bold>
It doesn’t matter if you learn a technique on PS or Gimp, it’s the technique that counts, not the actual tool. It seems to me that, as an art student, that’s something that you should have understood by now.
All during your professional life, you’ll have to learn new tools, new programs, new UIs. Imagine what image manipulation tools we’ll have twenty years from now!
Some people here seem to have it in the heads that moving from one program to another is going to be easy. In some cases, it is. But some programs (like Maya) have very complex user interfaces and scripting languages.
Granted, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about Gimp and Photoshop, and their respective interfaces are a lot more alike (and much less complex) than, say, Maya and Blender.
To go from such different user interfaces as Blender to Maya is a HUGE jump. I don’t know a single person who knows every feature of Maya in and out (very DEEP application). It isn’t like switching word processors.
True, but even that can be done relatively easily. I saw a company switch from Lightwave to Maya myself. These things happen in the corporate world, because the tools themselves evolve. Photoshop’s dominance won’t last forever, and that’s a good thing. That doesn’t mean it will be beaten by Gimp, mind you (Krita could pass them both!)
We’re already paying a lot for tuition (my bill is $13k/term)… do you really think that the cost student licensed software is going to make that big of an impact?
I had forgotten how expensive it is to go to University in the states. Man, you guys are getting gouged!
That’s quite off-topic, but do consider it normal that it costs so much to study in such a rich nation?
Finally, MUM doesn’t have what most people would consider an elite art program.
The notion of “elite art program” is in itself quite strange…It’s the artist that makes the art, not the expensive curriculum! That’s especially true considering the number of self-taught artists that have successful careers.
It doesn’t matter if you learn a technique on PS or Gimp, it’s the technique that counts, not the actual tool. It seems to me that, as an art student, that’s something that you should have understood by now.
However, software is usually rather pedantic unfortunately. And often a technique you learn in one program won’t work in another. For basic usage, it’s not a problem, but for advanced techniques, it can pose a problem.
Granted, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about Gimp and Photoshop, and their respective interfaces are a lot more alike (and much less complex) than, say, Maya and Blender.
But if you read the article, he mentions that next he will be replacing Maya with Blender. Switching from different programs is costly, whether we’re talking about the cost of training, lost time, etc. Often, employers need expertise immediately because of increasingly tight deadlines.
That’s quite off-topic, but do consider it normal that it costs so much to study in such a rich nation?
The notion of “elite art program” is in itself quite strange
I’m lucky enough to be attending a great school. It has gotten *much* more expensive since I first started three years ago. o_O I agree with you that “it’s the artist that makes the art, not the expensive curriculum”, but I think you’re being a little dismissive of the value of a great program with great teachers. You can always learn things for yourself, but a great program will get you up to speed faster, and a great teacher will help you gain insights that you might never learn otherwise. Learn from their experience! It’s indeed possible to become a great artist without school, but I truly believe that a great school *can* help you become a better, well-rounded artist.
I’m in the process of writing design software right now, and I’m well aware of the hurdles I’ll be facing when I release it. But here’s what I’ve found: software isn’t better just because it’s free. With even moderate budgets, the cost of Photoshop is miniscule. So if GIMP wants to be more popular, it has to be obvious that it will be every bit as productive as Photoshop, otherwise we’ll all pay the price to Adobe.
The professor doesn’t know the law:
Linux is Only Free If Your Time is Worthless
Sure Ubuntu is free, but how much time wasted to make all PPC machines and peripheral usable? And how much time wasted to find hack to compensate the weakness of the free applications? He must know when to use free software, when to use proprietary one. I entrust Unix (FreeBSD) for web server, mail server and other network related service, but I don’t think I waste 11,000 yen for Windows XP because it is fit me most for desktop.
I thought in art, the end product is what matters, not the medium. Real artists don’t need photoshop to produce great work. They’d produce great work regardless of the medium or tools, after all they are artists and creativity is their mantra.
Edited 2006-03-24 03:51
It’s funny to me that most of the poseters complaining that this switch is going to hurt student’s chances in the “Real World” are assuming that in the “Real World” the only opportunities are for corporate drones. Get real, people. There are a lot of small shops out there that would love to have someone come in with skills on free tools — the company would save a bundle right off the bat on license fees. There are a lot of artists and designers who are self employed as well, or who eventually will be. If they’re going to work for themselves, marketing their own products, don’t you think they’re better off not having to pay huge amounts of overhead for software?
My wife is a self-employed graphic artist, and she uses Photoshop on OS X, has for years. If she had learned the GIMP when she was getting started, if it had even been available, she might not feel so locked in right now.
…he does not mention about all the licensed software they already had running on the macs that he just “threw away.”
I have nothing against linux, especially Ubuntu/Debian. But it seems like he just did this on a whim, despite the fact that he states “I thought it was time for my students to learn about some free software” (paraphrasing a bit there). That’s the most friggin’ ridiculous reason I’ve ever heard for making such a huge change.
Bzzzt! Wrong. Every employee needs a minimum of training anyway, and courses are tax-deductible.
It takes a few days to get familiar with a new tool. If the modeler has talent, then that’s worth a lot more than which tools he’s used to.
The correct answer is c), as tried and tested in a real-life situation.
That’s your opinion, but in my book someone who constructs arguments around suppositions is asking for it.
And, for the record, the notion of proof is intrinsic to rational thought, including debate. I’m not going to ask him to prove that the sky is blue, but the fact of the matter is that we don’t know if the students will be pissed off or not, and yet he made a statement that assumed they would.
But you yourself seem quite eager to start a pissing match of your own…
It has gotten *much* more expensive since I first started three years ago. o_O I agree with you that “it’s the artist that makes the art, not the expensive curriculum”, but I think you’re being a little dismissive of the value of a great program with great teachers. You can always learn things for yourself, but a great program will get you up to speed faster, and a great teacher will help you gain insights that you might never learn otherwise. Learn from their experience! It’s indeed possible to become a great artist without school, but I truly believe that a great school *can* help you become a better, well-rounded artist.
Perhaps, but then again I don’t believe one should equate “expensive” with “great.” I’m not saying the two are mutually exclusive, just that one does not guarantee the other.
Then again I’m from outside the U.S., where tuition fees are as a rule a lot smaller, despite having our share of quality schools and programs.
I’m not saying that you get shafted because you picked a good school, I’m saying that U.S. students in general get shafted through exhorbitant tuition fees.
It’s not your fault, it’s the way the system works. Money is perceived as a measure of success and quality…not exactly the basis for artistic thought, if you ask me! (Not claiming that I’m not part of that system as well, mind you…but at least I didn’t spend a little fortune on tuition fees…)
Perhaps, but then again I don’t believe one should equate “expensive” with “great.” I’m not saying the two are mutually exclusive, just that one does not guarantee the other.
True, there are some foreign schools that compete directly with us (Strate, Pforzheim, IED, Tokyo Communications, etc.), and I’ve heard that they’re supported by each respective government (socialized), but here in the States bad schools can be expensive and good schools are almost guaranteed to be. They charge high tuitions because they produce results (and they know they can get it). My field, Transportation Design, is next to impossible to get into without the right training. There are things you will only learn in this specialized curriculum that are taught at just a handful of schools, and you won’t find the same information in any book or website. Self taught? I don’t think so.
And if you live in a country with socialized education, really you’re been paying for that education your entire life (before, during and after graduation), right?
So do I feel shafted? Nope. I feel lucky to be here.
And if you live in a country with socialized education, really you’re been paying for that education your entire life (before, during and after graduation), right?
I’d rather pay taxes to finance education, which improves social conditions, rather than finance the military-industrial complex.
My field, Transportation Design, is next to impossible to get into without the right training.[…]Self taught? I don’t think so.
I’m sorry, we were talking about art school, not design school. Design and art are not the same at all, even though they share many things.
If you’re going to constantly change the basis of the discussion to fit your arguments, then there’s little point in continuing this exchange.
I’d rather pay taxes to finance education, which improves social conditions, rather than finance the military-industrial complex.
Easy there tiger, the point was that you paid for your schooling in other ways.
I’m sorry, we were talking about art school, not design school. Design and art are not the same at all, even though they share many things.
Design is art. What are you talking about? Graphic DESIGN? Web DESIGN? You did mention using GIMP for web design in an earlier post. Or just pure fine art?
If you’re going to constantly change the basis of the discussion to fit your arguments, then there’s little point in continuing this exchange.
I’m not the one talking about “military installations”. LOL
Easy there tiger, the point was that you paid for your schooling in other ways.
Yes, except here people that make more money pay more taxes, and therefore students are not disadvantaged if they’re poor. Anyway, this is off-topic, so I’ll stop with that. Socialized education and medecine should be part of an industrialized society IMO.
Design is art. What are you talking about? Graphic DESIGN? Web DESIGN? You did mention using GIMP for web design in an earlier post. Or just pure fine art?
I don’t know about you, but I’d be inclined to make a distinction between graphic design and web design, which are primarily aesthetic/communicative in nature, and transportation design/industrial design, which is used of an industrial process. So, no, I would not consider the latter art.
In any case, industrial design would use programs like AutoCAD, not Photoshop.
I’m not the one talking about “military installations”. LOL
Uh, that was said as part of a side conversation which I identified as “off-topic” from the beginning (and that was “military/industrial complex”…read up on it). You’re basically changing the subject of the actual topic to suit your argument. Big difference.
But here’s what I’ve found: software isn’t better just because it’s free. With even moderate budgets, the cost of Photoshop is miniscule. So if GIMP wants to be more popular, it has to be obvious that it will be every bit as productive as Photoshop, otherwise we’ll all pay the price to Adobe.
When you set up your own company, and have to buy 100 licenses at the corporate cost, then we’ll talk…
I’m not saying Gimp can replace Photoshop in all situations, for all types of graphic work. But it can replace it in many, and in those situations, it makes business sense to use it.
And you’re right, software isn’t better just because it’s open…but it’s not better just because it’s proprietary either. 🙂
When you set up your own company, and have to buy 100 licenses at the corporate cost, then we’ll talk…
Ha. Don’t give me this pretentious bullshit. Now you’re making the supposition that I haven’t been in that situation. I’ve been at quite a few companies and have been in charge of acquiring software. Time lost to training and software quirks that cost deadlines (and sometimes customers) can be way more costly than the cost of corporate bulk licenses.
And you’re right, software isn’t better just because it’s open…but it’s not better just because it’s proprietary either. 🙂
Never said that it was. But, if there’s a feature I want or need (cough, CMYK) a company like Adobe has a good reason to respond (namely profit). GIMP users have been clamoring for CMYK support for how long now? I suppose the GIMP developers are working on it, but it’s been a long time in the making.
Ha. Don’t give me this pretentious bullshit. Now you’re making the supposition that I haven’t been in that situation. I’ve been at quite a few companies and have been in charge of acquiring software.
Yeah, whatever. Appeal to authority don’t impress me.
Time lost to training and software quirks that cost deadlines (and sometimes customers) can be way more costly than the cost of corporate bulk licenses.
They can, but not necessarily. If a free software fills the need, then the money saved on licenses + upgrades can be worth it.
Never said that it was. But, if there’s a feature I want or need (cough, CMYK) a company like Adobe has a good reason to respond (namely profit). GIMP users have been clamoring for CMYK support for how long now? I suppose the GIMP developers are working on it, but it’s been a long time in the making.
Sure. But if you don’t need an extra features such as CMYK (which, in the online/film/video game world is completely useless), then using a program such as Gimp/Cinepaint makes sense, which was my point all along.
Yeah, whatever. Appeal to authority don’t impress me.
Who was the one who said “come talk to me when you start your own company”?
Right. You aren’t impressed by an “appeal to authority” but you sure like to toot your own horn.
Sure. But if you don’t need an extra features such as CMYK (which, in the online/film/video game world is completely useless), then using a program such as Gimp/Cinepaint makes sense, which was my point all along.
And my point is that GIMP and the other packages don’t have “extra” features like 16-bit channels that are increasingly being used in those industries. If GIMP were to keep up, I would endorse it wholeheartedly. But why give the students anything but the best tools?
Who was the one who said “come talk to me when you start your own company”?
Right. You aren’t impressed by an “appeal to authority” but you sure like to toot your own horn.
That wasn’t an appeal to authority. For that I would have had to say: “I buy software licenses for a company, I know what I’m talking about, therefore I’m right.”
I was referring to a real-world example that happened at my company. If Gimp can do the job, why fork money for all these license fees?
And my point is that GIMP and the other packages don’t have “extra” features like 16-bit channels that are increasingly being used in those industries.
Cinepaint handles these features. GIMP will likely do as well over the next couple of months, according to the mailing lists.
But why give the students anything but the best tools?
Teaching them a second tool, teaching them techniques rather than UIs, these are good things. And if Gimp does indeed become better than Adobe (who seem to be having problems with the Photoshop codebase, according to another article), then they’ll have a headstart.
Learning is good – why insist on limiting students’ knowledge?
By switching to Linux and Gimp, the students are learning something more useful and important than how to use Photoshop. They’re learning how to embrace change. They’re given a completely new set of tools and now need to make the situation good. This ability is far more important in life (in general and in the commercial sphere) than esoteric product/tool specific knowledge. The students’ ability to learn new things and deal with new situations will give them the confidence to be open to innovation and to challenge themselves by learning new tools.
To be sure, it is important to train oneself in how to use specific tools, and it’s also important to learn the underlying concepts of the work; however, focusing solely on these things and not developing the student as a person creates human resources (or, more appropriately, “dehumanized resources”) rather than the educated (and, as such, liberated) persons that education ought to produce.
Edited 2006-03-24 08:56
Of course teaching people to consider alternative soloutions actually IS a vital responsibility of universities. But I’m afraid that those students are more or less led into unemployment. Also it would have been possible to use many of the opensource applications on MacOS X.
It would have been better to install both and let the students decide which soloution they like more. All he did was just forcing young people to learn something that hasn’t been asked for on their job market. Opensource sometimes leds to strange decisions…
In such a situation I would consider leaving the school.
…that probably shouldn’t be teaching.