Hello, DALL·E

You may have noticed that my post from the beginning of February was accompanied not by one of my usual photo-illustrations, but by the work of a guest artist named DALL·E. For those who don’t follow tech news, DALL·E is an artificial intelligence (AI) system that’s designed to create images based on a verbal description. For example, you can feed DALL·E a phrase like “A platypus watching TV in the style of Renoir,” and it will give you exactly that, in multiple variations.

As someone who much prefers putting my laundry in a washing machine to scrubbing it against a washboard, I saw no reason not to give DALL·E a try. Why expend time and effort messing around in Photoshop when I can simply type “One person reaching down to help another person get out of a hole”? I wouldn’t say that the resulting illustration is dripping with artistic merit, but neither could that be said about whatever I’d have created.

I have plenty of thoughts about the significance of DALL·E (and its word-oriented cousin, ChatGPT), but so does pretty much every other blogger and columnist in the world, so I’ll spare you mine. I will, however, say a bit about my personal experience in using it.

My approach to making any sort of visual image has always been one of trial and error. I’ll start out with a fuzzy idea of what I want the image to look like, and then look at dozens or even hundreds of online photos and drawings to find elements that match the undeveloped picture in my head. I’ll then use a few of those elements to build a rough composition — often swapping different elements in and out along the way — and gradually refine them until they begin to work together. The more refining I do, the more concrete the image becomes. It’s often not until the image is fully worked out that I realize how bad it is. At that point, I either give up and start over, or go back to the last good decision and work from there. After enough dead ends and new choices, I finally achieve a result that I can live with. That process, as you might imagine, takes hours.

The amazing and humbling thing is that DALL·E follows pretty much the same process[1], but does so in seconds rather than hours. To be honest, “amazing” and “humbling” are not the most accurate words; better ones might be “exasperating” and “infuriating.” How many cumulative months or years of my life have I spent creating half-baked images that just get thrown away? By contrast, DALL·E makes the act of creation seem instant, and even though I know intellectually that it isn’t — that DALL·E is invisibly generating and destroying a greater quantity of valueless images than I could ever imagine — I can’t help perceiving the bulk of human activity as inefficient and futile.

At the same time, I’m made aware of how precious that inefficiency and futility is! After all, I remain driven to put out this blog even though I’m aware that there’s no real reason to do it. I’d probably go on writing it even if I didn’t have any readers. Having had trial collaboration with DALL·E, I’ve still returned to making illustrations on my own, despite the work involved. Humans need purpose, and I can’t imagine any advancement in technology that would obviate that need.

One of the concerns that I’ve seen expressed about AI technology is that it will put many artists and writers — not to mention other creative professionals, such as teachers — out of work. No doubt it will, just as the invention and refinement of sound recording and sound synthesis put a lot of live musicians out of work. Society will adapt, and those who lose their livelihoods will, as they always have, find other ways to make a living.

But, just as the technologization of music hasn’t diminished the amount of music in the world, DALL·E, ChatGPT, and their successors certainly won’t deprive the world of visual and verbal art. Painters need to paint, dancers need to dance, writers need to write, and they will always find opportunities to do it. Which segments of the marketplace will value human-generated creations over machine-generated ones remains to be seen, but no doubt such markets will continue to exist. And in the end, just as they have with music, advancements in AI technology will no doubt broaden our ideas about what qualifies as art and what satisfies our souls.

Not exactly Renoir — but still, not too shabby!

[1] An admittedly oversimplified description of DALL·E’s strategy is that it generates a series of images — millions of them — with random variations, each of which it evaluates according to a set of rules that it has acquired by analyzing existing human-made images. If a newly generated image is judged to fit the rules better than the previous one, it’s used as the basis for further variations; otherwise, it’s thrown away. The eventual result is a group of final images that adhere to the rules as closely as possible.

Read Me 1 comment

Long Gone

“Why does traditional lettering have serifs?” I would ask my design students, as an introduction to our unit on typography. “Who first had the idea to decorate alphabetic characters with little hats and shoes? Why go through the extra work?”

Most students had no answer, not ever having considered the issue. A few would cite studies purporting to show that serif typefaces enable faster reading than sans-serif typefaces — something about the serifs giving the eye a more obvious line to follow. (Even if there are such studies, they’d offer no evidence about how serifs came to exist in the first place.)

As it turns out, I was asking a trick question. My question assumed that unadorned letterforms came first, and that serifs were a flourish that was added later. In reality, serifs were there from the beginning. It’s only in relatively recent times, when efficiency became valued above all, that designers deliberately went about removing them.

Serifs are a relic of the calligrapher’s pen, from the time when all writing was done by hand. Although they had some practical value in managing the ink flow from a quill pen, serifs persisted, and became more refined, because they made the text beautiful. As most calligraphy was done by monks who were copying religious texts, the role of writing was not simply to convey information; it was to glorify the word of God. Beauty was part of the job.

Our attitude that utility is primary, and that beauty is an optional add-on, is a historical anomaly. For most of human history, it was assumed that if something was worth bringing into the world, then it either was inherently beautiful or deserved to be made beautiful. Beauty and truth, to paraphrase Keats, were indistinguishable from each other.

As unlikely as it may seem, what all this leads up to is the story of an 18th-century British carpenter-turned-clockmaker named John Harrison, who singlehandedly revolutionized marine navigation. Great Britain, you see, had an empire to rule; administering that empire required a fleet of ships; and each of those ships needed to know exactly where it was on any given day. Calculating a ship’s latitude was easy; it merely required measuring the distance from the sun to the horizon at midday. But calculating a ship’s longitude was next to impossible.

While latitude is measured in relation to the equator, longitude must be measured in relation to an arbitrary reference location — in this case, the Prime Meridian, which in 1721 had been established to pass through the Royal Observatory in Greenwich. Unlike the equator, whose position is fixed, meridians of longitude move with the rotation of the earth. Therefore, calculating a ship’s longitude required making precise observations of the positions of stars and planets, and comparing them to where an almanac predicted that they ought to be at specific places and times. That was not a very dependable method, especially since making accurate astronomical observations was hopelessly tricky aboard a rocking ship under an often cloud-covered sky.

In theory, all of this messiness could be dispensed with if a ship had a clock that continuously displayed the current time at the Prime Meridian. Then it would be simple to calculate the ship’s longitude by comparing that reference time with the local time. But the only type of clock that could theoretically maintain the required level of accuracy — one driven by a relatively new invention called the pendulum — was practically useless aboard ship, since the rocking of the ship and constant changes in temperature and humidity caused unacceptable variations in the pendulum’s motion. No clock had ever been made that could keep time reliably on a sea voyage.

Harrison — given the incentive of a £20,000 reward that the British Parliament had offered to anyone who could create a dependable marine clock — set out to solve the problem, pairing impeccable craftsmanship with an uncanny ability to invent new technologies as needed. He spent five years developing his first sea clock, now known as H1, which maintained unprecedented (if not yet sufficient) accuracy on its test voyage. He spent another five years creating H2, and then an astounding 17 years completing H3, before starting from scratch on an entirely new design — resembling a large pocket watch rather than a standing clock — that six years later became H4. That model, completed in 1759, proved so accurate that it is credited as having forever changed the nature of sea travel.

All four of those clocks are now on exhibit in Greenwich, and all but the last are still running. (H4 remains in working condition, but is too delicate to be kept in continuous use while on display.) Debra and I visited the Royal Observatory just for the touristy fun of being able to straddle the Prime Meridian, with one foot in the Western Hemisphere and one in the Eastern, but I had no idea that our visit would also include an opportunity to view Harrison’s historic clocks.

The experience was astonishing — not just because these clocks so improbably still survive, but because they are so achingly, breathtakingly beautiful. Some of the beauty is inherent in their engineering: The precise machining and flawless polish that are necessary to their functioning, and the perfect discipline of their movement, are as soul-satisfying as any piece of art could ever be. But beyond that, Harrison — whose background was in fine cabinetry, and who sang with (and later led) his church choir — clearly did all he could to make the aesthetic appeal of his clocks commensurate with their scientific and historical importance.

Not only do all four timepieces have elegant faces engraved with delicate scrollwork; H4 goes so far as to save its most exquisite ornamentation for inside the watch case, which only the person who wound or maintained the device would ever get to see. Every tiny element of the mechanism reflects profound thought and meticulous care (some of which was provided by other skilled craftsmen whom Harrison hired to do the work).

Harrison’s clocks did not have to be attractive to qualify for the £20,000 reward; they only had to work. But Harrison evidently knew what the designers of early typefaces had known — that any physical manifestation of truth must also be beautiful. The only other influential person in recent times that I can think of who knew this was Steve Jobs. Are there others?

Inside H4
Read Me 2 comments

Underperforming

Headshot circa 1980

My first paid acting job came a year or two after I graduated from college, when I got the leading role in an educational video. (This was years before I became a producer of educational videos myself.) Given the momentousness of the occasion, it’s amazing how little I remember about the experience. I have no memory of who produced the video, who my fellow actors were, or even how I got the gig.

This last question is especially puzzling, because there’s no way I ever should have been cast in the role. I played an exchange student from a Spanish-speaking country who has trouble fitting in with his peers despite being a star member of the swim team. As a native English-speaking, non-Hispanic, non-athlete who hates being in the water, I was probably the least suitable person they could have chosen. However, I was slim, young, and had brown hair and a mustache, and I was able to summon up a passable generic Spanish accent. (Fortunately, there were no actual swimming scenes in the script.) Such politically incorrect casting would never fly today, but it apparently didn’t bother anyone in the 1970s.

I (not surprisingly) didn’t feel like I played the part very well, but the director was satisfied, and I got my paycheck. A couple of weeks after shooting ended, I was surprised to get a call from the producer, inviting me to see a rough cut of the video. Watching it was a big boost to my self-esteem: My performance wasn’t nearly as bad as I’d thought it was. In fact, it was pretty damn good. Believable, even.

A rough cut, in those days, was done on an inexpensive video-editing machine that offered no color adjustments, fades, dissolves, effects, or image stabilization. It was an economical way to experiment with different ways of editing the footage and to decide what the final version would look like. The final “online” edit, based on the rough cut, would be done with broadcast-quality equipment in a professional editing suite with a high hourly price tag.

When I finally got to see the product of the online edit, I was appalled. My performance, with which I had formerly been so impressed, was embarrassingly terrible. It was immediately clear why: The editing of the final version was entirely different from the rough cut. It was simple and straightforward, with longer takes and fewer cuts. Instead of combining the best parts of several takes of a scene, the editor had just used one take and let it play out, regardless of inconsistencies in the acting and lapses in the rhythm of the scene.

The producer confessed to me that the project had gone over budget, and that he couldn’t afford to do an online edit that was as elaborate as what I’d seen in the rough cut. He nevertheless seemed satisfied with the final result. I was not. I hoped the master tape would meet with some horrible accident, and that I would be the last person ever to have viewed this video. I honestly don’t know what became of the video after that. If there was a horrible accident, I never heard about it, but I’m happy to say that no audience member ever tracked me down and pelted me with tomatoes.

What this experience left me with is a keen appreciation for what the editor contributes to a film or video. When we see a film, we tend to notice and comment on the acting, the story, the production design, and perhaps the special effects, but we’re generally not conscious of the editing. Even I, having spent time on both sides of the camera, will compliment an actor’s performance without thinking about the fact that the actor contributed only the raw material, and that the performance was largely constructed by someone else.

I was reminded of this sometime later when I saw a live performance by a local band that I was a fan of. It had been a couple of years since I’d last seen them perform, and suddenly I found myself wondering what I had liked about them. They were playing the same material as before, but it sounded — well, not very good. The music was flat and uninspired.

Midway through the performance, I found out why. The band’s frontman mentioned that they’d recently brought in a new bass player, but that their former bass player was in the audience — and would he like to come up and sit in for a few tunes? The retired bass player accepted the invitation, and suddenly the band sounded like its old self again.

This was a revelation. When listening to a band, we tend to notice the melody and harmony, the lyrics, the rhythm — but who notices the bass part? It turns out that the bass line is like the foundation of a building. It holds the building up, but we never think about it unless it cracks.

It must be frustrating to be an artist in a role that’s invisible to most people, where the only way to know that you’re doing it well is when nobody notices what you do.

Read Me 2 comments

Song in My Heart

Tara DeMoulin

A few nights ago, I cautiously donned my KN95 mask and went to a (well ventilated, vaccinated-only) San Francisco bar to see my friend Tara DeMoulin sing a set of jazz standards. I hadn’t had any in-person contact with her since before the pandemic, so having an opportunity to hear her voice was worth the slight chance of catching a potentially fatal case of Omicron.

Apart from being a singer, Tara is an actor, writer, aspiring filmmaker, and autodidact who can express herself eloquently and brilliantly on any topic, including arts, history, and politics. (If she had a blog, I would urge you to abandon mine and go read hers instead; but since she doesn’t, all I can suggest is that you follow her on Facebook.) The first time I met Tara was during a break at a film festival, when we struck up a conversation over refreshments. When she mentioned that she was a vocalist, I naturally asked when I could hear her sing. She responded by cupping her hand and singing a song directly into my ear, which is an experience I would recommend to anybody.

Like any good performer, Tara puts her entire self into everything she sings. It’s a skill that I envy, because for me, singing a song is simply the act of singing a song. I love the physical sensation of singing, and I strive to do it as well as I can, but I’ve never been able to find an emotional connection to the words in the way Tara so clearly does.

That’s probably related to the fact that when I listen to a song, I rarely notice the lyrics; all I really hear is the music. My popular-music-loving wife Debra is the opposite: When she listens to a song, she hears only the words. We’ll occasionally have a conversation in which she’ll refer to a well-known song by its content, such as when she described Rupert Holmes’s “Escape” — the one with the catchy chorus that starts with “If you like piña coladas…” — as a song about a couple who turn to the personal ads as a way to escape their boring relationship, only to discover that the attractive strangers they find there are each other. My reaction in those cases is always one of surprise: “You mean that song is about something?”

A few years ago, Tara told me about a recording that so moved her, she found herself compulsively listening to it over and over. It was “La Corrida,” a song by the French singer Francis Cabrel, expressing the horror of a bullfight from the point of view of the doomed bull. She recited the lyrics for me in perfect French, her voice filled with urgency and pain:

Depuis le temps que je patiente dans cette chambre noire
J’entends qu’on s’amuse et qu’on chante
Au bout du couloir…[1]

I confessed to her that I’d never had the experience of being moved by a song in the way she was. Nearly everyone I know has a song or an album that — particularly during their adolescence — they deeply identified with, that might even have represented a turning point in their life. I’ve always been able to enjoy a song; I can understand its message; I can appreciate its beauty and craftsmanship; but I never had the often-described feeling of a song speaking directly to me, as if the songwriter had been able to see into my soul.

Tara refused to accept this. She pressed me: There must have been some time, she said, when I felt an especially deep connection to something I listened to. I thought for a bit, and then said, “Yes, there was.” It was in college, when I was taking an introductory music course, and I heard a recording of the second movement of Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony. I have a perfect memory of the room I was sitting in — or at least the room my body was sitting in — while the music wrapped itself around me and carried me, awestruck, to a place from which I felt I could embrace the universe. That was the first time I’d ever experienced a symphonic composition as something other than background noise, and it was the source of an attraction to classical music, and particularly to Mozart, that I still hold.

Tara’s reaction was a relieved smile that said, “I told you so.” She was satisfied that I was, after all, a normal human being. In retrospect, though, I’m not as convinced as she was. My Mozart experience was not in response to a song — a verbal message expressed with music — but to pure music. And since that day, I’ve never had a similar response to a recording, even a recording of the Jupiter Symphony. The joy I take in music all comes from live performance, where I’m experiencing not just the music itself, but the immediate energy of the people making it.

Looking back at Tara’s performance a few nights ago, I’m not sure that I could separate my enjoyment of her singing from my affection for her as a person, and my appreciation of her charisma as a performer. (Such is Tara’s sway over a crowd that when she offhandedly recommended a cocktail called The Liberal, pretty much everyone at the bar turned around and ordered one.) I must admit that when she performed her beautiful rendition of “La Vie en Rose,” I wasn’t thinking about the bittersweetness of romance so much as how lovely it would be to have that melody sung directly into my ear.


[1] As I’ve been waiting in this pitch-dark room / I hear merrymaking and singing / At the end of the corridor…

Read Me 1 comment

A Storied History

On a warm, late-spring night in 1977, I made a spur-of-the moment decision to go see a new movie called “Star Wars.” I wasn’t a huge fan of science-fiction movies, but I’d heard vague rumors that this one was good. I walked into the theater having no idea what I was about to see.

Going to the movies was no big deal; I’d been doing it all my life. The first film my parents ever took me to was a Disney-produced family comedy called “Bon Voyage.” Being six years old and unfamiliar with the French language, I misheard the title as “Googly Eyes.” I remember nothing about the movie other than getting bored halfway through, and being disappointed that no one on the screen had googly eyes.

As I got older, I gradually learned what I liked and what I didn’t. I didn’t like Westerns, or war movies, or action films, or anything where people did bad things to other people. I didn’t like mysteries or other movies that depended heavily on plotting — I could never follow complicated plots (and still can’t). What I loved were films that took me to a place or time that I could never have imagined on my own: foreign films that immersed me in unfamiliar cultures, historical films that made the distant past feel present, animated films where animals talked and people effortlessly did impossible things. I also loved films that allowed me to spend time with strong, compelling, charismatic characters (or, as in classic films from the 1930s and 40s, actors such as Humphrey Bogart or Katharine Hepburn who were pretty much indistinguishable from their characters). I didn’t care what the characters in the movie did; I just wanted the experience of being with those people in that time and place.

“Star Wars” — which, at the time I saw it, had not yet received the subtitle “Episode IV: A New Hope” — had all of those elements. Its long-ago, far-away galaxy felt real and tangible, not least because of its brilliant use of sound (the industrial hum of the light sabers, the adorable bleep-bloop language of R2D2, the labored sucking sounds of Darth Vader’s breathing). The view from the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon as it goes into hyperdrive literally took my breath away. The character of Han Solo was as good as any special effect, and I would have enjoyed the movie if it had just been Han making wisecracks. I left the movie feeling dazzled and lightheaded. I got into my little Volkswagen Beetle and tore down New Jersey’s Route 1 as if I were piloting a TIE fighter.

So, naturally, when “The Empire Strikes Back” came out three years later, I rushed out to see it. Many critics considered it superior to the original “Star Wars,” since it was scripted by a better screenwriter than George Lucas, and directed by (some would argue) a better director. But I found it surprisingly disappointing. Revisiting the Star Wars universe didn’t provide the same visceral thrill that the first film had, and being dipped in a carbonite fondue put Han Solo out of commission for too long a stretch. Instead, the film’s emphasis was on expanding the mythology that had first been laid out in “Star Wars,” which I had barely paid attention to. Suddenly I was supposed to care about imperial machinations and rebel alliances and who was whose father. I simply wasn’t interested.

Alfred Hitchcock is credited with popularizing the concept of the MacGuffin — the thing that the characters in a film care about but that the audience doesn’t. The MacGuffin is just there to set the plot in motion and to give the characters a reason to interact. An obvious example (from a non-Hitchcock film) is the Maltese Falcon in “The Maltese Falcon.” We in the audience have no emotional investment in the bird; we just want to see Humphrey Bogart match wits with Sydney Greenstreet, and eventually tell Mary Astor that she’ll be taking the fall.

My problem with the Star Wars saga is that I’m supposed to care about the MacGuffin, and I don’t. I’m obviously in the minority, though — people can spend hours debating the finer points of Star Wars canon with real passion. The popularity of franchises such as Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter shows that vast audiences have become engaged in those worlds’ mythology.

I don’t get it. When I had to learn about real mythology in school — the Greek tales of vengeful gods and flawed humans — I felt a similar lack of interest. Why spend time studying stories? I was willing to acknowledge that because these particular stories had come down to us from thousands of years ago, some familiarity with them was necessary to an understanding of Western culture. The same could be said of the stories in the Bible. But studying those things is demanding work, whereas Star Wars is supposed to be entertainment.

Given my aversion to mythology, you might be surprised to learn that I’m a long-time fan of “Doctor Who,” which has accrued a TARDIS-load of mythological baggage in the more than fifty years that it’s been on the air. But I have to confess that I can rarely follow the plots. I have no interest in the Time War or the Key of Rassilon; I just enjoy traveling through time and space in the splendid company of the Doctor. Wouldn’t you?

Read Me 1 comment