Reply

[Thom Kevin Gillespie]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Alan Kay wrote:

> >Big question seems to be that there are so few people equipped to deal with
> >this combination of technologies and this combination of arts (2d, 3d,
> >storytelling, video, animation, sound, music and flat out spacial design.)
> 
> The technologies are generally poorly done. That being said, there 
> are fewer good drawers and painters out there than one would hope. 
> There are fewer people who can play musical instruments *and* compose 
> than one would hope. There are lots fewer who can do all four things 
> mentioned above. There are an even smaller number that are fluent in 
> math and science. And an even smaller number of those who are fluent 
> in the arts. Since the first thresholds of fluency in most things is 
> a 5-7 year process, we have to look to our own culture to wonder why 
> people don't get fluent in more that a few things in a lifetime.

A big part of the problem has to have something to do with how we learn at
the earliest stages, grade school. Depending upon what you consider
fluency most kids coming out of grade school have fluent literacy, reading
and writing. It might not be perfect but it is mostly in place, probably
because they spend 8 years reading and writing. We get good at what we do.
Art and music are mostly dropped from schools around grade 3. This also
sends a message to parents and the rest of society that the 3 Rs are
important but the 'others' are not. John S mentioned the Waldorf schools
as different. He also mentioned that he does not push his kids toward
computers and would rather have them drawing or playing music,
particularly at the earliest years. I agreed with this but thought that if
a child should an active interest in 'computer media' of any form you
probably had to support the childs interest in learning this medium.

I also teach interactive media at Indiana University. I have noticed that
I have two kinds of students. I have students who have strong background
in art, music and storytelling who pick up the technology and totally fly.
I also have students who do not have strong backgrounds in art, music and
storytelling but have a great interest in interactive media design (Flash,
Web, Games); they can pick up the technology but they can not fly because
they are hampered by years of no art, music and/or storytelling (writing)
and this will impact them their entire life long. You can see the total
paralysis in the class when they have to demo before or after anyone in
the first group. It is the same as if I have a student who can't write but
gets to college some how. You need those 5-7 years to get good at art,
music, and/dor storytelling and you need them in grade school not grad
school.

Imagine if Squeak was the common 'writing' tool in grade school for the
first 5-7 years. Imagine that Squeak also continued to develop and grow
and change over the years. Would you just write with squeak? I doubt it. 
The kids would naturally use text, art, and music to tell all their
stories including science and math in the mix. To do this really well you
need 'good' art, music and writing education from the beginning.

For the Squeak community, how does this happen? Will Squeak be just a
'research' project like Boxer which does good research and produces Phds
but never gets that critical mass to actually change things? Papert with
Logo actually came close for a period of time and then it faded. I don't
think the real issue is the technology or the tool. Rembrandt supposedly
said he could make great art with mud and a spoon. Squeak is the mud and
the spoon. How do you all get to the art?

Not trying to be antagonistic just trying to figure things out and I think
you folks are on the front line.

Sincerely, Thom