Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorheresybob
    • CommentTimeJan 16th 2014 edited
     (10882.521)
    Hey WhiteChapellers!

    (Deleted)
    •  
      CommentAuthoroldhat
    • CommentTimeJan 16th 2014
     (10882.522)
    Bob, Tabletop Thread is a great place for it, since both you and Sizer are Whitechapel folks, I'm totally for you starting up a new thread for it.

    But maaaaaaybe the Ask thread isn't the place for this, aye?
    •  
      CommentAuthorVornaskotti
    • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2014 edited
     (10882.523)
    #javascript

    It's a pretty open ended question, but JavaScript… in web development, what should you do with it, ie. what's it the best use for it these days, and what should you definitely NOT do with JS?
    •  
      CommentAuthorallana
    • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2014
     (10882.524)
    #javascript

    You should probs learn jQuery with it.
    • CommentAuthorFlxzr
    • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2014
     (10882.525)
    #javascript

    The current trend seems to be to use javascript for pretty much everything, and your back-end webserver is just there to provide some static files, like your html and javascript, and some REST web services. If you're still generating your pages in the server then you're a square. (unless, of course, you're doing it so that search engines can crawl your site, that's still OK.

    Well, that came across a little more sarky than I intended, but that's basically it. Web services to serve up your data in machine readable format and javascript to display and manipulate the data. One of the great things about it is that you can pretty much write an app that people can run on their desktop or their phone or whatever, and with some fiddling it can act just like a native app on phones.

    Of course node.js lets you use javascript in the server-end as well, and it's pretty damn fast too, but I'm not sure it's the best option.

    So, really, you can use it exclusively, and plenty of folk are. As Allana said, though, you probably want to learn jQuery if you're going to do anything beyond the simplest of stuff.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVornaskotti
    • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2014 edited
     (10882.526)
    #javascript

    Roger, thanks people. As a clarification, should've been more explicit about this - this is for a situation where someone who's proficient in web design wants to learn web coding for job hunting purposes, and big part of the question is what would be the most shit hot combo of JavaScript skills to hit on the table in an interview or a CV. jQuery does pop up a lot, it seems.
    • CommentAuthorFlxzr
    • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2014
     (10882.527)
    #javascript

    The current buzzwordy kind of things seem to be:

    jQuery (pretty much essential, it makes the basics MUCH easier)
    REST web services (this can take a little bit to get your head round, but for the javascript application type of thing it's beginning to look essential.)

    jQueryUI (I've never really used this as it always seemed to me rather like it's for building cookie-cutter front-ends, but it seems to get a lot of love)
    backbone.js (this ties in with REST, it's not essential, but it seems very popular, or at least kind of buzzwordy)
    functional programming (Javascript is (to some degree) a functional programming language, (as opposed to procedural or object oriented) but barely anyone really understands it so it might be worth doing some reading on it.)

    I'm not really a web developer, so take all the above with a grain of salt. I do do some development in my work and I've been reading up on it recently and the things above are what often came up. Them and NoSQL databases, but if your friend's looking into web browser coding then maybe they can skip the back-end stuff.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPaul Sizer
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2014 edited
     (10882.528)
    #graphicnovelfora14yearoldgirl

    Thanks for the nice call out for LITTLE WHITE MOUSE, Warped Savant. It's rated for 10+, but I'd say it's perfect for a 14 year old girl.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGreasemonkey
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2014 edited
     (10882.529)
    #artprojector

    So I'm considering buying an art projector. I have a fuckload of digital paintings that I'd like to render onto canvas, but my usual (extremely autistic) process is slow to the point where this would take me several lifetimes, and said projector would allow me to bypass the usual dozens of layers of underpainting that consume so much of my creative time and energy. My question is this: is a projector just a crutch for the less talented, that encourages laziness and prevents the maturation of well developed skills, or is it merely another useful tool for saving time? Thoughts?

    [Addendum: I've been discussing this on FaceBook with people more knowledgeable than myself (thank you Glukkake, Mike Rooth and Richard Pace, I owe you all beer) and have decided to proceed with the purchase. However, I'm still interested in your opinions, you brilliant denizens of Whitechapel.]
  1.  (10882.530)
    #artprojector

    There are no rules, man. It's art. If you find it works for you then do it. Just look at the results with cold eyes and if, when you're totally truthful with yourself, it DOESN'T fly, then sell the thing and chalk it up as a failed experiment. You are the only person who knows what you want to see.

    Good luck.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNygaard
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2014
     (10882.531)
    #artprojector

    No worries, I think. What I always got told is that when exploring a subject, trying to learn something new, using stuff like that is a deadly sin and a cowardly cheating crutch which will consign you to art hell where weeping clowns and little dogs will gnaw at your genitals forever. For actually finishing a real work, using subjects and techniques you're familiar with, it's just fine.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGreasemonkey
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2014 edited
     (10882.532)
    #artprojector

    It always pissed me off when I went to the Archibald exhibition, and the whole thing would be overrun with gigantic, soulless projector portraits. Sure, I can see every exquisitely rendered pore in Gough Whitlam's face, but he looks like a leathery Ken doll.
  2.  (10882.533)
    #artprojector

    It's a tool, and it depends on how you're using it.

    Yesterday I did a drawing of the Spectre executing judgment on Vladimir Putin for his crimes against homomanity. To draw Putin, I took a photo off the internet and traced it. I admit this openly because a) I know I could've drawn it freehand using a photo as reference (I just didn't want to take the time to prove it), 2) doing a likeness of Putin wasn't the central creative point of the illustration, 3) I didn't just trace him, I caricatured him a bit, changed his expression, and freehanded his upper body struggling to get free before he was shoved into the Anus of Vengeance. It was just a tool, used in the service of a creative endeavor. I consider that completely legit.

    UPDATE: It's posted here. NSFW.
  3.  (10882.534)
    #artprojector

    Hockney would argue that using a projector is fair enough
  4.  (10882.535)
    @Jason yours should have a sticker saying "this machine ridicules fascists"
    •  
      CommentAuthorGreasemonkey
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2014 edited
     (10882.536)
    #artprojector

    A friend sent me this link to a company that manufactures an authentic camera lucidia from modern materials.

    So I bought the Art O Graph Tracer projector ($55 at Curry's), which promises "up to 14x enlargement' on its packaging. Testing it just now; the 100W bulb is fine for illuminating canvases up to about 16" high, but is way too feeble for use with the 3'x4' size that is my stock in trade. Can anyone recommend something with more wattage, that won't cost me a fortune? What about digital projectors?

    (The Art O Graph also gets ridiculously hot, and burned my source copy within five minutes. I can tool up a cooling fan from parts in my workshop, but I don't recommend this model to anybody.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorNygaard
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2014
     (10882.537)
    Seems you dropped the link, there - was it this one? It does look neat, though I'm uncertain how useful it would actually be. But I'm kicking myself for not getting in on the kickstarter when I had the chance. Still no international shipping, I see.
  5.  (10882.538)
    Most large-format optical projectors are intended for use in fairly dark rooms. Daylight projects require serious wattage and (at least with the technology available in my art-school daze) put out a lot of heat.
    • CommentAuthorMrMonk
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2014
     (10882.539)
    #whatisthatword

    I'm adapting a bit of dialogue, and I want to use a word that I often heard (I think I heard it) during my childhood. Everyone I've asked says they never heard of it, including some who I could swear used it often.

    Phonetically, it's "mish-gum-broo-ie". It's used emphatically for an object or situation that's confused, thrown together, "every which way", no apparent sense or organization to it, cluster-fucked. "How the hell should I know what's happening? It's all mish-gum-broo-ie."
    •  
      CommentAuthorGreasemonkey
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2014 edited
     (10882.540)
    @Nygaard - yeah, that's the one. Microscopists and brain anatomists used the camera lucidia for decades as their standard sketching tool, and I'm actually quite curious to give it a whirl.

    @Jason - I've been working in a darkened room with the Art O Graph, and it's adequate for small formats when I use a compact flourescent bulb to keep the heat down.