Re: multimedia degree at UTS

James Wondrasek (jimmy@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au)
Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:49:10 +1100

At 09:31 19/02/96 +1100, you wrote:
>>
>> There is no such principle in the real world. Market forces don't
>> proscribe quality. Most people are content with mediocrity, which is
>> why television and radio makes money. No room for bright sparks there.
>>
>Then why is the X-Files more watched that Paradise Beach???
>
>To me, the substance of this discussion is that no particular skill or
>experience is required to produce good multimedia. This base has seemed to
>have been boradened to "design skills are irrelevant. Anyone with a computer
>can proguse good design". This argument it total bullshit.

Is this the direction debate on the net is taking? Has English comprehension
been made an elective? I never said design was irrelevant. I said you are on
a slow boat to multimedia if you are going to spend your time doing a degree
in the subject. Even if you are going to do a design degree there is little
chance that you will do design. Just like most people in computing science
end up doing crap, boring jobs, so do people who do design degrees - but they
get to have more interesting hair. I am the only programmer where I work. The
other 4 people have degrees in design or fine arts or are in their final year
of these degrees. Thankfully, being the programmer, I don't have to do the
boring stuff they do, which tends to be fiddling in Director. Most design
is taken out of house or is provided by the client.

>If this argument holds true, companies like John Singleton Advertising and
>MOJO design (two of the most successful advertising agencies in Australia)
>wouldn't exist. Anyone with a PC and a copy of Microsoft Publisher could
>produce media of the quality of VOGUE or WIRED magazines. Anyone with a video
>camera and a video recorder (for editing) could produce any of the award-
>winning adveratising that comes out of Australia every year (Yellow Pages ads,
>Cosmopolitan Magazine TV ads). This is not some vague perception, this is a
>fact of real life. Sure there are exceptions (as with all things in life) but
>nothing anyone can say will convince me otherwise.

That's right. Except for video. You need high-end cameras and digitisers, then
any computer with the right software and enough space will do what you want.
In fact, me and my friends are working on new magazine targetted at young women
who use computers.

>Computers are just a tool. No matter how good design software is, it still
>needs a creative mind to drive it. And as most good actors go to acting
>school, most good programmers hold computing degrees and most good business-
>people have been to buisness school, good creative people need their design
>skills fine-tuned by some sort of disciplined course. Universities need to
>be flexible enough to offer new courses to meet the demands of the changing
>work enviroment.

There is no such thing as design software. And how about having your skills
fine-tuned by having to eat.

>> > And what's all this "you're just fine tuning other peoples stuff" nonsense?

It's the nature of the game for most people in multimedia. You have, normally,
*a* script writer, *a* graphic designer, *a* sound designer and everyone
else in the process is a technician of some sort tuning other people's
stuff. The number of those
other people can be huge, which means there is a good chance you will end up
one of them
if you can't write, design or compose.

>You wouldn't expect a Com Sci graduate to be employed as head software
>engineer on a large scale project. Thus you wouldn't expect a design grad to
>be employed as art director of a large scale project either.

The demands placed on a CompSci grad with regards to their degree are a lot
more fulfilling than those placed on a Design grad. It's the nature of design.
You are heading into print, film/video, multimedia, etc. Production work. Lots
of people doing little pieces. Lots of people above you doing more little
pieces,
or making sure people do their little pieces.

>You would expect a Com Sci graduate to be employed to design and implement
>small-scale embedded software with complete design authority from a brief given
>the them by their superior. Thus you would expect a design gratuate to
>produce small adveratising (say a magazine ad) or a small multimedia object
>(say an animation of the companies logo) with complete design control from a
>breif given to them by their superiors.

"We want our logo to spin around. Like a coin."

You want to wait 4 years for that?

>Very cynical IMHO

Sorry we had to pop your design bubble, Josh. Sure there are more chicks
over there,
and they're cute, and everyone gets to make pretty pictures, but in the end they
are in the same boat as computing science students - if they are not
talented they
will end up doing crap work.

If you want to get into multimedia, and you want to be more than just a cog
fine-tuning other people's stuff, then stop thinking about getting a degree in
multimedia and start making multimedia. I'm sure you have the resources to get
the necessary tools, even if you have to buy them. If you think you would rather
sit down and write the tool yourself, then don't bother going to design
school just
yet.

Jimmy

ps When I said multimedia is the desktop publishing of the 90s, i meant it is
where desktop publishing was in the eighties. The fly-by-nighters were culled
years ago in DTP.

pps. From experience, I would recommend Director. Both platforms, can put the
stuff on the net, and is cheese-easy to learn. However, it is only really suited
to linear narratives, anything else is an inconvenience.