Joho the Blog » Questions for Paul Graham – Simplicity and beauty in art, science and programming
EverydayChaos
Everyday Chaos
Too Big to Know
Too Big to Know
Cluetrain 10th Anniversary edition
Cluetrain 10th Anniversary
Everything Is Miscellaneous
Everything Is Miscellaneous
Small Pieces cover
Small Pieces Loosely Joined
Cluetrain cover
Cluetrain Manifesto
My face
Speaker info
Who am I? (Blog Disclosure Form) Copy this link as RSS address Atom Feed

Questions for Paul Graham – Simplicity and beauty in art, science and programming

I’m interviewing Paul Graham tonight as part of my perpetually intermittent Web of Ideas discussions at the Berkman Center. (Yes, you’re invited. It’s at 7pm and we serve pizza, just in case Paul Freaking Graham isn’t enough of an enticement for you! [map.])

We’re going to be talking about his Taste for Makers article. Here are some of the issues I think I want to talk with him about:

I think the article isn’t so much about the role of taste as about what makes good design. Some of the elements he lists have directly to do with taste and beauty. Some are just good design principles. But I want to focus on simplicity, which Paul thinks is a virtue shared by art, science and engineering.

First, I’m unconvinced about the importance of simplicity. Sure, simplicity is often good in design, but that’s sometimes because we define “simple” as “what is necessary,” so sometimes our preference for simplicity works out to a tautological desire to exclude what doesn’t need to be included.

Also, simplicity is the current fashion. It’s not clear to me that it’s a permanent design principle. I’m not convinced that a Bronzino or Van Eyck would be better if we got rid of that damn detail. Nor am I convinced that the Parthenon would look better if we filled in the flutes in the columns or that Chrysler building is ruined by all that damn Art Deco trim.

Bronzino portrait of mother and child

Perhaps we’re at a point where art and science and programming diverge. Science (often) aims at finding the simplicity behind the apparent complexity of the universe. Engineering usually aims at efficient solutions, excluding the extraneous which introduces cost and more paths to failure. Art doesn’t always aim at simplicity. It just as frequently tries to expose the complexity of what looked simple. Thus, perhaps the union of art, science and engineering maintained by Paul’s essay isn’t fundamental, although there are certainly historical periods in which they align.

Finally, I think this raises the metaphysical roots of Paul’s argument. What is it about the universe that puts simplicity, taste and beauty at the root of the order we find in science and the order we construct in engineering? Were the Greeks right in thinking that the world is fundamentally orderly and that therefore knowledge and beauty were deeply aligned?

So, come on to the Berkman Center tonight. Despite this blog post, we’ll have plenty of time for open discussion with the awesomely talented programmer, painter, enterpreneur and writer, Paul Freaking Graham. [Tags: ]

Previous: « || Next: »

Leave a Reply

Comments (RSS).  RSS icon