On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:46 AM Máirín Duffy <duffy(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 17. 04. 20 16:07, Kamil Paral wrote:
> I am sad we haven't followed the pattern. (However I don't know the
> for stopping that.)
That's not true, we didn't stop the pattern. F32 is G for Goffman. F was Fresnel.
E was Elion. So on. If you dig through the tickets you'll fimd the inspiration.
Everyone's an art critic.
I spent some effort building a technical mindset, dispensing with
aesthetic, in my line of work in color management and color science.
"There is no such thing as bad colors" and "art isn't my thing, all I
care about is accuracy" and so on. And then I taught a masters level
class in photography at the School of Visual Arts - where I had to
become a critic, at a technical level. The class was 'color management
and printing'. I learned at least as much as I taught. One of the
early assignments, which I actually didn't figure out for the first
year, was to go look at art. Why are the successes considered
successful? Yeah you can read about that to some degree, but you
really have to look at it, and mimic it. You only really understand by
trying to replicate those successes. And you pretty much have to do
what others have done before you, because they're that successful and
basic, and then you can innovate and incorporate your own style.
I'm no art history amateur let alone expert, so I don't know all the
reasons why it's familiar. But I see the intentional use of different
kinds of dithering as art. These techniques have a long history in
both analog and digital image reproduction. I see the traditional AM
halftoning from various print forms, found in newspapers, magazines,
comic books, packaging, and it exists for its tolerance to the
mechanical limitations of those processes. The apparent stochastic (FM
screening) also leverages noise as the dithering approach, resulting
in the "crushed glass" kind of look, especially in the dark to light
gradients. I think it's a successful blending of these class dithering
techniques that you don't find on pixel displays. But to good effect,
in particular on crap low bit depth panels where smooth gradients of
short distance readily will show posterization where none exists in
the digital file. The noise masks the limitations of the panel. That's
the whole point of dithering. I think it's fantastic.
I have the benefit of looking at the background on a crap laptop
display as well as a rather nice NEC self-calibrating display suitable
for medical imaging. And this background looks good to me on both
displays. That's non-trivial to achieve, there are always compromises.
It's not really possible to make smooth gradients of short distances
on low end panels, of course some noise is necessary.
The negatives come from people used to a particular aesthetic, and
just don't realize what they're looking at. And 20 years ago I'd put
myself into that category. Maybe the F32 background art is too
sophisticated. But then I immediately have to refuse that premise
because I think Fedora deserves the sophisticated, and that it's
better to just consider the negative comments innocently ignorant.
Folks just don't know what they're looking at.
Anyway, I'm totally guessing. I have no actual insight to the
development process of the F32 default background. It'd be interesting
to read about the inspiration, process, and iterations involved in
combining the aesthetic and the technical. I think people would be
surprised to discover the things they don't like about it are perhaps
more tied to technical decisions that were then taken advantage of by
the chosen aesthetic.
Also, classic art: evoking an emotional response in the viewer. :-D In
this sense, the art is perhaps one of Fedora's most successful!