My Kid Could Do That. One of my favorite artists is Mark Rothko.  Many reject his work thinking that they’re missing some genius, or offended that others see something in his work that they don’t.  I don’t look for genius because genuine genius is a rare commodity that is only understood in hindsight and reflection.  The beauty of Rothko’s work is, of course, it’s simplicity.  On a related note, a professor of mine reflected on why he didn’t invent Facebook - or Twitter.  These are relatively simple applications in the scheme of what is actually complex in computer science.  The most difficult problem they deal with is volume, not invention or complexity.  He writes: Four or five years ago, my best buddy on campus and I were having lunch at our favorite Chinese buffet. He looked up between bites of General Tsao’s and asked, “Why didn’t you and I sit down five years ago and write Facebook?” You see, he is an awesome programmer and has worked with me enough to know that I do all right myself. At various times, both of us have implemented bits and pieces of the technology that makes up Facebook. It doesn’t look like all that big a deal. I answered, “Because we didn’t think of it.” … We had the technical skills we needed to write Facebook. We just didn’t have the idea of Facebook. Turns out, that matters. Wallingford continues: …a key point that many people miss when they think about the success and achievement of things like Facebook and Twitter and Napster: The real story is not the invention. The real story with Rothko is not the painting.  It’s what happens with the painting when it is placed in a museum, in front of people at a specific place in the world, at a specific time. On the same note, Facebook’s achievement is not the complexity of the invention or the technological achievement.  It is its place in the world and its adoption.  ~ü

My Kid Could Do That.

One of my favorite artists is Mark Rothko.  Many reject his work thinking that they’re missing some genius, or offended that others see something in his work that they don’t.  I don’t look for genius because genuine genius is a rare commodity that is only understood in hindsight and reflection.  The beauty of Rothko’s work is, of course, it’s simplicity. 

On a related note, a professor of mine reflected on why he didn’t invent Facebook - or Twitter.  These are relatively simple applications in the scheme of what is actually complex in computer science.  The most difficult problem they deal with is volume, not invention or complexity.  He writes:

Four or five years ago, my best buddy on campus and I were having lunch at our favorite Chinese buffet. He looked up between bites of General Tsao’s and asked, “Why didn’t you and I sit down five years ago and write Facebook?”

You see, he is an awesome programmer and has worked with me enough to know that I do all right myself. At various times, both of us have implemented bits and pieces of the technology that makes up Facebook. It doesn’t look like all that big a deal.

I answered, “Because we didn’t think of it.”

…

We had the technical skills we needed to write Facebook. We just didn’t have the idea of Facebook. Turns out, that matters.

Wallingford continues:

…a key point that many people miss when they think about the success and achievement of things like Facebook and Twitter and Napster: The real story is not the invention.

The real story with Rothko is not the painting.  It’s what happens with the painting when it is placed in a museum, in front of people at a specific place in the world, at a specific time.

On the same note, Facebook’s achievement is not the complexity of the invention or the technological achievement.  It is its place in the world and its adoption. 

~ü

16 notes

Show

  1. schmudde posted this

Blog comments powered by Disqus