An industrial designer who inspired Steve Jobs
fastcompany.com
fastcompany.com
"[During his senior year] Friedland served as the caretaker of an apple farm […] owned by his millionaire uncle".
Clearly absolutely nowhere near multi-generational wealth.
The fact is, he started some speculative mining ventures that found massive mineral deposits. That's self made.
[0]: Marc Rich might be an exception. His company was basically him and a telephone for a while, but he was still leveraging his relationships with other commodities firms, which are themselves massive employers.
This is a nicely designed machine and and all, but man that MoMA exhibit is a disappointment. I went to MoMA on a lark while in NYC without knowing the exhibit existed. But once I got there and was in other exhibits I couldn't stop thinking about how they might find ways to bring everything beautiful about the artistry in computing to the masses that don't know how to see it. Then I walked through an odd grab bag of out of context things that've existed in the vicinity of computing and seem to be selected for aesthetics that will allow visual arts people stare at them profoundly even though they're experiencing them in a vaccum.
Then I spent the rest of my time there wondering if it and all the other exhibits were inaccessible on purpose.
It is exasperating to hear you complaining because an art show didn't treat tech in the depth you would have liked. The focus was works made by artists (not "exhibits") and it sounds like the GP is just not the target audience for that. It is certainly true that contemporary art's take on tech is shallow and more about a vibe or an aesthetic than about, let's say, rigorous exposition or exploration of technicalities.
As a person with a computer background who also has an MA in fine art, I often find that what happens to be on show in local galleries is "not for me". A show by Lucy Raven et al, for example, made a fuss about LUTs in image processing as if they were some kind of dark art. This can be a frustrating feeling until I remember that no creative expression can possibly address everyone. Once I remember that, I don't feel the need to write a dismissive review of the artist's work; it is a relief to be able to move on to search for material (artistic or technical) which is more stimulating.
I think the GP's experience with the MoMA show can be understood in terms of the Gell-Mann effect: mass culture treats a topic you know well, and it seems shallow to you. Is everything the museum shows equally shallow, when seem from the "right" perspective? I don't know what that would even mean.
We know that the Gell-Mann effect isn't really an argument that the newspaper trivializes and distorts everything to the point that it does more harm than good.
It feels important not to get cynical and come to a damning conclusion about the art world based on similar reasoning.
I have seen MOMA exhibits--and indeed a lot of their permanent design collection--that exists at the intersection of form and function. And, in general, I find that a useful lens for design. I don't find chairs that look "cool" but are horribly uncomfortable especially interesting. And I'd feel similarly about a unique computer design that overheated.
You're probably right, not a bad analogy. Over years of cultural osmosis and sometimes being told outright, I came to understand that I'm a nerd what doesn't get art and that it's some sort of personal failing. I thought the computing exhibit might be my chance to have the kind of experience that the reverence for art tells me I'm missing out on.
Over time since then I decided that if I see something as a skilled execution of an idea not worth anything more than a "huh, neat" and moving on, then to stop letting the presentation and culture tell me there is something more and just keep walking.
I've always found Starry Night beautiful and seeing it in person was actually an experience. I was under the delusion that I "should" have had even one tenth of that reaction to literally anything else in the place. But there's a reason it's the last stop on the way through.
I think the Cray-2 was its contemporary for a while, and also has some interesting design work (as do the earlier Crays), with a striking form that follows&exposes the construction.
Need to track down the quote but IIRC the height of the cube was decided to make it as tall as her to give it a human presence.
That sounds as strange as "Female" does in the title
In the 1980s, I imagine that female supercomputer designers were incredibly rare. For one to rise up through the ranks against the tides of sexism in that era and achieve something that ultimately impacted Steve Jobs...yeah, I want to know about that vis-à-vis her being a woman since her experience and achievement is relatively unique to the era.
It's a weird thing to mislead about too. Steve Jobs was obsessed with design, so inspiring him with your industrial design is not less impressive.
What a poor piece of writing!