Fake it ’til you make it: does it work?
Jones refers to the practice of “faking it” that scientists have come to use in their work with hardware and software. To make an extremely watered-down summary, scientists of computer technology/graphics draw upon aspects of artistic influence to inform and improve their work. (Note: the specific excerpt I am referring to is included below.)
Jane McGonigal also alludes to a similar (or at least relatively comparable) practice in her research on gaming and gamers. Her eventual conclusion is that through extended practice of game-simulated events (such as how to survive in a “World Without Oil”), participants will actually be able to apply these habits to the real world.
The well-known anecdote, “fake it ‘til you make it” comes to mind here – do you think these examples are valid uses of the concept? Is there any evidence of the effectiveness of this concept in other areas – specifically in regards to art?
Jones Excerpt:
“When scientists take these techniques to their logical limits in the technical/scientific realm, they find that they need to borrow the concepts and methods of artistic practice in order to create graphic images that look more real than images based solely on algorithms. Scientists label this practice with terms such as ‘faking it’, revealing continued ambivalence about the relative value of visual reality…compared to scientific reality.” (Jones, 58)
May 20th, 2014 at 4:29 pm
Hi Katrina,
I agree with how you included that so many of these scientists are “faking it” in order to help influence their art regarding software and hardware. In attempt to answer your question, I believe that these examples are absolutely valid uses of the concept. The scientists are definitely trying to “fake it ’til they make it” in order to attempt to make their work better and far more advanced.