Wednesday 6 March 2019

D.I.Y.



In 1839, Paul Delaroche, a French portraitist and painter of historical scenes, saw some early examples of the daguerrotype, and is famously alleged to have declared, "From today, painting is dead" (except in French, obviously [1]). He was wrong, evidently, but you could see his point. The process of making lifelike representations of people and things in paint – until then pretty much the whole point and purpose of painting – requires genuine talent, skill, and a major investment of time and effort to achieve. Painting might have been regarded by its patrons as a trade, but it was a pretty exclusive one, and thus attracted a high price tag. The commissioning of, say, a portrait was something reserved for the very wealthy or major institutions: its very costliness was, in a way, the whole point. To see the prospect of this profitable, well-respected business de-skilled into a trivial, mechanical matter that any idiot capable of saying "watch the birdie!" could perform, with results of truly astonishing fidelity (and, worse, that could be turned round within a couple of days) would have been concerning, to say the least.

I was trying to think of what other mechanical innovations there have been that stand in the same disruptive, democratising relationship to some other hard-won craft or profession as photography does to representational art. That is, that, as a result of that invention, something that had previously required the services of an expensive professional had come within the grasp of everyone: you could now just do it yourself (or hire a much less expensive pro), often with even better results (assuming that, in the case of portraiture, an accurate likeness is the main measure of success). But most mechanisations I could think of have instead either replaced far humbler occupations – the vacuum cleaner, for example – or have industrialised some time-consuming, skill-based craft like making furniture. Although, ironically, many middle-class households do still employ someone else to operate their vacuum cleaner, and buying a flat-pack wardrobe from IKEA is really not the same as making it yourself (however much it can bloody well feel like it).

Printing suggests itself as an example – bye-bye, you scribes and scriveners – but that was hardly a DIY business, either: in fact, a whole new, even more highly-skilled profession had entered the scene. I also considered the typewriter, but that, too, merely ended up creating a new, more humble but still quite skilled occupation (can you touch-type seventy-five words per minute?). Back in the 1960s, a newspaper editorial office would resound with the clatter of typing, and be shaken by the thunder of hot-metal presses in the basement. But both, however, were supplanted by the advent and imposition of the personal computer and word-processing. Older, trade union-minded readers will still recall the ensuing period of industrial unrest in the mid-1980s, summarised by the one word, "Wapping".

I remember being the proud but somewhat perplexed recipient, in 1985, of the first PC to be unboxed in our university library [2]. There it is, I was told: see what it will do. What it did, of course, was to make redundant our entire typing pool. Which caused some upset, as "typist" was one of the few occupations compatible with the sort of part-time hours that suited the complex, multi-tasking lives of many women, then and now. The advent of the PC was nothing if not "disruptive" in the workplace. Suddenly, professionals had end-to-end control of their working lives. With the advent of the internet, email, spreadsheets, desktop publishing, and the Web, your entire focus, day in, day out, became the screen on your desk; no typing pool, no secretaries, a much-depleted mail room, and whole new ways of looking busy. But, again, with the exception of certain trades doomed by automation such as the typesetter and the draughtsman, the expensive professionals had not been replaced by some new-fangled DIY gizmo, just empowered to do more, with fewer support staff to pay.

One interesting innovation of recent years, though, which may bear some comparison with photography, is on-demand self-publishing. Just as any fool can take a photograph, so anyone can now design and "publish" their own book. That is, if "publish" is taken to mean putting in your hands a single book, with the somewhat illusory, but nonetheless real prospect of selling more via an online shopfront or even on Amazon. It's not vanity publishing – you don't pay thousands in order to end up with boxes of unsold and unsellable copies around the house – but it's not "publishing", either, in the traditional sense of a business model which includes editing, design, publicity, distribution, and production, with all the economies of scale. It's a genuinely new thing that meets a real demand. I don't suppose any publisher has said, on seeing the products of Blurb or Lulu, "from today, publishing is dead", but, like painting, the nature of publishing may yet be changed in unforeseen ways by these Web-based upstarts which cut out the middle-man.

However, the example that strikes me as most comparable with photography is machine translation, of which the most obvious example is Google Translate. A friend, knowing my interest in such things, pointed me at a recent article, by the eminent Douglas Hofstadter [3], in which he pooh-poohs the quality of Google Translate's efforts. Now, I know how difficult good translation is. I know all about the pitfalls, the "false friends", the tricky equivalence of idioms, the problems of inflection, tone, dialect, and voice. I have suffered a pedant's wrath for my failure to translate "Ger-doing!" and "Kerplunk!" into German. A good translator is a highly-skilled individual, with superb language skills backed up by a broad hinterland of appropriate technical and cultural knowledge that is kept bang up to date. I mean, jeepers creepers, you don't want your, like, business proposal or legislation to sound as if it were gabbled over the phone by some ditzy teen from the 1950s, or – oh, wow, heavy! – intoned by a prog-rock muso. Unless, of course, that's exactly what is required in, say, a novel. As a consequence, good translators are in demand, busy, and expensive.

But: if you've ever been abroad in a country whose language you can barely fathom, without a dictionary or a phrasebook [4] but in possession of a smartphone, you'll know how readily you can tolerate even a risibly poor translation of the menu or gallery guide in front of you, when it is offered free and on demand, right now, unlike the perfectly nuanced translation you might be able to purchase (with suitable advance notice) from a competent professional, perhaps with a bit of luck by close of business tomorrow afternoon. But I suggest the latter is about as likely as you deciding to commission a landscape painter to capture the enchanting view of the piazza immediately in front of you, rather than simply taking a photograph. Machine translation apps, these days, may not yet be perfect, but have improved massively, and are better than they have any right to be. Which is good enough, at least for the major European languages, if not all of the 100 on offer. As Voltaire once put it:
Dans ses écrits, un sage Italien
Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien
Apparently, this is his version of an Italian proverb, le meglio è l'inimico del bene. Either of which I think you'll find Google Translate will make a decent, if not perfect job of rendering into English. For a fee, I could improve either or both for you, probably by close of business tomorrow afternoon, but I think you'll get the gist.

(The inscription reads, "This tablet left intentionally blank")

1. If you insist: "À partir d'aujourd'hui la peinture est morte". It's an interesting question whether an apocryphal quotation is more authentic when rendered in the language it was never actually said in, but might have been...
2. A twin-floppy drive machine, with no hard drive. Floppies were floppy in those days, vulnerably bendy 5.25" disks in a frail plastic housing. You booted up the PC with a bootable DOS floppy in the left-hand drive, took it out, replaced it with, say, a WordPerfect disk, fired that up with a command, and then put your data disk in the right-hand drive. The total RAM available was 640K... Ah, the sheer capaciousness, speed, and convenience of my first 32MB hard drive!
3. Author of Gödel, Escher, Bach, a book I have never read, but which has probably been pressed upon me more often than any other.
4. I was astonished to discover, before a visit to Barcelona last summer, that no Catalan phrasebook of acceptable quality exists. Això és increïble! (Thanks, Google Translate).

14 comments:

Zouk Delors said...

Hofstadter recognises the utility of Google Translate. His point is that there is no actual understanding going on in the process, which leads to laughable errors in quite simple cases:

"[...] if I copy and paste a page of text in Language A into Google Translate, only moments will elapse before I get back a page filled with words in Language B. And this is happening all the time on screens all over the planet, in dozens of languages.

The practical utility of Google Translate and similar technologies is undeniable, and probably it’s a good thing overall, but there is still something deeply lacking in the approach, which is conveyed by a single word: understanding. Machine translation has never focused on understanding language. Instead, the field has always tried to 'decode'"


Btw, shouldn't the Italian proverb be "Il meglio è l'inimico del bene"?

Mike C. said...

Zouk,

I'm sure he has a point, but in a restaurant I'll settle for a decoded menu any day...

As to the Italian, that's how it's generally quoted: to be sure, though, what you'd need is a good translator!

Mike

Zouk Delors said...

I'm pretty sure it should be il (masc. sing. def. article). Sources suggest that while it is often attributed to Voltaire, he simply provided a translation into French in a dictionary he produced. Voltaire may have made the mistake originally (since Italian il is le in French). Italian sources all seem to go with il.

Mike C. said...

Zouk,

I'll let Voltaire know.

Mike

Thomas Rink said...

"le meglio è l'inimico del bene" => "Das Bess're ist des Guten Feind" (my translation, just by guessing, as I don't speak Italian). I once tried Google Translate for "ἅπαντα τίκτει χθὼν πάλιν τε λαμβάνει" ("The earth gives birth to all things, and takes them back again", by Euripides), and got "He has been praying again and received" ;^).

Best, Thomas

Mike C. said...

Thomas,

That's it, my Italian is pretty poor, too, but I'm familiar with that little bit of Voltaire as one of my bosses was fond of citing it when any of us got too perfectionist about something.

As Google Translate gets better it gets less fun than it used to be: I used to enjoy putting, say, a poem in and seeing what hilarious garbage came out. I think I wrote a post about this a long time ago, but can't find it now.

These days, it generally doesn't do a bad job. I don't know why it makes such a curious hash of the Euripides, but I'd guess that Ancient and Modern Greek are sufficiently different to confuse things. I doubt it could handle Chaucer well, either!

Mike

Thomas Rink said...

Mike,

regarding Ancient Greek: I believe the funny result could well be due operator error! While I know a little bit Modern Greek, I've never learnt Ancient Greek. Using Google Translate was a desperate attempt to make sense of untranslated quotes in Ancient Greek from a German antiquarian book I've read last year. The book was from the 1920s, and proficiency in Ancient Greek seemed to be part of the canon that a well-educated German of that era had to master. Gave me a sense of inadequacy in this regard. So probably I got some of those peculiar accents wrong, which results in an entirely different meaning (wasn't there a religious struggle caused by these subtle differences - the First Council of Nicaea?). Anyway, in my desperation I finally copy-pasted the entire quote into the Google websearch box, and on one of the top listed hits I found the proper translation.

Best, Thomas

Mike C. said...

Thomas,

Yes, same here: fluency with the classics was a class shibboleth, presumably across Europe. Do you know the story of Patrick Leigh-Fermor and Heinrich Kreipe bonding over an ode of Horace, after the general's kidnap in Crete?

As ever, if in doubt, Google...

Mike

Zouk Delors said...

Perhaps Voltaire thought that, despite its shortcomings, it was the best of all possible translations?

Mike C. said...

Zouk,

Heh... More likely a very early beta version of Translate.

Mike

Julian Behrisch Elce said...

Leigh-Fermor and Kreipe remind me that the amount of death and destruction visited upon the world by people quoting Classical literature to each other is one of the best arguments for the demise of what used to be called a “classical eduction”! Not to imply that that Leigh-Fermor wasn’t a totally awesome dude, of course.

Thanks, as always, for your writing.

Mike C. said...

Thanks, Julian. Yes, it's a curious business, the way that the pan-European elite, bent on one-upping each other, felt entitled to achieve their ends by sacrificing millions of their fellow countrymen... I don't think the classics were the *cause*, however, merely a correlation...

Mike

Thomas Rink said...

Re Leigh-Fermor and Kreipe: Now that's an interesting story! I've never heard about it before. I wonder whether it inspired the cover of Thelonious Monk's album "Underground" (note the tied-up Wehrmacht officer in the left background)?

Best, Thomas

Mike C. said...

Thomas,

That's bizarre -- I don't recall ever seeing that Monk album cover before! I'd better check it out... The original idiotic hat man, of course.

Obviously, the scenario is "France", but the Crete (mis)adventure is well-known (in the Anglophone world, at least), having inspired the book and film "Ill Met By Moonlight", and the writings of Paddy L-F are something of a cult. These things have a tendency to cross-fertilise...

Mike