| Worried CG guy
|
315
|
 |
|
03-16-2009 03:17 PM ET (US)
|
|
Some of the problems I see with SIGGRAPH:
- the core of computer graphics has diversified into image processing, physics based simulation, and 10-15 other topics quite far off original CG - the A researchers in CG that are supposed to review other peoples work have no or little competence in the diversity of areas that show up at SIGGRAPH, which results in really low quality at the end of the day - computer graphics researchers tend to grab results from other areas, making methods into their own, producing beautiful images that sell the work to the reviewers. Original scientific content in these papers is often very close to zero but is often rated higher than work with magnitudes higher quality and novelty. Often CG researchers even neglect to cite original papers in other areas, since they can always claim that they discovered the method independently, and in any case none can hold this against them. On the other hand, if you actively neglect citing a CG paper due to its low quality and total lack of novely, the reviewers point out that this crap paper should be used as original reference, rather than the seminal original papers you indeed have cited. This is absolutely rediculous, and shows how introvert CG is. - computer graphics is using imagery and movies as empiric evidence for scientific results, but in practice these images and movies are full of hidden parameters and all kinds of weird manipulation, entirely made to over-sell the novelty of whatever crap is presented in the paper. Obviously computer graphics in general, and SIGGRAPH in particular, do not follow the same rules as other areas of science in this sense. Synergies between e.g. numerical methods, physics, mathematics, chemistry etc are great in many other cases, but computer graphics is special since it delivers nothing at all back. N.B. Visualization is NOT computer graphics in this context.
Nevertheless, CG is a very inspiring and exciting area and it has tremendous potential in inspiring great research not only in computer graphics but also in areas that apply themselves in computer graphics. Unfortunately, the leadership and culture of the CG associations counteracts this potential. This is irresponsible, and also quite sad. It will and should result in a catastrophe for computer graphics as an academic research area, and removal of grants from the tax driven funding agencies.
|