| Very frustrating article to read. The article is setting up a straw man and attacking it. He is acting like everyone else thinks: 1) edges are the only important features in images and
2) line drawings can only represent edges. Who are these brainless absolutists that he is attacking? Then he's acting like he is the only one with other bright ideas that nobody will listen to. I think it is obvious to anyone who thinks about this that: 1) edges are a useful feature for recognizing objects in images but not the only useful feature
2) lines in line drawings can and often do represent edges, but there are a lot of other things they can represent. Light and shading and texture of various kinds. It would be fine to write an article that goes in to depth on the different nuances, but it is annoying that this author pretends that most other experts have naive and simplistic views, with "uncritical certainty", and "no one seems to question it", and the author "has a hard time convincing them otherwise". It is a very condescending tone that comes off sounding like the author is presenting themselves as some brilliant but misunderstood outcast, and the only one who can see the light of truth. we could do without the drama! |