I was called “pigheaded” more than once when I was a kid. I was quite stubborn. I didn’t care what workable methods were otherwise proven to me, I wouldn’t give up till I tried my way. If the ideas failed I might concede to listening to other methods, but then tried to omit steps, which usually led to more steps than it would’ve taken had I not challenged the basic rules. Then, of course, the project would require tweaking one thing or another to achieve the initial intention, while burning precious hours. Some 50 plus years later, I can see how being pigheaded wasted a lot of my time.
Most dictionaries define “pigheaded” as being “stupidly obstinate” or “stupidly stubborn”. But, sorry, I just can’t put a pig in a “stupid” category. Back when I was a country gal, we had a pig who would wait for the husband’s truck to drive away (never my car) and then proceed to open the corral gate by lifting the latch with his snout, letting the horses run free. While I rounded up horses, luring them out of the neighbor’s cornfield with a bucket of grain, he’d mosey on over to my garden and rut up a few snacks. I wouldn’t call that stupid – more like obnoxiously smart. There I was, six months pregnant, barefoot and chasing a pig with a hoe around the carrot patch I’d just watered – mud was flying! I was screaming with anger, crying from frustration, and laughing at the same time, knowing how hysterical the scene must have looked. This very clever 800 lb. boar was quite obstinate, refusing to leave the veggie patch even after I broke a brand new $25 hoe over his back – twice in one week. That would be my stupid stubbornness.
We, as humans, are supposed to have common sense, according to Thomas Paine who literally wrote the book on it. Common Sense “equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have….” But when something appears too difficult or time-consuming, there’s always that challenge of the assumption, “there’s just gotta be an easier, cheaper, and/or faster way!” Sometimes it’s a good thing if it leads to discoveries; sometimes not, when it results in wasted time.
Recently, a colleague asked a digitizing question, “Have you ever found a fast way to duplicate and increase an irregular shaped element like an outline of a Fleur-de-lis so it can be used for the outline of the first outline? Is that even possible?” My immediate thought was “no it can’t be done” but I could not remember why I had come to that conclusion. I did recall the many times I’d tried and failed, but that didn’t stop me from wondering if I’d overlooked a possibility.
My “stupid stubbornness” kicked in. I gave it a shot on two different design systems, scaling the X-axis and the Y-axis separately, as well as both globally; the second outline would not match up properly to the first outline no matter the method. I concluded the only way to accomplish this task is to digitize the first element in numerous objects, then increase the size of each object one at a time, modify the points to correct unavoidable distortion that occurred when resizing, and connect them accurately to the adjacent objects of the outline. Obviously, it’s faster to simply digitize the second outline than to waste hours editing.
Sometimes things that seem so logical can be so impossible without spending precious time. And unfortunately, some things that are impossible are commonly thought possible by the masses, revealing that “common sense” is not always the way to go. Take for instance, changing the global scale of a design with unequal sides; it’s very common for the end-customer to ask that a design be decreased or increased by 1″ high and 1″ wide, something that would distort the shape of the design. Only one axis of the artwork can be increased at 1″, with the other axis following to scale of the same percentage.
Ah yes, calculating by percentage – a bit of a nightmare for young math students born before the 70s (such as myself) who were not equipped with any sort of gadget other than an abacus. I hated math. Its lengthy complexity was boring! So, just as I did with other things that made little sense to me at the time, I buried it deep in that “I’ll never use it” pile. Life had other ideas. Eventually, when it became necessary, calculating the percentage to resize to a particular measurement was a pigheaded, trial-and-error, horror show at the copy machine, using an architect’s scale and my best guess. Then another employee, a high school student, reminded me of the simple equation I’d learned in elementary school: multiply the existing size by the percentage.
Example: The existing (100%) size is 6.25″ wide and needs to be resized 20%;
- To increase – 6.25 x 120% = 7.50
- To decrease – 6.25 x 80% = 5.00
Or it can also be approached from another direction by multiplying the size 6.25″ by 20% and then subtract the sum (1.25) from the existing size to decrease or add the sum to increase. If you’re a hair-puller in the face of numbers, the best option is to purchase a proportion wheel available at office supply and college stores, and you’ll also find many free tools online, such as found at Plaino.com.
There’s absolutely no flexibility when it comes to accurate measurement – it is what it is or it’s not. Being too stubborn to do the math usually comes at a price of wasted time. Now, on the other hand, a little pigheadedness while observing the rules led me to discover what I know about digitizing. Calvin Coolidge is quoted as saying, “Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated failures. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.”
I agree. I think it’s okay to be a little stubborn if you’re not stupidly stubborn – and as long as you don’t grow a snout.
Photo © Tristan Savatier – Used by Permission