digital sculpture enlargement
Gary Waller
" I welcome discussion and comment on this process
> and I can supply many other examples as needed. We're here to help with
> projects large and small.
>
> Michael Raphael
I think in the previous discussion what sparked controversy was the fact the
you were (and are here too) spamming for work, but mainly your comment that
this digital technique would make the traditional calipers, plumb bobs and
pointing devices 'museum pieces'. If I remember, I also had problems with
your claim that the foam cutters could cut a perfect Lincoln Memorial, with
all its immaculate undercuts, from your scan.
I have personally carved pieces like this, in full size, working from
photographs, drawings and occasionally paper templates - this is done all
the time, all over the world, by people who are lot more talented than I am.
This figure, at 7 foot high, would take about one week to produce in high
density urethane foam. The parts you cut with a $50,000 digitally driven
cutter, I would cut in one or two days with a $50 black&decker electric
chainsaw -including the major undercuts. The final details with the
knives/rasps and then the smooth coating and stylizing - this all still in
one week. The foam (and automated stone) cutters I am familiar with cannot
come close to duplicating the undercuts on the sleeves or that very fragile
bat - so this will all be done by hand anyway. Then there is the major
problem in that you have lost what I call the 'resonance' of the clay
surface, all the little bumps and snags which identify this piece as
handmade in clay. The digital model looks like a plastic action figure and
considerable time will have to be spent to stylize the 'resonance' back in -
unless the committee who designed this wants an action figure, or
bobblehead - theres nothing wrong with that too (but that bat will still
cause major production problems).
For this type of work I have gotten away from foam, but prefer potters clay
and fiberglass, on a welded steel armature. I thought it would be faster
than the urethane foam technique but this will take about 2 weeks, rather
than 1 - but the advantages are many. You have less than a week to work
before the clay starts to shrink, so for complicated pieces, you have to
work in a team. I seal the wet clay and then make a one time, quick piece
mold in fiberglass. I then cast a fiberglass model, recover the clay off the
armature, and then remount the fiberglass pieces. Now is the fine detailing
stage and a mirror finish can be obtained or the clay marks left in, and the
customer, or art director, or patron, or artist, calls the shots as to how
much finishing is done, it now looks like a sculpture and time is no longer
a factor. If they want a bronze or metal, the lightweight model can be
easily delivered to the foundry - most foundries like to do their own molds,
many insist on it. If they want an action figure, then the fiberglass is
painted with quality urethane paints, and can go outdoors for many years, or
I make a production mold from the model and launch an army of figures. When
some hoodlum breaks that damn bat off, it can easily be repaired.
Battersby
> For reference the entire process was completed in less than two days!
> and cost-effective method for enlargement or reduction
Michael, when you say cost effective, that is the magical hook. What is the
cost on a project of this scale?? Using your technique, as opposed to the
traditional method.
--
Battersby.
T. M. Battersby, stuccoist.
http://www.battersbyornamental.com
tbatt...@satx.rr.com
"Michael Raphael" <in...@dirdim.com> wrote in message
news:zYOcnZ4NgJW...@comcast.com...
> Last week we helped a local sculptress with her project and it was so
rapid
> and successful that I had to share with the group, (with her permission).
> The attached graphic tells the story in pictures. We started by imaging
the
> original clay machette using a 3D non-contact laser scanner. The data was
> processed into a complete water-tight 3D mesh format. We then digitally
> edited rough areas and "virtually" removed the physical armature. Finally
> we processed the finished electronic model into graphic renderings and a
> video "fly thru" animation highlighting the color and texture of the
> eventual enlarged bronze version.
>
> For reference the entire process was completed in less than two days! And
> its accurate enough to mill a full size enlargement from structural foam
for
> a casting pattern, the next step.
>
> I know we've had threads on this in the past, some a bit controversal,
which
> I don't understand. But I wanted to share that we have continued to
refine
> this process on a wide variety of pieces and its an extremely accurate,
> rapid, and cost-effective method for enlargement or reduction. If you
tried
> this in the past and were less than pleased, we're here to help, give us a
> chance. If it can be done, we can do it! We provide the state-of-the-art
> for digital enlargement. I welcome discussion and comment on this process
> and I can supply many other examples as needed. We're here to help with
> projects large and small.
> Michael Raphael
> President
> Direct Dimensions, Inc.
> rapid solutions to 3D problems...
> 8C Music Fair Road
> Owings Mills, MD 21117
> 410-998-0880 ph
> 410-998-0887 fx
> in...@dirdim.com
> www.dirdim.com
Mark Parmenter
technique that is very interesting to some of us. If your description of
doing this by hand isn't an advertisment for your craft, then neither is
this.
Two weeks versus two days has some advantage, don't you think?
This technique might replace "traditional" tools. Who uses a rock when you
can use an angle grinder?
Mark Parmenter
>
> I think in the previous discussion what sparked controversy was the fact
the
> you were (and are here too) spamming for work, but mainly your comment
that
> this digital technique would make the traditional calipers, plumb bobs and
> pointing devices 'museum pieces'. If I remember, I also had problems with
> your claim that the foam cutters could cut a perfect Lincoln Memorial,
with
> all its immaculate undercuts, from your scan.
,
Arbitrary Design
> I don't think this is spam. I think it's an announcement/expansion on a
> technique that is very interesting to some of us. If your description of
> doing this by hand isn't an advertisment for your craft, then neither is
> this.
>
> Two weeks versus two days has some advantage, don't you think?
>
> This technique might replace "traditional" tools. Who uses a rock when you
> can use an angle grinder?
>
> Mark Parmenter
I have to agree with Mark on this.
Mr. Raphael's original post deals with a subject that I find very
interesting. Not only is this a valuable resource for artists who do
not have the facilities to do original works in a monumental scale,
but it also opens up new avenues for artistic exploration.
While this process may not be suitable for ALL sculptural
enlargements, it would certainly work for many. If the original piece
has a smooth surface, for example, there can be no loss of a tooling
"signature".
Like Mark, I am not as concerned with adhering to "traditional
technique" as I am with the finished product. I will use any and all
technology that allows me to realize my ideas.
I do not advocate replacing artists with machines, nor do I believe
Mr. Raphael does. Each tool at our disposal increases the range of
possibilities... but the creativity and talent still must come from
the artist.
Mr. Raphael's company, Direct Dimensions, is located relatively near
my home.
I have plans to view the facilities and I hope to employ this
technology to enlarge one of my pieces. This would be my first
monumental piece, as I work in my basement and do not have space nor
equipment to work in so large a scale. I find the prospect of seeing
one of my pieces realized in "heroic" scale to be very exciting.
Perhaps Henry Moore is rolling over in his grave, but he will just
have to forgive me!
Cheers,
Robert Belgrad
http://www.arbitrarydesign.com
in...@arbitrarydesign.com
Gary Waller
> have to forgive me!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robert Belgrad
I don't think I ever indicated that Mr. Raphael was ever unwelcome to
continue the debate - I mean who am I, a man with an opinion based on my own
unique experience. Mr. Raphael dropped a 200k file in to this newsgroup, one
months worth of posts where most files are about 2k, and then does not
clearup what it costs for this 3D digital photograph ($600 - $900?)or
dispute my claim that the 3-5 axis foam cutters could not get the detail,
that the piece will have to be finished by hand - so the whole exercise is
one big technowank. I am saying I can deliver a high quality, seven foot
high figure in a hard, permanent material within two weeks from a
photographic source - I don't see anyone claiming any faster or lower cost
technique. If you want it 70 foot, thats a whole different scenario but not
too much different.
What do you want to know about digital carving? I have been involved with
this since the mid 1980's and the technology to output a 3d file at the
touch of a button is still a long way off - especially for one off, custom
work. The big foam companies up here have abandoned their five axis foam
cutter in the mid 1990's, they rely heavily on their two axis machines and
an art student originally from Taiwan at $12 (cdn) per hour. All the Ronald
MacDonald figures you see? - they were carved by latino sculptors for $8 per
hour. Most of the department store mannekins - carved in China by someone
making $1 per hour. All the big new movies like Tomb Raider, etc., are
certainly today's most frequent consumer of carving on the monumental or
heroic scale- but no digital cutting here either, despite the fact the some
of the most talented digital modellers in the world work in this industry -
they use skylifts, hot wires, knives, chainsaws and templates. This is the
same story in the big theme parks - both the movie industry and the theme
parks are very concerned with saving money and doing things in the most
expeditious and cost effective way.
I think that Henry Moore "the businessman" would be the one rolling in the
grave - that an artist would give up so much potential work - I mean this
baseball player - the sculptor gets paid for a 3 day sculpt in clay but her
cheque will represent less than maybe 5% of the project cost if the
committee continues to lets say a make seven foot high bronze figure using
digital technique. It will be the same with your monumental work if you
choose this methodology. Study how Rodin tackled this as a business problem,
not as an artistic problem.
Sculptingman
certainly I can use traditional and semi-traditional techniques to do
a point up of a smaller sculpure to a larger size.
With experience and skill I can do it fairly quickly, too.
But it won't be a perfect copy. And I say this despite having a very
high proficiency at doing this type of work. I mean, it would be
acceptably similar to most folks and even many artists, but not
actually the same. And adequately trained sculptors, capable of doing
this kind of work well are becoming more and more scarce.
If I hire one of the crews who work around hollywood- who are very
capable and experienced- it will bare resemble the original by my
standards.
I can not adequately express how badly most point ups follow the
original. I have seen enlargememts of Abe Lincoln that would not even
be recognizable as Lincoln were it not for the hat and beard!
Just look at all the "Egyptian" figures all over the LUXOR and how
badly they resemble actual Egyptian art...
The purpose and usefulness of digital scanning and output is not to
replace the traditional techniques, but to make less critical the
limitations of the artist involved in doing the point up. Its about
ACCURACY.
I, for one, have never found a studio that I can trust to do a point
up to my satisfaction.
I can do it myself- but I seldom have the time.
There is no question that digital scanning and scaling will give you
the most accurate possible enlargment (or reduction) of your work.
The cost has become essentially affordable for any artist whose time
is worth more than a few thousand dollars per week. And for those
whose time is worth $10000 or more per week, the cost is trifling.
I have used digital service bureaus for 8 or 9 projects now, and I am
always delighted at the result. Some of these projects were reductions
or enlargements for some pretty big name artists and I can report that
they were all flabbergasted by the results, all of them proclaming
that they had never seen better reproductions in their careers.
So- while I hate to see traditional methods pass away into oblivion,
(they were passing away long before the advent of digital scanning and
scaling, virtually no one is getting adequate training in the arts
anymore) I am happy to have a reliably accurate and time efficient
method to achieve results that once only the highest possible caliber
of experienced craftsman could accomplish.
But I will hang on to my calipers and surface guages, nonetheless.
christopher
Gary Waller
"Sculptingman" <scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
news:59d744d1.03012...@posting.google.com...
> I think there is a basic misunderstanding here.
>
> replace the traditional techniques, but to make less critical the
> limitations of the artist involved in doing the point up. Its about
> ACCURACY.
> I, for one, have never found a studio that I can trust to do a point
Good to have Christopher back!
You make some very good general points - but unlike our previous debates, we
have an actual detailed sculpt and actual scan to study. If accuracy is the
target, why is the scan nothing like the original? Besides losing the clay
marks they have modified the scan, with the bat hanging in mid air, that a
foam cutting machine will have a devil of a time running the toolpaths - and
i'm sure, as usual is the case, there will be some poor guy, probably the
owner, putting in a lot of extra hours to make everything allright, all at
a preagreed price. It was my assumption, or rather example, that they want
to make a seven foot bronze from the scan -but won't they at least want
eyebrow details, maybe some laugh lines, some character wrinkles, a bit of a
curve to the lip, a little bit of clay/wax marks, some definition to the
irises, a bit of orange peel skin texture, etc? If the piece has a
predetermined location, won't they want it to be viewed at a certain angle
or light? None of these details appear in the scan and they would be
entirely different at 10 inches, at 4 foot and at ten foot. An exact output
of this sculptor's baseball man would be rather lifeless at seven foot high
the way it is now - in fact, probably only half finished.
Interesting that this post showed on google.com - can you see the
attachment, are they allowing binary attachments now? If you cannot, I
better send you a link. Some servers refuse messages with binaries
completely. Some allow download of the post but won't allow a reply, others
allow full download and upload to messages containing binary files..
Arbitrary Design
I think I can help clear this up.
I visited Mr. Raphael the other day and saw the project you are
discussing.
In fact, the original does not have a bat, only a portion of the
handle embedded in a lump of clay that was used for support. The bat
was added digitally.
I do not want to be harsh, but the original sculpture leaves much to
be desired. There are large misshapen lumps of clay on the legs, the
facial detailing is poor and... well... amateurish. The skin is smooth
and a scan cannot detect what is not there.
A scan is only as good as the original. It is also as good as it is
allowed to be.
As this piece was not required to be high resolution, it was not
scanned with as many passes and the sensitivity that would be required
for a more finely detailed piece.
There are a variety of different media that can be used to reproduce
work, each with their own advantages and limitations. Some retain a
degree of flexibility, some are rigid, some are smooth and others show
the individual layers (like a topographical map).
One process uses layers of paper/ cellulose, and the finished product
is VERY cool looking. In fact, it introduces new artistic
possibilities that are not presented by traditional pointing methods.
The rapid prototyper produces amazing looking models that are clear
and would look amazing with back lighting or a light source below the
piece. One piece I was shown was translucent and had a grid pattern
visible below the surface... the effect was quite nice and also
presents creative possibilities.
Other models were produced from less expensive materials and has a
sandy texture to them. This would be very easy to clean up and would
not effect lower detailed sculptures at all.
The flexible models were a mold maker's dream. How many times have you
wished a piece would flex to release a bit easier from undercuts?
And then you have the enlargements from different types of
architectural foam. There are widely varied in texture and density.
They are tooled with c+c cutters and can have a remarkable amount of
detail... if you are willing to pay to have that detail machined in,
using smaller and smaller bits.
One of their scanners actually scans different colors and I saw a
Mallard duck decoy that had been translated to a 3D rendering. It
looked amazing, with only the absolute finest of detail not visible.
The colors were off by the slightest bit, but one would never know
without holding the original up for comparison.
As I said before, this process may not be applicable for ALL projects,
but it certainly applies to many. I am very excited to see how this
technology will progress.
And like all technology, it WILL progress... But only if people do not
turn their backs on it.
Robert
Gary Waller
text with web redirect for the binary image. Here is the text, - but the
binary image is not on the website yet - and I think Michael Raphael is not
going to do that or answer all these questions".
Last week we helped a local sculptress with her project and it was so rapid
and successful that I had to share with the group, (with her permission).The
attached graphic tells the story in pictures. We started by imaging the
original clay machette using a 3D non-contact laser scanner. The data was
processed into a complete water-tight 3D mesh format. We then digitally
edited rough areas and "virtually" removed the physical armature. Finally
we processed the finished electronic model into graphic renderings and a
video "fly thru" animation highlighting the color and texture of the
eventual enlarged bronze version.
For reference the entire process was completed in less than two days! And
its accurate enough to mill a full size enlargement from structural foam for
a casting pattern, the next step.
I know we've had threads on this in the past, some a bit controversal, which
I don't understand. But I wanted to share that we have continued to refine
this process on a wide variety of pieces and its an extremely accurate,
rapid, and cost-effective method for enlargement or reduction. If you tried
this in the past and were less than pleased, we're here to help, give us a
chance. If it can be done, we can do it! We provide the state-of-the-art
for digital enlargement. I welcome discussion and comment on this process
and I can supply many other examples as needed. We're here to help with
projects large and small.
Michael Raphael
Carol Cohen
C.C.
Arbitrary Design
hurry.
I can carve an anatomically correct human figure from a block of wood,
yet after several years I still have not been able to master the
relatively simple skill of typing. lol
Robert Houghtaling
ga...@mozaya.com wrote on 1/27/03 1:43 PM:
This whole discussion is interesting to me because the 3D digital output is
what killed it for a lot of us who did sculpture for the collectible and toy
market.
Robert
--
Robert Houghtaling Sculpture and Design
http://www.silcom.com/~rhought
The Figgy Mountain Frogery
http://www.figgymountain.com
http://www.frogart.com
Gary Waller
"Robert Houghtaling" <rho...@silcom.com> wrote in message
news:BA5EF417.7A2D%rho...@silcom.com...
>> This whole discussion is interesting to me because the 3D digital output
is
> what killed it for a lot of us who did sculpture for the collectible and
toy
> market.
> Robert
> --
> Robert Houghtaling Sculpture and Design
> http://www.silcom.com/~rhought
> The Figgy Mountain Frogery
> http://www.figgymountain.com
> http://www.frogart.com
I'm surprised at this Robert, I thought what would have killed the market is
the explosion of hobbyists and garage kits. There seems to be no end to this
market over the past ten years.
http://www.gremlins.com/garage/overview.html
I am sure 100% of the kits shown on this website were sculpted by hand, and
the parts cast in a rubber mold. It is humbling to know that there are
thousands of people out there capable of sculpting this high quality work
and scary that many are practically working for free (although there are
some highly paid sculptors in this field).
On the other hand, I can see the advantage of going to all the trouble to
define toolpaths etc., when you are making steel molds and dies costing many
thousands of dollars. Tool and die makers insist on extremely accurate
drawings, this is how they are trained to work, they do not like to be put
in the position of making aesthetic decisions.
Sculptingman
to be a very accurate enlargement of a fairly bad sculpture. Garbage
in- garbage out.
One trouble with digital scanning and scaling is that it is extremely
accurate.
At one service bureau I went to they had done some scaling of some
disney figures to over six feet tall- a 12X enlargement. There were
obvious errors on the resulting enlargement, but they were exactly the
errors on the small models times 12. Disney had to take the small
models back for corrections of flaws they didn't notice until
enlarged. (and they are notoriously picky about their model work)
As to some poor guy re-finishing the foam-
Foam cutters are limited in the detail they can reproduce by the size
of the cutting head and the cell size of the foam. And the digital
scanning process certainly will leave out fine edges and nuances of
detail that are smaller than the triangular facet size of the scanned
point cloud.
Of course there is hand work involved- The only part the digital
process really does for the artist is the pointing and roughing. Which
is the most time consuming and the most critical for capturing the
nuance of the original.
My usual technique for sculpture is to scan and output the enlargement
in foam, only, say, 1/4 inch shy of the final surface of the
sculpture. (in digital form you can specify any amount of "offset" and
the surface will be exactly offset by the amount you specify.)
I can then paint the foam with molten wax and cover it with a very
thin skin of plastilene so that I can get the gestural and finely
nuanced surface I want in the final sculpture.
With architectural pieces- I seldom need to do more than stiffen the
foam output with a coat of resin, and proceed to mold.
AND- here's a neat trick- in architectural pieces I can sculpt and
scan only one side of a symetrical design at, say. 1/4 size- then I
can mirror the scan in the computer and output the foam at full size
with perfectly matching left to right symetry. Boy, does that save
time!
And as far as getting "toolpaths" on complex or unsupported designs-
for smaller items I prefer the wax or styrene output of the newer
generation of 3D printers with accuracies down to 5 ten thousandths of
an inch- these devices can print hollow objects floating in the space
of the build chamber- a tough act to follow by hand.
And then there is negative cutting...
I have had a foam cutter cut--not the model-- but the actual MOLD of
a fragile design- cutting cavities into blocks of foam that then could
be assembled into a perfectly fitting mold and the figure cast in
something more durable than foam.
What is worth it to me is to get the actual form of the original- at
any size I wish and know that it is exactly correct. I sometimes even
discover errors in the enlargement that I can correct in the foam
before surfacing.
Also- I have scanned bronze castings- output them at 1/3 size in wax-
and then covered the wax output with 1 mm of clay to detail the
surface and "reclaim" the shrinkage of the bronze- essentially,
UNDOING the figure attenuation that comes with making generational
copies.
This single technology has tremendous versatility and enables artists
to achieve results that were nigh onto impossible by hand.
All in all, I gotta say that digital scanning and scaling is a huge
benefit and big improvement over traditional pointing- though I still
occasionally point somthing small up traditionally if the cash isn't
available for outsourcing.
And- if I were King of the world, I would still require all sculpture
students to learn how to do it themselves the old fashioned way- if
only to give them a sense of how scale affects volume.
christopher
Gary Waller
> And- if I were King of the world, I would still require all sculpture
> students to learn how to do it themselves the old fashioned way- if
> only to give them a sense of how scale affects volume.
>
> christopher
As I said at the start, I am just one man with my own set of experience.
Instead of increased digitalization, I am seeing increased globalization - I
am meeting extremely talented sculptors from Russia, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Croatia, Mexico, Serbia, China, Taiwan, Vietnam - all able to point up with
minimal difficulty or create from a drawing, and they don't see this as any
big thing, and they charge accordingly. The classical reproductions I am
seeing coming out of China rival the finest I have seen from Italy. I too am
afraid that if Canadian and American sculptor students get lost in the dream
of digital artisanship (a prominent Vancouver art critic calls drawing and
painting "the heritage arts", and at least two of our finest painters are
moving into 'multimedia' presentations) they too could find themselves to be
nothing more than poorly paid 'concept people', sort of like the writers of
movie screenplays - they have to give up too much control to a team of
specialists over which they have no control. The new reality in the art
marketplace is that you have to have business balls of steel - the guts,
vision and thick skin to say you are a "writer/director/producer" and see
the project - your art- through to the end - up to and including the tee
shirt sales. You have to learn to manage your time in the context of goals,
and surround yourself with capable, talented people (who may or may not be
capable and talented using powerful machines).
The human touch is so important - your example of the architectural work is
illuminating, flipping pieces and squeeze molds, especially in clay/plaster
is the oldest trick in the book - but see that the true examples of the
architectural art were never symmetrical, artists in this genre have always
lamented the 'cookie cutter' approach. What makes the great stuccos and
plasters and carved stones of Europe, India, The Middle East and Asia truly
dance to the eye/ is this rhythm of ornament, but never an exact repeat. It
is the same in great music if you think about it. Why is it that the most
accurate digital grand pianos ever made cannot match the varying pressure
finger boards and expressive foot pedals of an acoustic grand piano - that
same middle C note played thousands of times in a piece but never quite the
same. So too digital drums, like digital generated and 'perfected'
architectural ornament, will quickly tire the senses and leave us
unsatisfied, something gets lost. I have some theories as to why this is -
but for the sake of our readers I don't want to go into quantum physics
again!
Sculptingman
nations and nations with 1st world weapons and 3rd world
infrastructure is not meaningful.
I spend a lot of time in China training chinese sculptors, many of
whom have very good communist block style art training, and none of
whom has ever even touched a computer.
I can say that their pointing and mold skills are minimal to
non-existent- as is true of many an art school graduate I met in
Italy.
There are competent artists and craftsmen around the word, but they
are almost exclusively studio trained and they are a definitive
minority of practicing artists in any country.
And they are not here- I can't afford to export my point up work, and
even if they were living here I could not afford to hire them at the
prices they would charge because they lived here; and even if I could
afford it- the result would still be someone else's copy of my own
design based upon only a hundred or so point samples.
Understand, I don't think of pointing up to be a big deal- just time
consuming and boring- cutting and gluing foam over a pipe armature-
scribing and recording hundreds of points and doing the math to scale
each measurement up and then painstakingly translating these points to
the foam- and then knowing that the accuracy of the point up is
limited by the number of sampled points and stuggling to get some huge
model to have the same feel and nuance as the maquette when I can not
both SEE the whole sculpture and still stand close enough to TOUCH it
at the same time.
And all your points concerning the subtlety of the human hand actually
argue against you, Gary- because what I am trying to capture in any
point up is the precise subtlety in the maquette, which I may not even
have made.
Given your arguements, I could NEVER hope to find any craftsman that
could adequately capture the nuance of my own hand in pointing up one
of my designs.
As I said before- the digital solution merely gives you a roughed foam
enlargement of your original maquette with hundreds of thousands of
points sampled, rather than a hundred ( most folks point up by hand
with far less than a hundred samples)
It still allows you to breathe your own subtlety into the final work
because, first of all, it IS the shape of your original, and therefore
starts off better, and second, you can STILL carve the foam by hand
and add clay to the surface to finish- you can still make changes,
should you feel the need.
I honestly can not understand your opposition to this tool.
Would you still rough out a marble with a mallet and chisel when an
air hammer lies ready at hand? Cut a board with a hand saw when a
table saw is there in your shop?
Drive a buckboard and horse team when there are pickup trucks?
Using an air hammer for what it is good for does not mean you can not
pick up the mallet when you feel that it will give you the result you
want better.
christopher
Gary Waller
> It still allows you to breathe your own subtlety into the final work
> because, first of all, it IS the shape of your original, and therefore
> starts off better, and second, you can STILL carve the foam by hand
> and add clay to the surface to finish- you can still make changes,
> should you feel the need.
>
You can't have it both ways Christopher. Either the advantage of using the
digital technique is that it gives you an exact, accurate 'printout' of your
maquette (and by your own admission 'we are not there yet') or it is a
convenient way a scaling up an armature for the many more hours of work
necessary to reinterpret your vision appropriate to this new scale. My
argument is that I see no difference hacking in one hundred reference points
in a piece of foam with an electric chainsaw or globbing up chunks of clay,
especially if when there are so many talented people capable of doing this
work. The price difference is more than substantial, and in the end both
techniques depend on the sculptor's skill to make it right. To spend days
making a miniature model (guessing at the final outcome scale), days taking
a digital snapshot, days fighting a foam cutter, days laying up a
wax/plasteine layer, all requiring expensive, highly trained technicians,
really does amount to nothing more than a technowank - an intensely
technical solution to a problem which did not exist in the first place. Its
funny you are so fascinated with power tools, and I have a whole shop of
them - but if you must know the truth for the past few years I actually do
seem to prefer handtools! A good sharp hand saw, hand scroll saw, manual
screwdriver, profile scraper, good sandpaper, gets the job done faster and
finer than digging out the electrics. If I had hours of screw driving or
grinding or cutting, that would be a different matter.
Next time you are in China, visit Henry's mannekin factory in Shanghai and
see the unbelievable work they do in plaster, clay, polyester and talent.
Your use of the antique term 'third world' is also illustrative of this
technoarrogance so common in the USA (and a lesser extent in Canada - in
Europe they just laugh at it), the more you know of the big wide world the
more you learn how simple things truly are. Creating a sculpture is
simple -just do it and sell it, move on to the next.
I see this pattern in Canada and the US over and over again. An individual
becomes interested in lets say painting, or photography, or music, or
sculpting, and they think to be successful they have to adopt the latest
equipment, latest software, latest technology. Is this in a large part due
to all the industry hype surrounding these fields - for example only 8% of
the market for prepared artist materials is actually purchased by working
artists. So they save up their pennies and read all the glossy mags, finally
buy the 'technogig 5000, now with digiomax' and are disappointed with the
results. In the developing countries of the world many of the basic skills
are learned on some ancient piece of equipment, a chunk of soft stone and a
chisel, a crayon on a paper bag and so on. This is where the skills come
from - and they reach a stage where they could create a great photograph,
lets say, whether from a homemade pinhole box camera or a $10,000 large
format Hasselblad. So - these are not 'studio trained' artists, these are
people who do these things because they have always done it, and just simply
got better at at it as they grew older. There talent is that they had enough
interest to stick with it. This is the pattern of the future and this is
where the next generation of the world's great artists will come from. This
of course has been the case for many years, and in the past movers/shakers
in the art community has been able to say 'Hey, your work is real cool, why
don't you move to the USA?' and these artists have done exactly that. This
is changing now, and it is changing quickly.
Michael Raphael
herself as a "sculptress." I can not take credit for that.
Michael
"Carol Cohen" <carol...@raines.com> wrote in message
news:BA5D92D0.43A01%carol...@raines.com...
Andrew Werby
[There is a limit to the detail you can put into a miniature model without
going blind, don't you think? Christopher's solution of using the technology
he's got set up to faithfully reproduce the basic proportions of the
macquette while reserving the detail work for the final clay-layer makes
eminent sense to me, and many other artists use the same technique. I think
you're exaggerating the difficulty of the technological approach, while
minimizing that of the hand-pointing method. You make it sound like "hacking
in one hundred reference points" by hand is almost instantaneous, while
taking a digital snapshot is going to take days. It doesn't take "expensive,
highly trained technicians" to smear a layer of clay on a foam model, and
once you've got it set up properly the foam-cutting machine will work with
minimal "fighting". No, it's not going to make a good sculpture from a bad
one, but many people have found it makes economic sense to do the
pointing-up process this way. If you are a talented person, why not spend
your talent doing the creative part, not the grunt-work?]
Its
> funny you are so fascinated with power tools, and I have a whole shop of
> them - but if you must know the truth for the past few years I actually do
> seem to prefer handtools! A good sharp hand saw, hand scroll saw, manual
> screwdriver, profile scraper, good sandpaper, gets the job done faster and
> finer than digging out the electrics. If I had hours of screw driving or
> grinding or cutting, that would be a different matter.
[There's certainly a place for hand-tools even in the most
technologically-advanced shops. There's a lot to be said for something that
doesn't make noise, for one thing. But that doesn't mean the power tools
don't serve a useful function. Would you really want to spend a lot of time
cutting plywood with a handsaw? What would be the point?]
>
> Next time you are in China, visit Henry's mannekin factory in Shanghai and
> see the unbelievable work they do in plaster, clay, polyester and talent.
> Your use of the antique term 'third world' is also illustrative of this
> technoarrogance so common in the USA (and a lesser extent in Canada - in
> Europe they just laugh at it), the more you know of the big wide world the
> more you learn how simple things truly are. Creating a sculpture is
> simple -just do it and sell it, move on to the next.
[I guess it depends on the sculpture. Sometimes a client will want to see an
accurate model in order to approve a large project, and being able to
reliably scale one up can help a lot in securing a contract. Making digital
models also helps in making a presentation that sets the piece in the
surroundings it will occupy, and makes it easier to visualize the piece in
context.]
>
> I see this pattern in Canada and the US over and over again. An individual
> becomes interested in lets say painting, or photography, or music, or
> sculpting, and they think to be successful they have to adopt the latest
> equipment, latest software, latest technology. Is this in a large part due
> to all the industry hype surrounding these fields - for example only 8% of
> the market for prepared artist materials is actually purchased by working
> artists. So they save up their pennies and read all the glossy mags,
finally
> buy the 'technogig 5000, now with digiomax' and are disappointed with the
> results.
[The market for artist materials is supported by a lot of hope, certainly.
The number of people actually making a living by selling art is pretty
small. If the stores had to rely on them exclusively, art materials would
be much harder to find. But these are not people who are embracing the
latest in technology, unless you take a long view and think of premixed oil
paints as a recent innovation. Digital artists are generally doing better
than those working in traditional media- certainly more are employed at it.]
In the developing countries of the world many of the basic skills
> are learned on some ancient piece of equipment, a chunk of soft stone and
a
> chisel, a crayon on a paper bag and so on. This is where the skills come
> from - and they reach a stage where they could create a great photograph,
> lets say, whether from a homemade pinhole box camera or a $10,000 large
> format Hasselblad.
[So we're allowed to say "developing countries" but not "the third world"?
Soon that will be frowned on too, and we'll have to use "economically
challenged" or some other euphemism... Where are these great photographs
made with a pinhole camera you speak of? Have you found any crayon on paper
bag masterpieces lately? I have travelled a bit, and tend to find that most
of the art made by people at a low economic level tends to be at a low
aesthetic level as well, once ancient traditions are devitalized by loss of
cultural context. Basically, they tend to make stuff they hope a tourist
will buy, and we know what kind of taste tourists have got, by and large.
Yes, there are plenty of Inuit and Zimbabwayans carving soft stone, but no
Michealangelos have emerged there- that I've seen evidence of, anyway. It
seems clear to me that the best art comes from the artists that are best
supported by their societies, by and large.]
So - these are not 'studio trained' artists, these are
> people who do these things because they have always done it, and just
simply
> got better at at it as they grew older. There talent is that they had
enough
> interest to stick with it. This is the pattern of the future and this is
> where the next generation of the world's great artists will come from.
[Please show us some examples. To me, it seems that the world's traditional
arts are getting weaker, not stronger, and that fewer artists- in the first,
second, or third worlds- are able to justify sticking with it. As times get
tougher, and less money is spent on "frills" like art, it seems like the
marginal artists you speak of will increasingly be pushed to the wall. Even
in the US, which is far from a poor country, hardly any students are
majoring in art any more, and the ones who don't land teaching jobs
generally leave the field. The ones to survive, I'd think, will be the most
technologically adept and media-savvy, not the ones who stubbornly bang on
rocks or whatever the way they always have.]
This of course has been the case for many years, and in the past
movers/shakers
> in the art community has been able to say 'Hey, your work is real cool,
why
> don't you move to the USA?' and these artists have done exactly that. This
> is changing now, and it is changing quickly.
[If this is so, I'm afraid it's because things are drying up here, not
because of any flowering of opportunities there. I wish I was wrong about
this...]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
>
>
>
>
Sculptingman
> digital technique is that it gives you an exact, accurate 'printout' of your
> maquette (and by your own admission 'we are not there yet') or it is a
> convenient way a scaling up an armature for the many more hours of work
> necessary to reinterpret your vision appropriate to this new scale.
Actually, yes, I can have it both ways- and I do-
as I listed in my post, I have it far more than both ways as the
technology is useful for a whole bunch of different applications. AND
I can still do it manually if I feel the work might need
re-interpretation as it is scaled.
>My
> argument is that I see no difference hacking in one hundred reference points
> in a piece of foam with an electric chainsaw or globbing up chunks of clay,
> especially if when there are so many talented people capable of doing this
> work.
You are wrong about the number of talented people available to do the
work. Its not the lack of talent but the lack of training the talented
receive and they are few and getting fewer every year. Particualrly in
the U.S. where youngsters in art school are encouraged to abandon
process for idea.
>The price difference is more than substantial, and in the end both
> techniques depend on the sculptor's skill to make it right.
Most of the people who CAN do the work to my satisfaction will charge
as much for their effort as will a digital service bureau; add to this
that their best effort will still not look like my hand, leaving me in
the position of having to correct their work anyway- - My only cheap
option is to hire low paid staff and do the work myself. But at the
value I must charge for my time this is still not cheap and often
would cost me more than digital outsourcing. I conceed that this
technology is not affordable for those that do not make a fairly good
dollar for their time, and is not necessary for those who are not too
particular about the accuracy of the enlargement.
>To spend days
> making a miniature model (guessing at the final outcome scale), days taking
> a digital snapshot, days fighting a foam cutter, days laying up a
> wax/plasteine layer, all requiring expensive, highly trained technicians,
> really does amount to nothing more than a technowank - an intensely
> technical solution to a problem which did not exist in the first place. Its
> funny you are so fascinated with power tools, and I have a whole shop of
> them - but if you must know the truth for the past few years I actually do
> seem to prefer handtools! A good sharp hand saw, hand scroll saw, manual
> screwdriver, profile scraper, good sandpaper, gets the job done faster and
> finer than digging out the electrics. If I had hours of screw driving or
> grinding or cutting, that would be a different matter.
Jeez-
when I send a project to the digital service bureau- I simply forget
about it for a week, or, if they are really busy, two weeks, and focus
on other projects. When the foam cutting is done I take it back and
it takes me a day to wax and plastilene it. Then it is just a matter
of doing the final surfacing and making the last decisions about how
it will look.
If, for some reason like, say, the compexity of the piece, the price
to digitally scale it is outlandish or over budget- I can still hire a
couple of temporary apprentices and have them do the work by hand
under my supervision- I find artists who want to learn the technique
are often willing to accept fairly low pay in return for the learning
opportunity.
However- it is NEVER a waste of time to make a maquette first, and
most paying jobs require it for design approval.
> Next time you are in China, visit Henry's mannekin factory in Shanghai and
> see the unbelievable work they do in plaster, clay, polyester and talent.
> Your use of the antique term 'third world' is also illustrative of this
> technoarrogance so common in the USA (and a lesser extent in Canada - in
> Europe they just laugh at it), the more you know of the big wide world the
> more you learn how simple things truly are. Creating a sculpture is
> simple -just do it and sell it, move on to the next.
Gosh, I did not know that 'third world' was an antique term- since I
hear it used everyday on the evening news, tho I do find it funny that
you object to antique terms but not antique technology. (by the way-
polyester resin is a fairly new technology, itself and the laughter of
Europe is envidious)
ANYWAY, since you are one of the imperialist overlords who are "taking
advantage" of the cheap labor of the third world by sending work to
Mexico, you are hardly in a position to wag your finger at me for my
use of an accepted terminology. ; )
As one who spends a third of every year in China, and is sent there
expressly to train artists and moldmakers, I feel I have a pretty good
handle on their expertise and talent. Like anywhere else on earth I
have been I find the ratio of talent to mediocrity the same.
And I should point out to you that a growing percentage of all C.N.C
machines and 3D printers sold are purchased and installed in China.
They are investing heavily in this technology-
And as regards my technoarrogance- a review of my postings will reveal
that I am by far a champion of old world technique and traditional
methods. No one has made more noise and complaint over the lack of
traditional craft in art education than have I in this group.
But, Gary, it is a fact that to make a living in the States in graphic
arts these days, you better have and be able to use a computer if for
no other reason than to avoid sales taxation of your income. I know
many talented artists who had clients just up and demand that all
future work be delivered on disc in vector format. Some actually paint
traditionally then have to hire someone to scan and "convert" it to a
digital format- this just cuts into their income.
And those that do finally make the leap to "go digital" almost always
find that the computer is not a replacement for traditional
techniques, but rather, an augmentation of those techniques. That the
computer offers them additional capabilites that they simply do not
have with traditional methods.
To think that this will not come to the sculpture world is naive. I
got into the digital 3D world to ensure that I would be employable in
the future- a hopefully long future- and I retain my traditionalist
background to enhance that employability.
Every year, more and more work goes either to China, ( hell- I send
most work there these days) or to those with skill sets that are
unavailable in China.
I am not blindly espousing the use of technology to no advantage- I
have pointed out that scanning and scaling is not cheap and that I do
not always resort to it- but neither is it as expensive nor as time
consuming as you portray.
Like all tools, it has its appropriate and specific usablity.
When asked to do a portrait, or a finely nuanced figure, I pull out
the clay and hand tools because I can get better and faster results.
But once I have that finely nuanced figure- should I want to
duplicate it it at a larger or smaller scale- I would pick digital
scaling every time as long as I could afford it.
Gary- you are reading this on a computer- this little community we
have here- spread all over the globe -is made possible by technology.
You are the one who wants it both ways.
Someday, digital scanning and scaling will be the "traditional old
school" method- and I expect your descendants will be crying WHOA!
STOP THE FUTURE BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!
christopher
Michael Raphael
Sorry I didn't respond but we are so busy doing digital sculpture
reproduction that I haven't have time. Stop arguing and try it, or don't.
I post the information and image simply to inform. I thought that's what
this newsgroup is about - sharing information, new techniques, methods, and
success stories regarding the creation and fabrication of sculpture. Our
capabilities are very new; most people don't know they even exist as an
option for them. I don't care if you tried it in the past, technology
advances, and this technology is advancing very rapidly right now. Some of
what we are doing now couldn't be done 3 months ago. Everyday we invent new
tricks and methods, develop new techniques and processes, and improve our
scanners, software, and definitely upgrade our computers. Everyday we work
with new sculptors, designers, and fabricators to develop new ways to apply
this technology to sculpture, jewelry, architecture, engineering, industrial
design, etc. I don't understand the criticism. Everyone we show this to
gets very excited about the possibilities. It opens doors to sculptors and
allows for more creativity in terms of scale, complexity, and accuracy. If
you haven't seen it lately, I believe you will be surprised. You are
welcome to come to my office or a trade shows we might be at, or potentially
in the field if our paths can cross. If that doesn't work, I will prepare a
video presentation for you describing the capabilities. Say the word.
Okay, maybe our process provides the means to make cheap rip offs of your
work. That's probably what was said of the printing press in the middle
ages, or the camera in the late 1800's, or the photocopy machine more
recently. Give me a break - technology advances, we learn to live with it.
We use it for creation, sharing, and yes sometimes exploitation. Such is
life.
Now since you prodded, here's some more answers to your questions, sorry in
advance if this gets lengthy.
Your questions can essentially be summarized into these topics: accuracy,
resolution, speed, and cost.
I've given the argument some thought and I believe the issue comes down to
only two of these topics as they pertain to sculpture - resolution and cost.
I believe the other topics (accuracy and speed) are less relevant given that
the usual application of these tools is for manufacturing and engineering
problems. Remember - the basis for the development of the scanning and
milling technology is for wide application within industry since quite
frankly that's where the money is. This technology is developed and paid
for on the backs of the GM's and Lockheed Martin's of the world, not the
individual sculptor. Industry has an entire infrastructure system of checks
and balances that basically demand accuracy and speed. Cars and airplanes
are built with tools that measure and NC mill within large volumes such as
these to thousands of inches - I know, I ran such a group within a Lockheed
Martin aerostructures facility. These are the same tools we are now
applying to sculpture and architecture. There is simply no comparison in
terms of speed and accuracy between these tools and someone hacking out foam
using hand or even power tools. There is no argument here; I hope you can
see this.
Now let's discuss resolution. Resolution is the ability to capture exact
form. And by exact, I mean every little scratch, fold, step, tool mark, and
undercut in the original material - essentially an exact "clone" of the
original with no detectable difference. In our real world this is not
possible; we can only approach this perfection. The question then is how
close can we get? This depends to a large extent on cost, which I will
discuss next, so let's take that out for a moment.
Let's consider a hypothetical project that is of utmost importance, say an
ancient wonder of the world, something that must stay for safety reasons
locked in a vault never to be seen by the public much less handled for study
by scholars. Now let's say some benefactor decides this object should be
replicated in all its glory such that the copy can be viewed and handled by
the public. Let's further state that money and time are not an issue in
this case due to its importance. What technology exists to replicate it?
Remember - you can't touch it, put anything on it, can't x-ray it or even
remove it from the vault. Extreme care must be taken for any method in that
the object simply cannot be damaged.
I submit to you that we have assembled the best capabilities to digitally
reproduce that object to approach the perfection of an exact clone as
required by the project. We have a variety of portable tools, both hardware
and software, that can easily scan such an object to micron resolution. We
can capture undercuts to the extent that you can see them and we can capture
detail such as scratches and steps to the extent you can feel them. And
with sufficient computing power we can process all this data into a 3D
digital reproduction that would be "very close" to the original.
Which brings us to the good news for you - while we can get it "very close"
(and I can and will define "very close" probably with more images later), a
sculptor is generally required to finish the project both in the digital
world and in the physical world. So we are not eliminating you - my goal is
to help you, augment you, to take the grunt work away from you. Again for
all the various projects that we've worked on, a sculpting function, at
least of sorts, is required all along the way for most aspects.
To finish off the computer reproduction, for example, we use several tools
to edit or "sculpt" the virtual model. Some tools fill holes in the data
due to severe undercuts or gaps, smooth out surfaces, crisp and sharpen
edges, and adjust smoothness. Other tools allow the "sculptor" to evaluate
and implement geometric constraints - such as holding flat areas perfectly
flat or round areas round, or make perfect fillets or corners, or to
replicate objects from one area to another, or to mirror or scale features,
or make them perfectly symmetric. We can copy and move elements from one
area to another and best fit they're position to match them up with
adjoining elements. The capabilities of the software are endless and
again - everyday we discover and invent new methods for solving new problems
to transform the dreams of the sculptor into the sculpture whether you do it
with your fingers in clay or with a mouse in the computer.
With the virtual piece completed in the computer environment, the 3D model
can then be used for presentation. This includes making amazing graphic
images of the piece for display purposes, animated videos and a fly-thru of
a scene, archival documentation, or marketing literature of a piece offered
for sale or for a grant or commission proposal. A variety of software
products allow for graphic artists to render the model with colors and
textures, add backgrounds and lighting, and other scenery and graphical
elements. Again an artist performs these tasks whether formally trained or
not, at one level or another.
Did you know that many of the car commercials where they show the cars going
from the desert to the tundra are computer graphic fakes? They start with
digitizing the actual cars (considered by many to be sculpture given their
prices) with the same equipment we use and apply fantastic computer
rendering techniques to make them look more appealing. Are you doing
anything different? Isn't sculpture art simply because its appealing? Isn'
t that the goal - to create and present forms that appeal to our emotions?
Does it matter by what means this occurs? Are great works great because we
know the effort put into them or because the end result is simply appealing?
The electronic information, furthermore, can also be shared across
continents in today's wired world. Scholars around the planet can study
works of art that they can only dream about seeing live and where 2D
pictures may not enough. Our newest scanning equipment can capture the
color of the object as well as its form. We're now creating high-accuracy /
high-resolution 3D models in full color! So now you get to see the fine
textures that we may not have captured in the colorless 3D polygon model.
And in the computer environment you can zoom in, pan around, and rotate the
image in full 3D to study the most intricate details. The capabilities are
endless for presenting and sharing works of art and sculpture regardless of
its use for physical reproduction. There are many reasons for performing
our 3D digital reproduction beyond simply making enlargements.
Additionally other downstream processes may only be possible with an
accurate 3D computer model of the sculpture. With engineering software,
analysis can be performed to evaluate structural stiffness and rigidity,
weight and CG, material volumes, and other important aspects before
committing to fabrication where problems can be extremely costly and
difficult to fix. Large monumental sculptures for example require
engineering analysis and certification prior to construction and since
organic shapes are difficult to draw, typical blueprints are often
ineffective in today's regulatory environment.
The next phase of the process is the creation of the physical piece, and
again an accurate model is required as well as the sculptor. The 3D
computer model can be output by a variety of fabrication means including NC
milling and rapid prototyping. Of course these processes have limitations,
nothing humans make in the physical world is perfect, we can only approach
perfection. And again its generally cost that must be balanced against the
amount of perfection we desire or require. Milling can be performed to
almost any level of completion depending on the bit size and the time we let
it run. Even large pieces could be milled to jewelry resolutions if someone
wants to pay for it. But that's usually not the case and we draw the line
somewhere based on many considerations such as the cost of hand finishing
vs. the machine finishing. In the case of an individual sculptor, some
prefer to put their own time into finishing, others prefer to have
underlings do it, and yet others prefer to have the machine work on until
near perfection is achieved. This is just one of many trade-off decisions
required for any project.
Therefore the cost of digital reproduction is directly tied to the quality
of the computer model or physical output. I have been in this business for
8 years with another 10 before that developing the early products and
methods we use today. The cost of most any service is primarily based on
the scope of the work. We can provide 3D measurement and computer modeling
services at virtually any technical level. We do these today for super
critical projects such as aircraft and automotive projects where the reverse
engineering requires "Class A" surfacing for NC milling of very expensive
steel tooling. These can be very time consuming and hence expensive
projects that require a great deal of technical skill and training, and
expensive equipment and software. And true most of these customers are
larger companies willing to pay well for these unique services.
But we also work at the other end of the spectrum for the individual,
sculptors for example, who want to take their work to another level but can'
t afford to spend weeks "pointing up" or don't have Far East or Latin
American cheap labor connections. Our services are priced based on the
project and the amount of effort we are asked to put into them. We provide
a high quality output for a fair price at any level - the same thing you
expect for your work. Over time, as the price of technology drops so will
our pricing. This is already happening. As I mentioned earlier, we can do
now in days what took weeks only a year ago.
And we also educate along the way, helping sculptors learn about new
capabilities for their work using these digital reproduction technologies.
I find a great deal of personal satisfaction for the work that I do, the
people I get to work with, and the art that I am exposed to. We see such a
variety of projects its hard to imagine. The portfolio area on our website
(www.directdimensions.com) attempts to present and organize some of our
better projects. I am frequently complemented on this collection and I am
very proud of our work. I only wish to share the availability of these
services and products with you and other sculptors in this forum.
If any open-minded sculptors would like more specific information about our
services and products, do not hesitate to contact me directly. I can't
promise I will have the energy or time to respond to further criticism.
Gary Waller
[If you are a talented person, why not spend your talent doing the creative
part, not the grunt-work?]
Because it just doesn't work that way - to get it done right and fast, you
have to get in and do the work, as a team. That baseball man, in two days, 7
foot high in foam, from a drawing, to the same detail shown in the digital
foam cutting pictures. Lots of people can do this here in Vancouver - maybe
a richer background of lofting/fairing boats, many native carvers, chain saw
artists, sand sculptors, movie sculptors, lots of foam cutters. Plus, if you
are paid good money, the patrons like to see a good show - here is a team of
three ice carvers who also have the skills and speed I take for granted
http://www.fearnoice.com
>
[ Digital artists are generally doing better than those working in
traditional media- certainly more are employed at it.]
I would dispute this, having looked into it in some detail. Art directors
still depend heavily on non-digitally generated art - I mean, if I asked you
to produce a picture of that bird over there, very few would jump to the
keyboard - they would jump to pencil and paper. It may end up digital, and I
fully acknowledge this end of the tooling.
[So we're allowed to say "developing countries" but not "the third world"?]
Yes, third world implies an "Us" and "Them" mentality, and it is usually
used in this context or misused by ignert jurnalists. That it is no longer
used is also appropriate since there is no longer a second world or even a
first world for that matter.
[Where are these great photographs made with a pinhole camera you speak
of?]
There many contemporary photographers using pinhole cameras, but the best
example is in a documentary called "Burden of Dreams: Making of
Fitzcarraldo" This is a documentary about Werner Herzog's 4 year effort to
make a collossal movie in the middle of the jungle, directly clashing with
overwhelming nature and a crew split between highly trained technicians and
natives right out of the jungle. The end of the documentary, Werner has
finally achieved his goal and he finds an old man whose business is to
photograph the natives - this is a homemade pinhole camera printing direct
from plate, the operator removes the lens cap (a metal screw cap from a jug)
asks you stay still the required seconds, and then delivers this fascinating
photograph, capturing every detail (extra large format), and yet in its
sepia black and white, it looks instantly like an image from another age. So
this famous director, surrounded with some of the best equipment and
photographers in the world, was blown away by these 'primitive native'
photographs - it is sort of that ironic moment so sought after in the art
movies.
[Have you found any crayon on paper bag masterpieces lately? ......Please
show us some examples. To me, it seems that the world's traditional arts are
getting weaker, not stronger, and that fewer artists- in the first, second,
or third worlds- are able to justify sticking with it.]
Now I have two examples here, the first is the "old school' he started
painting on paper bags from the family shop, then sold them to tourists, and
then became an art star in the USA, and then he died at 46 with a stroke. He
is Manuel Lepe.
http://www.pvmirror.com/artculture/lepe.html
Now the second, died this month, and I think his attitude is more
illustrative of many rising artists I see these days from around the world.
He lived in a funky old house, in a beautiful spanish colonial city, he took
each day at time, surrounded by friends and family, made enough money to get
by, and he just died at 94 years old. He is Alfredo Zalce
http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/michoacan/alfredozalcefin.html
So I have done my part, I have backed up everything I claim. NOW ITS YOUR
TURN- please post a link to a world class piece of fine art created by
digital enlargement, that you are was convinced that was faster, cheaper and
more beautiful as a result. The only one I have ever found is on the
www.keysler.com site by Eugene Daub - but I notice this prolific sculptor
has not gone back to keysler, and the foam bucks cut by the milling machine
are chainsaw rough. The 4 storey high MGM lion was digitally assisted - but
you will notice a lot of hand fairing with skylifts, chainsaw and rasps.
None of the art foundry sites are claiming the benefits of digital foam
cutting either - they either don't care, don't know about it, or is it as I
suggest, a very small part of the market. So Chris, Andrew, Michael lets
see some links!
Michael Raphael
Michael Raphael
thread.
Michael
"Michael Raphael" <in...@dirdim.com> wrote in message
news:rOScnWgSNvv...@comcast.com...
charles.mcgregor
> tricks and methods, develop new techniques and processes, and improve our
> scanners, software, and definitely upgrade our computers.
I stopped reading your post when I got to here. The problems with this
sentence are:
You use the word 'definitely' for the computer upgrade, which immediately
suggests the other items might not be 'definite'. Then when we examine what
is designated 'definite', namely DAILY upgrading of the computers, this
seems, to say the least, unlikely. And if you did actually manage a daily
hardware upgrade, this would be extremely detrimental to the smooth
operation of the process, since these things rarely are truly 'plug in'.
As far as I can gather, you are defending the legitimacy of keeping us
updated on latest advances in your product. This seems to be a digitally
scanned sculpture duplication system. In other words it is the 3D
equivalent of a photocopier.
So we might ask by analogy. How relevant is the latest photocopying
capability to say a 2D artist group? And we might answer, 'Not a lot, since
it is not directly relevant to the creative process, but some.'. I know
there are 2D artists who sell limited editions of prints of their work who
would be quite interested. And most people have used a photocopier to
resale drawings at some point. However would they have appreciated a blow by
blow account of latest development in minutiae? Even at the flaky stage of
development?
Just my 2p
chic
Arbitrary Design
> "Michael Raphael" <in...@dirdim.com> wrote in message
> news:rOScnWgSNvv...@comcast.com...
> > Gary,
> >
> >" Everyday we invent new
> > tricks and methods, develop new techniques and processes, and improve our
> > scanners, software, and definitely upgrade our computers.
>
> I stopped reading your post when I got to here.
>
So, essentially what you are saying is thay you have a closed mind and
you are so busy nit-picking over semantics that you couldn't even
bother to read what the man had to say.
I at least showed you the courtesy of reading your entire post before
concluding that you were biased and intellectually lazy.
Cheers,
Andrew Werby
Subject: Re: digital sculpture enlargement
Date: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:47 PM
"Gary Waller" <ga...@mozaya.com> wrote in message
news:UXn%9.72987$c41.2...@news2.telusplanet.net...
>
> [If you are a talented person, why not spend your talent doing the
creative
> part, not the grunt-work?]
>
> Because it just doesn't work that way - to get it done right and fast, you
> have to get in and do the work, as a team. That baseball man, in two days,
7
> foot high in foam, from a drawing, to the same detail shown in the digital
> foam cutting pictures. Lots of people can do this here in Vancouver -
maybe
> a richer background of lofting/fairing boats, many native carvers, chain
saw
> artists, sand sculptors, movie sculptors, lots of foam cutters. Plus, if
you
> are paid good money, the patrons like to see a good show - here is a team
of
> three ice carvers who also have the skills and speed I take for granted
> http://www.fearnoice.com
[Their stuff is pretty good, if you like that sort of thing. I don't see
them as blazing any new trails artistically, though. What's your point here?
I didn't say it wasn't possible to carve things by hand; I said it can be
more effective to scale things up by digital rather than hand methods. These
techniques are by no means mutually exclusive.]
> >
> [ Digital artists are generally doing better than those working in
> traditional media- certainly more are employed at it.]
>
> I would dispute this, having looked into it in some detail. Art directors
> still depend heavily on non-digitally generated art - I mean, if I asked
you
> to produce a picture of that bird over there, very few would jump to the
> keyboard - they would jump to pencil and paper. It may end up digital, and
I
> fully acknowledge this end of the tooling.
[I'm not sure how to prove this to your satisfaction, but have you looked at
the want-ads lately? (I hope you haven't had to...) How many jobs did you
see for artists with traditional skills, no computer knowledge required?
Compare these (if any) to those offered to people who could use computers.
Here's a quote from the US Bureau of labor Statistics confirming that those
artists working in "multi-media" (that's mostly computerized) versus
traditional media, make more money:
"Median annual earnings of salaried fine artists, including painters,
sculptors, and illustrators were $31,190 in 2000. The middle 50 percent
earned between $20,460 and $42,720. The lowest 10 percent earned less than
$14,690, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $58,580.
Median annual earnings of salaried multi-media artists and animators were
$41,130 in 2000. The middle 50 percent earned between $30,700 and $54,040.
The lowest 10 percent earned less than $23,740, and the highest 10 percent
earned more than $70,560. Median annual earnings were $44,290 in computer
and data processing services, the industry employing the largest numbers of
salaried multi-media artists and animators."
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos092.htm#outlook
Do I have to point out that companies which are hiring tend to have
traditional artists already, and want to hire new people who are conversant
with the new technology? I think you'll find the gap widening as the stats
are updated.]
>
> [Where are these great photographs made with a pinhole camera you speak
> of?]
> There many contemporary photographers using pinhole cameras, but the best
> example is in a documentary called "Burden of Dreams: Making of
> Fitzcarraldo" This is a documentary about Werner Herzog's 4 year effort to
> make a collossal movie in the middle of the jungle, directly clashing with
> overwhelming nature and a crew split between highly trained technicians
and
> natives right out of the jungle. The end of the documentary, Werner has
> finally achieved his goal and he finds an old man whose business is to
> photograph the natives - this is a homemade pinhole camera printing direct
> from plate, the operator removes the lens cap (a metal screw cap from a
jug)
> asks you stay still the required seconds, and then delivers this
fascinating
> photograph, capturing every detail (extra large format), and yet in its
> sepia black and white, it looks instantly like an image from another age.
So
> this famous director, surrounded with some of the best equipment and
> photographers in the world, was blown away by these 'primitive native'
> photographs - it is sort of that ironic moment so sought after in the art
> movies.
[Sure, you can find survivals of antique technology ever so often, in
out-of-the-way places, and even some neo-primitives in the World Formerly
Called First, but you were claiming that new photographers in "developing
countries" were training themselves this way. Forgive me for doubting that.]
>Have you found any crayon on paper bag masterpieces lately? ......Please
> show us some examples. To me, it seems that the world's traditional arts
are
> getting weaker, not stronger, and that fewer artists- in the first,
second,
> or third worlds- are able to justify sticking with it.]
> Now I have two examples here, the first is the "old school' he started
> painting on paper bags from the family shop, then sold them to tourists,
and
> then became an art star in the USA, and then he died at 46 with a stroke.
He
> is Manuel Lepe.
> http://www.pvmirror.com/artculture/lepe.html
[Forgive me if I'm not exactly blown away by this guy's work. Grandma Moses
tries to find Where's Waldo...]
> Now the second, died this month, and I think his attitude is more
> illustrative of many rising artists I see these days from around the
world.
> He lived in a funky old house, in a beautiful spanish colonial city, he
took
> each day at time, surrounded by friends and family, made enough money to
get
> by, and he just died at 94 years old. He is Alfredo Zalce
> http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/michoacan/alfredozalcefin.html
[While his work's on a much higher level, I don't see how you can trot out
someone 94 years old (and dead), who did most of his best work in the 1930s,
as illustrative of new trends. If he was starting out now, he'd probably be
learning how to use computers. That or starving...]
>
>
> So I have done my part, I have backed up everything I claim. NOW ITS YOUR
> TURN- please post a link to a world class piece of fine art created by
> digital enlargement, that you are was convinced that was faster, cheaper
and
> more beautiful as a result.
[In order to make a valid comparison, I'd thing you'd have to try it both
ways. I never claimed that this process was going to produce "world-class
fine art", in fact I doubt that this is the case. In my opinion, the best
use of the technology on aesthetic grounds would be to produce sculpture
that couldn't be done any other way. Using it to "point up" hand-created
models is a transitional step, which is commonly seen as new technology is
adopted. The first thing people want to do is to use it to produce the same
old things, just faster and cheaper. I think it's pretty evident it succeeds
at that, or nobody would bother with it.]
The only one I have ever found is on the
> www.keysler.com site by Eugene Daub - but I notice this prolific sculptor
> has not gone back to keysler, and the foam bucks cut by the milling
machine
> are chainsaw rough.
[That's www.kreysler.com , not "keysler". They tend to mill things pretty
roughly there, and use a clay coat to finish up. While it's possible to get
better detail in milling, it's also a lot slower. I went and looked at the
"Plumed Serpent" piece in San Jose, by the way, and it would support your
contention more than mine- this is an example of how digital enlargement can
be worse than doing things by hand, with milling cuts evident everywhere and
blocks put together haphazardly. (If an Aztec had done this, they would have
cut his heart out and thrown him off a pyramid...) But it's also possible to
use the technology well.]
The 4 storey high MGM lion was digitally assisted - but
> you will notice a lot of hand fairing with skylifts, chainsaw and rasps.
> None of the art foundry sites are claiming the benefits of digital foam
> cutting either - they either don't care, don't know about it, or is it as
I
> suggest, a very small part of the market. So Chris, Andrew, Michael lets
> see some links!
>
[Art foundries are catching on to this technology, albeit slowly. Mark
Parmenter, who sometimes posts here, has been using it for years, although
his website's not coming up for me. (Mark?) The Johnson Atelier has gone in
for it in a big way, see: http://www.atelier.org and look for "digital
atelier" and "stone". Satellite models does some very nice enlargement (and
reduction) work: see http://www.satellitemodels.com/ , as does CyberFx:
http://www.cyberfx.com . This latter site does a pretty good job of
explaining some of the benefits of digital enlargement techniques- enjoy!]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
>
charles.mcgregor
Perhaps you can explain why 3D reproduction is any more relevant to the
creative process than 2D reproduction, or why it should be any more
interesting in it's birth pangs.
OTOH I don't think I'll bother holding my breath, I have creative work to
do.
chic
"Arbitrary Design" <in...@arbitrarydesign.com> wrote in message
news:899b3631.0302...@posting.google.com...
Arbitrary Design
> Well since you are such an intellectual meteor.
> Perhaps you can explain why 3D reproduction is any more relevant to the
> creative process than 2D reproduction, or why it should be any more
> interesting in it's birth pangs.
> OTOH I don't think I'll bother holding my breath, I have creative work to
> do.
>
> chic
>
Perhaps, if you had bothered to actually read the thread you are
commenting on, you would already understand.
Perhaps, if you were not so obviously entrenched in your own opinion,
I would be more inclined to explain what you are clearly missing.
Perhaps, if you were truly interested in acquiring the knowledge you
are asking for, you would not be so blatantly hostile to new ideas and
techniques.
Your first post demonstrated your lack of curiosity or an open mind.
Your second post demonstrates your lack of wit and charm.
These things combined demonstrate clearly that you are someone I wish
to waste no further time on.
Robert
sculpt...@ethanham.com
reproduction isn't relevant to the create process? Where does that
leave lithographers, etchers, & photographers?
"charles.mcgregor" <charles....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<Uqi0a.265$qx1...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Sculptingman
> creative process than 2D reproduction, or why it should be any more
> interesting in it's birth pangs.
I can.
3D reproduction is not what we have been discussing- digital scaling
and capture in 3D is what we are discussing. (moldmaking is 3D
reproduction, too- and that gets alot of play hereabouts)
It has precisely the same relevance as a 2D artist using a projector
to throw a small sketch onto a large wall to facilitate the
underpainting for a mural.
It has the same relevance as a 2D artist hiring a service bureau to
stretch a canvas larger than the artist has equipment to accomplish.
It has the same relevance as a 2D artist scanning a painting and
converting it into a digital format that can be transmitted to a
client electronically and facilitate the use of the design in
commercial applications.
It has the same relevance as a 2D artist using a computer to generate
and print original artwork.
As sculptors- until the advent of 3D scanning and output- we had none
of these options, which graphic artists have enjoyed for years-or for
a century in the case of the projector.
These capabilites are just coming online and that is new, and
therefore, of interest.
Just as the graphic computer is no longer a method of mere
reproduction, but has become an entirely new tool with capabilites for
creative expression that never before existed, so, too, is digital 3D
on the cusp of developing into an entirely new outlet for creative
expression.
Just as the airplanes used to be exciting when they were new, but
became boring when it became everyday, an emerging technology is more
facinating than an established one.
To most folks, at least.
christopher
charles.mcgregor
> > Perhaps you can explain why 3D reproduction is any more relevant to the
> > creative process than 2D reproduction, or why it should be any more
> > interesting in it's birth pangs.
>
> I can.
> 3D reproduction is not what we have been discussing- digital scaling
> and capture in 3D is what we are discussing. (moldmaking is 3D
> reproduction, too- and that gets alot of play hereabouts)
Firstly, I realise rescaling is useful and I said so up thread IIRC 'Who
hasn't used a photocopier to rescale a drawing?'.
Secondly there is another thread entitled 'sculpture digital enlargement'
this one is entitled 'sculpture digital REPRODUCTION', but notwithstanding,
I mentioned the usefulness of rescaling anyway.
Thirdly, rescaling, while useful, is not IMO, relevant to the creative
process, which is what the question asks.
Fourthly, we can rescale in both 2D and 3D reproduction systems and the
question was why it should be any MORE interesting, clearly the ability to
rescale isn't it.
> It has precisely the same relevance as a 2D artist using a projector
> to throw a small sketch onto a large wall to facilitate the
> underpainting for a mural.
> It has the same relevance as a 2D artist hiring a service bureau to
> stretch a canvas larger than the artist has equipment to accomplish.
> It has the same relevance as a 2D artist scanning a painting and
> converting it into a digital format that can be transmitted to a
> client electronically and facilitate the use of the design in
> commercial applications.
Exactly, none of which are relevant creatively. Read the question.
> It has the same relevance as a 2D artist using a computer to generate
> and print original artwork.
>
Nonsense. A 2D atist or a 3D artist using a computer to create original art
is, wait for it,... creating original art. The creativity bit may be aided
by the computer tools available but that is a completely different issue.
The ability to produce a physical image or rescale it from the computer,
whether for the 2D guy or the 3D is useful but not creatively relevant. If
the reproduction, rescaling facility did not exist the art created would be
the same.
> As sculptors- until the advent of 3D scanning and output- we had none
> of these options, which graphic artists have enjoyed for years-or for
> a century in the case of the projector.
Projectors have been used since the renaissance. They can be used to
generate
sizing templates from a sculpture.
3D pantographs have existed for a long time, calipers etc.
>
> These capabilites are just coming online and that is new, and
> therefore, of interest.
>
> Just as the graphic computer is no longer a method of mere
> reproduction, but has become an entirely new tool with capabilites for
It never was a method of mere reproduction.
> creative expression that never before existed, so, too, is digital 3D
> on the cusp of developing into an entirely new outlet for creative
> expression.
Yes, I've used poser and POV etc. the latter for many years, but
reproduction and rescaling capability is not relevant to the creative
process. Which is what I said.
I also said that there would be those who would be interested in the
reproduction and rescaling developments, the guy is hypersensitive.
Let him post, I don't need to read it but he was first with the ad hominems
and my motto is 'If you prick me, do you not bleed?'
chic
Sculptingman
> hasn't used a photocopier to rescale a drawing?'.
Yes, but, Chic, how do you mean creative process?
Are you referring to the birth of concept only? or are you including
the physical process of creating art?
I have to include the physical process, because in my experience the
physical process often has a shaping and evolving effect on the
artwork as it is realized-
ALSO, because knowledge of a technique or technology that can be used
in the realization of an artwork- or adapted to the realization of an
artwork often acts as the seed of concept.
Once I realize what a tool can do, I immediately start to think of how
I can use that to express an idea in a new way. That bears on the
creative process.
> Fourthly, we can rescale in both 2D and 3D reproduction systems and the
> question was why it should be any MORE interesting, clearly the ability to
> rescale isn't it.
Not the ability, no, but the accuracy, yes, and, moreso-the method,
how the basic technology can be adapted to new and unforeseen uses.
> > It has precisely the same relevance as a 2D artist using a projector
> > to throw a small sketch onto a large wall to facilitate the
> > underpainting for a mural.
> > It has the same relevance as a 2D artist hiring a service bureau to
> > stretch a canvas larger than the artist has equipment to accomplish.
> > It has the same relevance as a 2D artist scanning a painting and
> > converting it into a digital format that can be transmitted to a
> > client electronically and facilitate the use of the design in
> > commercial applications.
>
> Exactly, none of which are relevant creatively. Read the question.
Read the answer- how I realize an artwork affects the artwork that is
realized. That is central to the creative process. The explosion of
perspective painting begun in the 15th century was made possible by
the tools that became available- Vermeer used a camara obscura to make
his paintings- the equivalent of a projector- and no one ever painted
exactly that kind of painting before because the tools weren't
available to achieve that effect.
If I don't have access to a paintbrush, then my painting style will
reflect that, and so, too, will the things I choose to paint.
You asked why being updated on the technology should be of interest
and what relevance it had to the creative process.
I didn't say it WAS the creative process- but "relevance" is another
matter.
The current state of the technology is as relevant to a computer
using sculptor as the advent of color printers was to flatwork artists
working on a computer. It gave them an ability to create art in a way
they didn't have before. And the nature of the art subsequently
created has CHANGED to reflect that ability.
> Projectors have been used since the renaissance. They can be used to
> generate
> sizing templates from a sculpture.
> 3D pantographs have existed for a long time, calipers etc.
Chic- a projector can not throw an image that fills 3Dspace and 2D
artists could previously draw a grid and within the grid a finer grid
and scale up a picture that way, too- but the camera obscura Vermeer
used allowed for a level of accuracy never achievable though grid
scaling. In the same way- projecting a profile of a scultpure entails
tremendous distortion (which is why no decent sculptor uses one to
point up)
The digital method is the first real tool for sculptors that compares
favorably with the pantograph and projector.
> {the computer} never was a method of mere reproduction.
The first graphics workstations were designed for reproducing artwork,
made traditionally, for publication., replacing pasteup and
photography. Only in the past 10 years have computers become a good
platform for generating artwork.
Scanners are an outgrowth of photocopiers and computers were crunching
numbers long before they were used to make art.
Artwork done on computers FOLLOWED the development of methods to
OUTPUT the artwork.
With the ability to output 3 D computer models, so too has the
computer now become a tool for sculpting-
Again-the method of realization of the artwork shapes what artwork we
can create.
That is relevant. (to me, if not to you- )
> I also said that there would be those who would be interested in the
> reproduction and rescaling developments, the guy is hypersensitive.
>
> Let him post, I don't need to read it but he was first with the ad hominems
> and my motto is 'If you prick me, do you not bleed?'
>
Are you calling me a bloody prick, Chic?
( ...not that I don't deserve it...)
christopher
charles.mcgregor
the original question I asked is futile. No amount of praising 2D and 3D,
or 4D come to that, computer art generation packages, which are a boon to
the artist and unquestionably of relevance to the creative process, can
disguise the situation.
The question was, "Why is 3D REPRODUCTION any MORE relevant to the CREATIVE
process than 2D reproduction?"
Note REPRODUCTION i.e. re-producing that which has already been created.
Also note
Not non relevant.
Not less relevant
The correct answer is, it isn't any more relevant than 2D reproduction to
the creative process.
Yes 2D artists may and do, occasionally, discuss advances in colour
reproduction or the latest digital cameras etc. What I a was hoping to have
answered was why the apparent greater interest in 3D?
Giving lots of examples of why 2D artists are interested in latest colour
printers etc. only emphasises the relevance of the question asked.
"Sculptingman" <scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
news:59d744d1.03020...@posting.google.com...
You used the term 'projector', I retained it to save you embarrasment, I am
well aware that a camera obscura, or episcope, probably using a curved
mirror was used. You are wrong about the distortion. For example its down
to the fact that two conversing people, for example, are not depicted
looking into each others eyes which gave the game away.
Also it seems to have been in general use.
> The digital method is the first real tool for sculptors that compares
> favorably with the pantograph and projector.
>
There are pantographs for sculpure.
Outlines taken from the episcope image, provided care is taken in keeping
the subject equidistant should be just as reliable as modern photgraphic
references (which still require the same care).
> > {the computer} never was a method of mere reproduction.
>
> The first graphics workstations were designed for reproducing artwork,
> made traditionally, for publication., replacing pasteup and
> photography. Only in the past 10 years have computers become a good
> platform for generating artwork.
> Scanners are an outgrowth of photocopiers and computers were crunching
> numbers long before they were used to make art.
> Artwork done on computers FOLLOWED the development of methods to
> OUTPUT the artwork.
Absolute rubbish. Unless you are talking about the monitor.
There has only been decent 'photo-quality' printing available to the general
public for about 8 years with the quantum leap in ceramic ink-jets. Before
that prohibitvely expensive wax sublimation and equivalent was required.
This was carried out by an agent on machines costing 10,000 of pounds.
Millions of examples of artwork were produced on Apple Macs, Ataris and the
like before there were any practical means of getting a quality
reproduction.
Likewise, there are millions of 3D rendered pieces of artwork out there that
have yet to see the light of day.
If you tried to make the point that reproduction limitations may sometime
have had a negative impact on the creative stage in the past, then that is
true. e.g. ASCII art, the first generally reproducible computer art, low
detail drawings to print better on earlier dot matrix printers. However
that did not stop art being produced to the highest capability of the
computer resolution and colour capabilities.
Likewise, I'm sure there are many limitations in the current 3D art
situation which, those wishing to create art for reproduction on those
systems must take account of.
Which returns us to the original question. 'Is it any MORE relevant, than
in the 2D case?'
Certainly output limitations are currently a greater concern than for the 2D
artist, but there was no such blow by blow discussion on printer advancement
in 2D art groups.
The piece I'm working on just now was entirely designed on computer using a
graphics tablet, and I have printed off references to the scale I want which
I am using to sculpt the piece.
I used to use paper and pencil until the computer resolution and printout
capability became acceptable to use them. I could have used the computer at
an earlier stage when I would have had to accept lower res etc. It is down
to the individual how much they are prepared to compromise their standards.
They don't NEED to compromise at all.
chic
Sculptingman
than you precisely asked.
(geez, but you're a stickler)
try this version on:
To a 3 dimensional artist, 3 dimensional reproduction is considerably
MORE relevant to the creative process than is 2D reproduction because
2 D reproduction has little or no application to 3 dimensional art.
For sculptors, 2D reproduction is largely inapplicable, whereas 3D
reproduction IS applicable, therefore MORE RELEVANT to their creative
process.
Why reproduction technologies are relevant to creative process I will
recap below.
And, the second part of your question implied the idea that this
technology might be less interesting or relevent because it is going
thru its "birth pangs".
In point of fact, newness and evolving changes are the genesis of
"interest" in all human beings. New things are by definition novel
and more interesting than familiar things.
ALL technologies are more interesting at their outset by virtue of
their newness. Only after they become everyday do we utilize them
without thinking of they impact they have on us.
The ability to reproduce 3D objects with the same accuracy that
photocopiers bring to 2d images is fundementally new.
The fact that graphic artists have had certain tools available to them
for 40 years that had no counterpart in sculptural arts has only
served to make the debut of these capabiites that much more
interesting.
In addition, history shows that as new technologies arrive and enable
artists to achieve results previously not possible, there arises the
opportunity to make significant changes in the direction and focus of
art in general, and the artists whose names and works endure are
usually the pioneers of a new movement.
This is a corollary of my earlier observation that it is when a
capability is new that people are most focused on how it chages their
world, and most likely to come up with new and interesting twists on
it as a result.
In the past, new art movements have begun in direct reaction to
emerging reproduction technologies.
The renaissance was the outgrowth of the geometrical formulation of
perspective illustration- which is entirely a method of more
accurately reproducing what the eye perceives.
The subsequent history of art was driven by the development and
refinement of ever better perspective tools culminating with the
camera obscura. All reproduction tools.
Impressionism was the reaction of the art world to the perfect
reproduction afforded by the emerging technology of photography, a 2D
reproduction tool, which, itself, developed into a distinct and new
artform. ( for relevance it need only have an effect on creativity- it
need not be USED)
Cinema- an art form resulting entirely from a technical refinement of
photography and sound reproduction technologies.
Acid etch lithography from photographic plates essentially eliminated
the art form of engravure illustration as a career. Certainly relevant
to an engraver's creative process.
Multicolor process printing "democratized' flat art, and changed the
nature of flat art design. For example- Mucha's "look" was driven by
the limitations of available lithography. He HAD to take reproduction
capabilties into consideration in creating his work.
The decline of art nouveau, the rise of art deco and art of the
machine age was driven by the spiralling cost of creative labor as
opposed to the much less expensive machine reproduction technologies
becoming available during this time. This reproduction cost pressure
drove the entire culture of creative design from fabrics to
architecture.
Even in current music, "scratching" and "sampling" are examples of how
reproduction tools have been used in creative ways not foreseen. Not
to mention being able to sing duets with the dead, harmony with
oneself, etc.
It is clear that the most exciting (read 'interesting') times are
when new art technologies come online and the first generation of
artists to get at these tools starts incorporating them into the
process of creating art. New reproduction technologies engender new
movements and categories of creative expression.
For all of these reasons, laser accurate 3D reproduction is not only
MORE relevant to current sculptural creative process than 2d
reproduction, but even more relevant because it is new.
At least for me, it is.
Last- I will point out to you that you ASKED why it should be more
relevant.
To me, it is more relevant.
I see it definitely effecting the manner in which I create sculpture,
what art I choose to create, and how that art looks. 2D reproduction
has never factored into my sculptural creative process in the same
way, nor to the same extent.
This is not to say that you find it relevant to your creative process,
Chic, and I would not suggest to you that it is if you do not find it
so.
I only responded because I have used this technology , I get the
impression that you have not, and I thought you were genuinely
interested in the perspective of someone who has actual experience
with the equipment, not as a service bureau owner- but as a sculptor
who has done with and without the laser.
Relevance is a personal experience in this regard because the creative
process is personal.
Please allow me to find relevance in my own experience.
christopher
charles.mcgregor
> than you precisely asked.
> (geez, but you're a stickler)
> try this version on:
>
> To a 3 dimensional artist, 3 dimensional reproduction is considerably
> MORE relevant to the creative process than is 2D reproduction because
> 2 D reproduction has little or no application to 3 dimensional art.
> For sculptors, 2D reproduction is largely inapplicable, whereas 3D
> reproduction IS applicable, therefore MORE RELEVANT to their creative
> process.
> Why reproduction technologies are relevant to creative process I will
> recap below.
>
Well let me stickle a bit more. I did not specify 'To a 3 dimenional
artist'.
Clearly in the light of that not being stipulated, the most sensible
assumption is that the 3D artist's 3D reproduction processes are to be
related to his creative processes. and the 2D artists's reproductive
processes to the 2D creative process.
Your attempt to imply otherwise is I suspect, just a rather poor attempt to
save face.
Also I did not specify digital reproduction in either case. The question
is relevant to all methods of reproduction. In sculpting that also applies
to moldmaking, calipers, pantographs, projecting, templates and grid
scaling. It is a general question.
An answer which I gave in my last post also is that consideration of
reproduction methodology can only compromise creativity as the artist
adjusts his design to accomodate the limitations of the reproduction method.
In that way techonological advance in reproduction can influence the
creative process. However, the degree of compromise is up to the artist.
For example, he/she may choose to adjust his/her design to allow the
creation of a one part mold whereas the original pose may have required
three parts. BUT it is up to the individual artist, who will have his/her
own standards and who will take into account market needs etc. It is usually
the case, that apart from exceptional circumstance, no real compromise need
be made.
I had hoped as I said that this line of reasoning would have been followed.
Yes reproduction limitations can compromise creativity but only if the
artist lets it.
This certainly does happen, frequently due to commercial pressures, and is
almost always a negative impact.
Anyway the question never did imply that there was no influence but related
to comparison with 2D techniques. e.g. scanning a 2D picture into a
computer, rescaling if required, and then reproducing it as opposed to
exactly the same for 3D. Useful Hi res Scanners and photo-quality printers
have not been around very long. Certainly my interest in computer generated
art, 2D and 3D goes back well before their availability. I have CD's with
thousands of computer generated 2D and 3D (both static renderings and
flybys) from a period years before even photo-quality printout capability
existed. Yet I do not recall the suggestion among art circles, that
photo-quality printing marked any kind of advance in the 2D creative
process. Yes there was of course interest in progress but along the lines
of 'when ARE we going to get decent print outs?'. It was an expectation, an
impatience even waiting for output to catch up to the existing creative
packages capability.
There have been significant advances in those various art creation packages,
both 2D and 3D, which at least make creation easier, cut and paste
obviously, and textures and 'effects' that the artist can experiment with
which have undoubtedly brought creations into existence which would not
otherwise have existed.
> And, the second part of your question implied the idea that this
> technology might be less interesting or relevent because it is going
> thru its "birth pangs".
>
> In point of fact, newness and evolving changes are the genesis of
> "interest" in all human beings. New things are by definition novel
> and more interesting than familiar things.
> ALL technologies are more interesting at their outset by virtue of
> their newness. Only after they become everyday do we utilize them
> without thinking of they impact they have on us.
> The ability to reproduce 3D objects with the same accuracy that
> photocopiers bring to 2d images is fundementally new.
I'm sorry, it just isn't. A well made mould will beat a 2D photocopy or
computer print out hands down, and mould making is millenia old.
Art experts have a devil of a job telling a well done recast from an
original, but a photocopy or scanned and printed 2D image, even the latest
gliclee, would not fool them for an instant.
What is new about digital reproduction is the potential of it to be faster
and cheaper firstly for rescaling which is laborious at present and then
possibly for 1:1 reproduction. The second is even less likely to replace
moulds for mass production than printers are to replace printing presses for
mass publishing.
> The fact that graphic artists have had certain tools available to them
> for 40 years that had no counterpart in sculptural arts has only
> served to make the debut of these capabiites that much more
> interesting.
>
Of course any new technology is 'interesting', to some, more than others.
However the question is 'is it any more relevant to the creative process?'.
Sorry to keep repeating it, but you seem to keep forgetting it and answering
something else.
> In addition, history shows that as new technologies arrive and enable
> artists to achieve results previously not possible, there arises the
> opportunity to make significant changes in the direction and focus of
> art in general, and the artists whose names and works endure are
> usually the pioneers of a new movement.
> This is a corollary of my earlier observation that it is when a
> capability is new that people are most focused on how it chages their
> world, and most likely to come up with new and interesting twists on
> it as a result.
>
Of course, many technological advances, have increased the scope of the
creative artist. I mention the advances in computer art generation above.
However I repeat, again, the question was specifically in respect to
Reproduction.
> In the past, new art movements have begun in direct reaction to
> emerging reproduction technologies.
> The renaissance was the outgrowth of the geometrical formulation of
> perspective illustration- which is entirely a method of more
> accurately reproducing what the eye perceives.
>
Yes, that was the traditional view. However, the recent discovery of
evidence of lens or mirror usage is changing that perspective (pun
intended). Also, was never happy with the theory that early medieval and
dark age artists weren't just simply crap. My personal theory is that we
simply entered a period in history where survival became tough and the value
of art diminished accordingly. The standard of both 2D and 3D dropped
drastically from the classical period.
> The subsequent history of art was driven by the development and
> refinement of ever better perspective tools culminating with the
> camera obscura. All reproduction tools.
>
And did the classical artists have a camera obscura?
> Impressionism was the reaction of the art world to the perfect
> reproduction afforded by the emerging technology of photography, a 2D
And yet once more, you seem to be addressing the issue of absolute effect on
creativity as opposed to the relative effect. I have never said that there
has been no effect, in fact I gave valid examples of the effect of
reproduction limitations on the artist's compromise choices before you did.
I agree about the effect of the camera. However it is my understanding that
this was largely driven, at least initially, by non artists. Artists used
to go out to a location, but instead of doing the whole painting there,
which wasn't always practical, they made a colour sketch, an impression,
which they took back to the studio and finished the work in comfort. When
the camera came about, those impressions seemed more attractive to the
customer than the final painting since many believed then that an artist was
only trying to produce as 'real' an image as possible . Artists quickly
caught on to the remunerative value of this. It may be they would simply
have switched from doing an impression to using the camera themselves and
taking that back to the studio to paint. Heavy irony involved here.
Where your example fails is that the camera is only a reproduction system in
the sense of art reproduction when it is used to re-produce art. i.e. it
makes a copy of some artistic creation which has been produced. Yes it can
be used to reproduce a painting and then it is a reproduction tool in the
meaning above, however the effect you bring up was not due to it's potential
function as a reproducer of an artist's art but in it's function as a rival
producer of the same subject the artist was 'trying' to produce.
Yes it was a technological change that influenced art, yes it is a
reproduction tool but the influence was not because of the way it reproduced
art but as a rival primary image producer. And even then it was heavily,
third part, market driven influence.
If the camera were only used to reproduce the artist's paintings for a
catelogue, then would that have had the same effect? I don't think so.
Reproduction techniques, as I've said several times, do influence the
creative process, but in a limitation compromise fashion.
> reproduction tool, which, itself, developed into a distinct and new
> artform. ( for relevance it need only have an effect on creativity- it
> need not be USED)
I seem to remember you querying whether the camera did produce art, in
another thread.
>
> Cinema- an art form resulting entirely from a technical refinement of
> photography and sound reproduction technologies.
>
Sorry, again you are mixing advances in production techniques with
reproduction.
Yes the director has to take into account the limitations of the cinematic
reproduction system, whether it is budget, available cast, special effects
limitations etc.etc. but these are by way of negative limitations to the
image he has already created in his mind. The effects on the final product
are compromise driven. Which has been mentioned many times now, and by me
first.
> Acid etch lithography from photographic plates essentially eliminated
> the art form of engravure illustration as a career. Certainly relevant
> to an engraver's creative process.
>
'Barrel scraping the', rearrange for surprise message.
> Multicolor process printing "democratized' flat art, and changed the
> nature of flat art design. For example- Mucha's "look" was driven by
> the limitations of available lithography. He HAD to take reproduction
> capabilties into consideration in creating his work.
Ah! Now this is a much better example. First the bad news. Art nouveau
graphic art, was actually influenced mostly by Japanese art, known as
Ukiyo-e. The limited palattes and flat colours were not a choice forced
upon the artist by turn of the century artists. Much more complex printing
technology had been available for over a hundred years in the West, from the
time of Goya and Blake at least. Cheaper reproduction costs would have
factored somewhat in choice, especially in really cheap mass produced items
like Lautrec's posters.
Now the good news. Ukiyo-e, was in fact reproduction method influenced
because of the block printing methods used in Japan. So it is an example of
reproduction technology limiting creativity, but for once, in possibly a
positive fashion.
But I point out once more, (I'll have to make a recording of this), I have
never said that reproduction has no influence, it is relative influence, so
continually pointing out 2D examples if anything makes the original question
more valid. i.e. 'Why is 3D reproduction any more relevant to the creative
process?' and I have not said that the influence is always negative, either,
I've said 'almost always negative'.
>
> The decline of art nouveau, the rise of art deco and art of the
> machine age was driven by the spiralling cost of creative labor as
> opposed to the much less expensive machine reproduction technologies
> becoming available during this time. This reproduction cost pressure
> drove the entire culture of creative design from fabrics to
> architecture.
>
Now your contradicting yourself. Mucha was driven to compromise for cheap
reproduction but failure to compromise to cheap reproduction was his
downfall????
Are you not confusing the arts and crafts movement with a. n.? I know this
is frequently done, completely wrongly IMV, from a stylistic view point, but
it was the A&C who were dead against mass production. a.n. artists embraced
it.
I think the real influence of change was something quite different which I
will not go into at present.
> Even in current music, "scratching" and "sampling" are examples of how
> reproduction tools have been used in creative ways not foreseen. Not
> to mention being able to sing duets with the dead, harmony with
> oneself, etc.
>
Again you are using an object whose main function is usually a reproduction
tool, but which is at least, as far as the 'scratching' goes, a production
tool.
I've seen mobiles made out of CDs, CDs are a reproduction tool, does that
count as well?
>
> It is clear that the most exciting (read 'interesting') times are
> when new art technologies come online and the first generation of
> artists to get at these tools starts incorporating them into the
> process of creating art.
Correct
>New reproduction technologies engender new
> movements and categories of creative expression.
>
New limitations reduction(hopefully) which may reduce the creative
compromise of those who chose to work within older reproduction constraints.
I really think you are not separating the creative process and all the tools
that that entails, from the reproduction process. Blake and Goya et al.
went out to improve the printing process because it could not reproduce what
they had created. not vice versa. For reproduction, sculpting has never
been as limited as 2D art. Moulds have been making near perfect copies for
millenia that is just a plain fact.
> For all of these reasons, laser accurate 3D reproduction is not only
> MORE relevant to current sculptural creative process than 2d
> reproduction, but even more relevant because it is new.
> At least for me, it is.
Again, I have my doubts you even think that is what I said.
>
> Last- I will point out to you that you ASKED why it should be more
> relevant.
> To me, it is more relevant.
> I see it definitely effecting the manner in which I create sculpture,
> what art I choose to create, and how that art looks. 2D reproduction
> has never factored into my sculptural creative process in the same
> way, nor to the same extent.
You persist with the 2D /3D obfuscation.
What you should do, is tell us why 3d reproduction (just digital if you
must) has more relevance to the 3D creative process than 2D reproduction has
on the 2D creative process. It isn't hard to understand the question. I'll
break it down into two.
How are your design choices during the creative process influenced by
reproduction technology in other than a limiting(not necessarily always
negative) way? AND Why is that relevance MORE for 3D than it is for 2D?
(You've only given 2D examples so far).
>
> This is not to say that you find it relevant to your creative process,
> Chic, and I would not suggest to you that it is if you do not find it
> so.
It isn't reproduction relevant to my creative process. I use a printout
from different angles, which may be from a 3D package, as a reference to use
while sculpting the piece. i.e. it is part of the production of what is
being created, first in my head and then on screen (used to be paper). The
drawing is created. I will change the drawing and iterate until happy.
I could and have modelled directly in clay. It takes longer because clay is
harder to move around on the feedback loop, pre sketches on paper or
computer save a lot of time, but they are not a necessity, and the final
arbitrar is the clay itself, you will always change things from screen/paper
to clay, regardless of how happy you were with the drawing..
If you used a 3D hard copy system to create a maquette, then you look at it
and decide something needs changing, then you go change it and repeat the
excercise, it doesn't matter how many loops you go through, that is not
reproduction. Because you are using these hard copies as part of the
creative process. It is the (very expensive)equivalent of having your real
life clay there to sense and assess it's form.
Again it is a reproductive tool, but being used in a creative mode. If it
were simply reproducing, all the maquettes would be the same, right?
> I only responded because I have used this technology , I get the
> impression that you have not, and I thought you were genuinely
> interested in the perspective of someone who has actual experience
> with the equipment, not as a service bureau owner- but as a sculptor
> who has done with and without the laser.
>
I am, but you have failed to indicate how you incorporate the 3D
reproduction tool into the creative process. I can't imagine that it is as
I just depicted above.
Consequently you have also failed to indicate why it is more relevant than
reproduction influences on 2D of which you give some examples.
Let me suggest one. One thing I find is that texture mapping on 3D packages
would be prohibitively time consuming to sculpt to a close likeness by hand.
So one resorts to physically emulating the same 'type' of texture rather
than exactly as shown. A 3D reproduction system could potentially render
this into hard copy as easily as not. So that would be one example where it
might be termed an enabling influence at the creation point, although I
confess that if I did have the time to make an exact handcopy, I'm not sure
that I would, (I am sure, for instance, that I would not nick other folk's
textures off their figures using a RTV stamp).
> Relevance is a personal experience in this regard because the creative
> process is personal.
> Please allow me to find relevance in my own experience.
I'm not disallowing anything, merely asking for illumination. Anything which
enhances the creative process is of enormous interest to me. If however you
feel unable to express how this influence manifests itself, then we'll leave
it at that.
chic
Sculptingman
> Well let me stickle a bit more. I did not specify 'To a 3 dimenional
> artist'.
> Clearly in the light of that not being stipulated, the most sensible
> assumption is that the 3D artist's 3D reproduction processes are to be
> related to his creative processes. and the 2D artists's reproductive
> processes to the 2D creative process.
> Your attempt to imply otherwise is I suspect, just a rather poor attempt to
> save face.
Chic- you are failing to discuss. You are reactive and non-
responsive.
When I invoke the alternate uses of the technology, you claim that
that does not pertain because you were referring to a reproduction
technology.
When I answer the issue of reproduction technology you claim that
reproduction is not the issue, then go on to cite an alternate usage
use (texture mapping), which is reproductive, which you disallowed me
in the previous reply.
When I point out how an artist must use an understanding of both the
limitations and capabilities of new technology to shape their
creations, you claim that this is not "relevant" to the "creative
process", and then go on in the same post to explain the same thing as
being possibly relevant.
You claim you did not specify "to a 3D artist" in your original
question, but that it was "assumed" yet when I previously answered
the implied assumptions in your post you said I couldn't include any
response to any implied meaning other than to the precise semantics
stated.
YOU ASKED WHY IT SHOULD BE MORE RELEVANT, and I supplied an area in
which it was more relevant- and so you deny that that area is allowed
by the question- however- I am not responsible for the lack of
specificity in your question.
Apparantly, nothing that anyone else might find relevant to creative
process qualifies under your definition- a definition you fail to
explain and fail to support thru analagous example.
Take a course in debate- your logic is not internally consistent, you
switch parameters to evade concession. You make up new rules as you go
along. You then violate the very rules that you generated to avoid
concession in order to further avoid concession.
Now, I like a good argument now and again, perhaps too much. But at
least I play fair.
In the future, when you post a question, perhaps you should append a
list of parameters, definitions and an outline of the characteristics
a response must have in order to qualify. Maybe then you would not
have to suffer so "the tedium of semantics" to which you claim to
object.
Chic, the semantic tedium is being created by you.
Christopher
charles.mcgregor
> Now, I like a good argument now and again,
So, you are a masochist.
> perhaps too much. But at
> least I play fair.
>
'Fair'? I never saw anybody since billboard days snip and distort like you.
Your answer when faced with incontravertible reason, is simply to snip it
away.
O.K.
No skin off my nose.
chic