3-D printers vs. art

[Gary Brown]

Here's a New York Times article about 3-D printers and, among other things, whether the ability to “print” sculptures is good or bad: 3-D Art for All: Ready to Print.

(On the one hand, “For artists, it’s kind of like, imagine, you create something that’s a 3-D model, there’s 4,500 different locations in the world where it can seep out of the Internet into the real world and blow people’s minds.” On the other hand, “the ease of replication does present some questions for art professionals.”)

[bill t.]

How do profile those things?

Just one more steps towards the democratization of Art.  It will probably be another few decades before Michelangelo is worried, a bright orange lump-like octopus is not much competition.

Does it come down to this...there's art where the virtuoso manual skills of the artist are part of the statement, and there's art where the image or object itself is pretty much the whole thing.  Or more basically, if the hand of the artist are not directly involved in the surface of the piece, is it still art?  Or can a process like this still reflect some tactile mojo attributable to the maker's hand?  The mind flummoxes.

Maybe if I can figure how to make the virtuosity of a machine or process a significant part of the work I could make some real money, or has that been done yet?  And does that apply to my iPF8300?  It's at least as virtuoso as I am.  With the right spin this stuff could be part of a good back-story for gallery openings.

[Rob C]

Poor old David looks quite ill.

Rob C

[RSL]

When did David get that fig leaf?

[bill t.]

When did David get that fig leaf?

Maybe with the advent of cheap, widely distributed printed media.  I told you that stuff is no good!  Or maybe when it started showing up in the US.

[bill t.]

Somebody who saw my earlier post sent me a page out of manual I wrote in 1978.  5 x 7 dot matrix blurs stained onto the paper through a typewriter ribbon.  Really, really, ugly.  Anybody remember ASCII Art?  I would never have imagined anything like a 12 color, better-than-photo-quality printer appearing in my lifetime.  Not even science fiction was predicting that.

So OK, now the orange, warty octopus model looks pregnant with possibility if not art, a crude dot-matrix promise of wonderful things to come.  High quality photo imagery realized as physical 3D objects has got to be pretty cool and it doubtless will come in some form we can't yet imagine.  Definitely one of the Next Big Things, sooner or later.  Progress...don't leave home without it.

If I were a kid again, I'd be keeping my eye out on this stuff.

OH WAIT!  Science fiction DID envision this!  And wasn't Anne pretty in 1956?

[Peter McLennan]

  I would never have imagined anything like a 12 color, better-than-photo-quality printer appearing in my lifetime.  Not even science fiction was predicting that.

Exactly, Bill.  Short term technology predictions are usually too optimistic, long term predictions too pessimistic.

Remember spending hours in a smelly, noisy darkroom to produce one decent black and white print?  I don't miss those days at all.

Stephen Colbert had one of those 3D printers on his show the other night.  A "Maker Bot", I think it was called.  While slow and small in scale, the output was quite impressive.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/229927/makerbot_3d_prints_stephen_colberts_head_stephen_has_wings_and_tentacleswho_knew.html

[RSL]

The one that cracked me up (wish I could find it) was the man of the future who was flying around in his flying car and had to make a phone call, so the author had him land next to a phone booth.

[bill t.]

My favorite is the space station Picturephone in 2001.  Approximately the size of a flying car, and an excellent early example of product placement, Stanley.



And I guess the polyester plaid photographer needs remembering too.  What kind of camera is that?  At least it's smaller than a mainframe.



Edit...OK I'm pretty sure the camera uses ultra high resolution, highly miniaturized color film at about ASA 400.  The photographer inserts the exposed film cassette into a desktop processor using advanced chemistry requiring only 3 or 4 separate solutions.  30 minutes later it emerges ready to be inserted into the nearest auto-threading film projector.  Copies can made on another desktop unit, equipped with RGB dials for advanced color correction.  But you're still SOL about controlling contrast.

[Justan]

Stereolithography has come a very long way. In a way an inkjet printer kind of does the same thing. Stereolithography builds an image by printing a layers of material, an inkjet does the same thing, but only uses one layer.

Anywho, what is the difference if the artistry goes into the design or building phase? If art has to be assembled by hand, then we inkjet printererers are outta the game, and so are architects.

To the topic of predicting the future, as recently as ST:TNG, they showed the Federation fellows using a Tricorder and a communicator. Each was bigger than an iphone!  How backward those rubes were in the past. Nothing like now!

[tq-g]

To print an actual David you still need the genius of Michelangelo. The machine can only process the data it recieves, so to make art you need input from an artist(and no scan data from an actual person could even come close to the work of a great sculptor).

[Chris_Brown]

My sentiments:

[mkuhns]

Ive made high precision jet engine parts using rapid prototyping for work so here is my 2 cents.

If you want to print a sculpture you need to be good enough in CAD to create the model.
Or you can 3D scan it and just mimic. But they do this already, someone will make a small copy, create a mold, and cast ten gazillion little davids to sell in tourist shops. 

Why wouldnt it be art if it was an expression of the artists idea?  Have you been to a modern art museum?  Some of the stuff they pass off is crazy, so I think this would be just as valid.