3D printing with glass powder

[Eric Baker]

I love this website/forum.

I would have never stumbled onto that link without that help: Thanks, Don!

[Cynthia O]

...It really doesn't appeal to me to see something made more by a computer programmer rather than an artist / craftsman. It really takes the artist / "handmadeness" (yes I am creating my own word) right out of the equation. I am sure you could create a machine (if they haven't already) that could create a painting that would rival any humans abilities. Would that be "art" or even craft?

Thoughts? this is the philosophy page what are others thoughts?

My thoughts...

Art isn't the making of the material object it's the concept and communication manifested by the object. In other words...The art part isn't how it's made, but what is made.

A tea pot is a tea pot is a tea pot, but if the tea pot you've created now starts to speak about the traditions of a tea ceremony, or is presented as a process of thinking about materials. What if the teapot is made of paper—is non functional and the base has holes in it and there is no way to fill it with water or abiltiy to add a tea fob? How about a tea pot without a spout? What do you think about when you see a tea pot lined with fur? That's the art. What does this object communicate? What do you think about what is being communicated? The craft part is the execution.

What if I want to make a teapot that challenges the senses and perceptions of the object and what it represents by making it out of crocheted hemp fiber. If it's crocheted tightly enough, it will hold liquid for a period of time. It might even steep a tea out of that hemp and I could even pour it into a hemp crocheted cup. What does a hemp teapot mean? It lives on the edge of being functional...and the teapot itself becomes the thing being steeped. So...am I talking about tea, teapots, materials, traditions? Am I thinking about breaking concepts down in unexpected ways to explore applications, traditions, functions? Maybe I'm making a statement about culture and social norms. This is the art part.

If I can't crochet a tea pot because I don't know how to crochet, but I can program my knitting machine to knit a tea pot for me (So now it's knitted, which informs the concept some by altering the input of the more formal and higher brow process of knitting for the more low brow process of crochet), I still end up with a teapot that is exploring culture and social norms...but I had a machine do the knitting, did it cease to be art?

I would argue that it didn't. But I'd also argue that it adds another layer to the conversation about the role of mechanics/automation and always changing technology at our fingertips, which changes how we make things.

Here's an interesting article about artists who don't make their own art (employing others to execute their concepts which is similar to employing machines or programs). I guess this series of questions attached to an illustration is about how you define what is art and who are artists.

http://www.flavorwire.com/251160/artist ... r-own-work

[Ralph]

Interesting issues in this thread. I've been mulling over similar ones since trying 3D printing.

Continuing the earlier discussion: Pretty much anything can be art, but of course there's art, and better art. Artists give us new ways of looking at the world, or ourselves. Some of these insights are minor, some are revolutionary.

Can reproductions be art? Possibly...it comes down to values. And 'reproduction' is a loose term. Is a print of Ansel Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico less valuable because he made over 1000 prints from the negative? Hardly - in 2006 a single print sold for $600,000.

Could he have printed 10 times the number? Who knows. But in this case the print is not simply a button push. It's a hands-on personal interpretation of the negative, encompassing Adams' original vision in taking the shot, along with sensitive use of all his master-printing skills - exposure, dodging, burning, developing etc. His photo enlarger was simply a tool through which his artistry flowed. Does repeating this more than 1000 times (over many years), make the results less worthy? You can argue.

Are there parallels in 3D printing? It's flavor of the moment, in widespread use for rapid prototyping and on-demand fabrication. There's quite a few different 3D print processes. All tend to be costly in materials and time, the best results require machines costing thousands. However the process can produce physical objects not possible any other way. 3D printing is clearly not suited to mass production at this time, but artists are picking up on it for the unique possibilities.

I became interested through wanting to make precise relief at jewelry scale. Screen printing didn't give the qualities I sought. I tried abrasive blasting, but multiple colors made the process long and fiddly. I wanted to use standard art glass wherever possible and none of the hobby-level 3D printers appeared adaptable. There were no speculative $thousands available so I built a basic set-up. It works when I close an eye and stand on one leg - most of the time!

To date, relief surfaces (2.5D?) are coming out reasonably well. The process is flexible and readily allows variety in form and color with minimal tooling and clean-up. I have no interest in large-scale production.

Some images in Photos and Stuff.

[peter cummings]

Question is, when did the new title of designer take over from the artist, as the person who designed the factory produced products?
Is the line in the sand drawn in competitions or training?
This comment on a blog re the ranamok glass prize in australia.

absolutely breathtaking. She won a couple of year’s ago but deserved to pick it up again we reckon.

We were prepared to be impressed with the loop weave dilibags – as in, wow, that sheila’s come a long way, in veritable leaps and bounds – until the artist fessed up that she hadn’t actually made them, only ‘designed’ them. After all, she explained, it would take 20 years to become as good a blower as Tom. Er, quite – our very point. [And actually she ought to be able to knock them over, one would think, with an undergraduate course at the ANU. Sign up, that's our advice, if you truly think that it's your métier. n(Ed)]

No disrespect, but we were kinda shocked. This is a competition, after all. Predicated on skill and innovative technique (…supposedly).

http://glasscentralcanberra.wordpress.com/


I think the Hockney way is right. Artists should be more up front about their competetive difference. If I hand carve from my art design, that difference should be made clear from other work that is painted on or tendered out. If I design and use a machine I'll note it.
Chihuley is clear the work is a team effort, even Koons makes it clear he doesnt hand craft anything. The jury is out on giclee prints from gallery paintings. It's the marketing con job I can't stand.

Peter. (who's been busy learning art theory and how to paint, not bad too.)

[Brock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptUj8JRAYu8

[bob proulx]

Thanks Brock, good video.

[peter cummings]

Thanks Brock.
Impressive filming too.
We've got plenty of sand outback, pity we used to be well up on technology.
Peter.

[Haydo]

That is an impressive video. It would have been art if he kept with the location and had semi clad Amazons dragging his workshop to exactly where the sun was best, maybe a whip in hand to leave welts that told another story. My eldest who is still bailed out from the wheel in Nicaragua and thereabouts had talked about doing something simalar for a street art friend of his to control the paint on larger walls for outlining to speed up the process of bringing art/story to the masses. peace, haydo

PS- the Amazons are there because there are planes now.

[Janet McFadyen]

An original can reproduce 6 times and each one can be called an original... after that it is a series or reproduction. ala Jeff Koons