 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-7-2018 16:42, Shay wrote:
> Loud!, just for fun.
Nice one! I have a slight preference for the original curvy texture but
that's me.
>
> In 2007, I planned a lot of this out on pencil and paper while working my way
> across the Atlantic on a jack-up drilling rig--which was itself perched atop a
> massive submersible cargo ship.
I understand now where the /shape/ of the object comes from.
>
> Career wise, life is a little less interesting now, and ambitious hand-coded
> digital art is--as far as I can tell--dead. I rebuilt this model last year (with
> a slightly different set of compromises), but I never bothered to show it. There
> aren't many left in the world who can see it for what it is: 100,000s of
> triangles, 1000s of lines of code, 10s of deliberate mathematical choices, 10s
> of pages of notes, days of work, compromises, design, details, details, details.
> Now it's just a shape. Even back in 2007, some POV-er asked, "What's the
> equation?" as if the whole thing were the product of some Internet search.
I would say that that is the goal of any art. The fact that it is 'just
a shape' qualifies it as such. It would be totally destructive to be
aware of the mind boggling work involved. That is for the artist to know
and for the buyer to pay for :-) It has been a hot discussion point ever
since the days of Cobra (and others) in the last century.
>
> I have an arguably negative habit of developing skills no one understands or
> cares about. I wonder if my career would be more interesting if I'd made LESS
> interesting choices--any Haskell users here will understand.
>
> Of course, the last 10 years have opened up NEW artistic avenues. Deep in the
> Heart foundry in Texas offered to 3D print then bronze cast this sculpture for
> $20k. An art dealer in Dallas appraised the finished work at $60k, of which he
> would take half. That would leave me (theoretically) with $10k. Wouldn't mind
> having $10k, but that's a thin margin from which any unexpected costs would be
> removed. Maybe I should become an art DEALER.
>
Artist /and/ dealer. That would leave you with - at least - $40k as that
dealer above would have tried to sell it for $100k. ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Loud!, just for fun.
>
> In 2007, I planned a lot of this out on pencil and paper while working my way
> across the Atlantic on a jack-up drilling rig--which was itself perched atop a
> massive submersible cargo ship.
>
> Career wise, life is a little less interesting now, and ambitious hand-coded
> digital art is--as far as I can tell--dead. I rebuilt this model last year (with
> a slightly different set of compromises), but I never bothered to show it. There
> aren't many left in the world who can see it for what it is: 100,000s of
> triangles, 1000s of lines of code, 10s of deliberate mathematical choices, 10s
> of pages of notes, days of work, compromises, design, details, details, details.
> [snip]
>
> I have an arguably negative habit of developing skills no one understands or
> cares about. I wonder if my career would be more interesting if I'd made LESS
> interesting choices...
>
That last sentence is something I think about a great deal as well. Then I think
of all the wonderful adventures I've had because of my own acreer choices in
far-flung places (while others of my friends have never even left the towns they
were born in!)
I think that hand-crafting *anything* shows a desire for improving one's
abilities-- and takes skill and dedication. Which, sadly, many people just don't
seem to have. It also has added benefits, of improving the mind in general--
because having to THINK is good mental exercise, no matter what the subject. As
I look around me, at people my own age (and especially younger), what I see is
essentially a world of button-pushers-- people who are relatively good at their
particular jobs (and those job skills) but who really don't know HOW things
work, HOW to make things, or WHAT to do to solve problems that are outside of
their own little spheres of life. The on-rush of technology can be blamed for
part of that (especially smartphones and their apps)-- but what I see is an
increasing laziness to actually THINK.
Consider yourself to be part of the 'enlightened' few!
It's probably true that *anything* in the modern world can now be made -- and
made faster-- by robots, or 3-D printing-- or even more efficient CGI programs
;-) But there is pride in creating something by hand (whatever that something
is), just for its own sake; and of having to solve problems along the way. (I
think problem-solving is one of the most enjoyable aspects of making things--
even if I fail!)
Just because robots can now paint lifelike paintings doesn't mean that we should
throw away our paintbrushes and declare that art is 'dead' ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/07/2018 09:51, Kenneth wrote:
> "Shay" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Loud!, just for fun.
>>
>> In 2007, I planned a lot of this out on pencil and paper while working my way
>> across the Atlantic on a jack-up drilling rig--which was itself perched atop a
>> massive submersible cargo ship.
>>
>> Career wise, life is a little less interesting now, and ambitious hand-coded
>> digital art is--as far as I can tell--dead. I rebuilt this model last year (with
>> a slightly different set of compromises), but I never bothered to show it. There
>> aren't many left in the world who can see it for what it is: 100,000s of
>> triangles, 1000s of lines of code, 10s of deliberate mathematical choices, 10s
>> of pages of notes, days of work, compromises, design, details, details, details.
>> [snip]
>>
>> I have an arguably negative habit of developing skills no one understands or
>> cares about. I wonder if my career would be more interesting if I'd made LESS
>> interesting choices...
>>
>
Firstly, Shay's image is gorgeous. It would make a fascinating cyclic
animation.
> That last sentence is something I think about a great deal as well. Then I think
> of all the wonderful adventures I've had because of my own acreer choices in
> far-flung places (while others of my friends have never even left the towns they
> were born in!)
>
I can't say how pleased I am to read that.
Only today while emailing a friend. I counted up the number of jobs I've
had. After mentioning the phrase. "Jack of all trades and master of none."
Starting as a "milk delivery boy" when I was at school. I have had 52
jobs in 29 industries in 13 countries. Most of them involving problem
solving. It gives one an outlook different from most people I know.
> I think that hand-crafting *anything* shows a desire for improving one's
> abilities-- and takes skill and dedication. Which, sadly, many people just don't
> seem to have. It also has added benefits, of improving the mind in general--
> because having to THINK is good mental exercise, no matter what the subject. As
> I look around me, at people my own age (and especially younger), what I see is
> essentially a world of button-pushers-- people who are relatively good at their
> particular jobs (and those job skills) but who really don't know HOW things
> work, HOW to make things, or WHAT to do to solve problems that are outside of
> their own little spheres of life. The on-rush of technology can be blamed for
> part of that (especially smartphones and their apps)-- but what I see is an
> increasing laziness to actually THINK.
What you say is true. IMO.
Young people here in the UK can't even add up in their heads, any more.
>
> Consider yourself to be part of the 'enlightened' few!
>
> It's probably true that *anything* in the modern world can now be made -- and
> made faster-- by robots, or 3-D printing-- or even more efficient CGI programs
> ;-) But there is pride in creating something by hand (whatever that something
> is), just for its own sake; and of having to solve problems along the way. (I
> think problem-solving is one of the most enjoyable aspects of making things--
> even if I fail!)
>
Again here, there is a resurgence in the old traditional trades. Such as
thatching, wood and metal working. A very small resurgence but at least
some people are keeping the skills alive
> Just because robots can now paint lifelike paintings doesn't mean that we should
> throw away our paintbrushes and declare that art is 'dead' ;-)
>
>
Hear, hear.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> "Shay" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Just because robots can now paint lifelike paintings doesn't mean that we
> should throw away our paintbrushes and declare that art is 'dead' ;-)
No, don't throw away your paintbrushes, but it's reasonable to recognize that
some forms of art have lost their ability to communicate--the image remains, but
the ethos is indeed dead.
That being said, there is no shortage of pleasure to be had in hard work for its
own sake.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I would say that that is the goal of any art. The fact that it is 'just
> a shape' qualifies it as such. It would be totally destructive to be
> aware of the mind boggling work involved. That is for the artist to know
> and for the buyer to pay for :-) It has been a hot discussion point ever
> since the days of Cobra (and others) in the last century.
A hot discussion indeed, and I have been on both sides of it over the years. But
I've settled, I believe, on art as a perishable language. A letter or number is
"just a shape." It is the relationship to other shapes (the rules and
limitations) which make those shapes interesting.
Gilbert Stuart painted plenty of people who weren't US Presidents. Were those
portraits less artistic than the Landsdown portrait of George Washington?
"Le Grand K" (another shape) is interesting in a few ways, but mostly because it
weighs exactly one kilogram. This year, the arbitrary definition of kilogram
will change, and "Le Grand K" will go from essential scientific reference to
historical curiosity. One day, the history will be all-but forgotten, and "Le
Grand K" will be little more than a footnote.
Context matters.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I would say that that is the goal of any art. The fact that it is 'just
> a shape' qualifies it as such. It would be totally destructive to be
> aware of the mind boggling work involved. That is for the artist to know
> and for the buyer to pay for :-) It has been a hot discussion point ever
> since the days of Cobra (and others) in the last century.
A hot discussion indeed, and I have been on both sides of it over the years. But
I've settled, I believe, on art as a perishable language. A letter or number is
"just a shape." It is the relationship to other shapes (the rules and
limitations) which make those shapes interesting.
Gilbert Stuart painted plenty of people who weren't US Presidents. Were those
portraits less artistic than the Lansdown portrait of George Washington?
"Le Grand K" (another shape) is interesting in a few ways, but mostly because it
weighs exactly one kilogram. This year, the arbitrary definition of kilogram
will change, and "Le Grand K" will go from essential scientific reference to
historical curiosity. One day, the history will be all-but forgotten, and "Le
Grand K" will be little more than a footnote.
Context matters.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 10-7-2018 16:42, Shay wrote:
> > Loud!, just for fun.
>
> Nice one! I have a slight preference for the original curvy texture but
> that's me.
> ...
For those of you that have not seen Shays' very fascinating original image of
this shape, you can find it in this thread:
From: Shay
Subject: POV-Ray for geeks only?
Date: February 25th 2007 16:04:48
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C45e1b3a0%40news.povray.org%3E/
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] TOBEREMOVEDgmailcom> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > On 10-7-2018 16:42, Shay wrote:
> > > Loud!, just for fun.
> >
> > Nice one! I have a slight preference for the original curvy texture but
> > that's me.
> > ...
>
> For those of you that have not seen Shays' very fascinating original image of
> this shape, you can find it in this thread:
>
> From: Shay
> Subject: POV-Ray for geeks only?
> Date: February 25th 2007 16:04:48
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C45e1b3a0%40news.povray.org%3E/
>
> --
> Tor Olav
> http://subcube.com
RIP, Steve Paget.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/07/2018 18:14, Shay wrote:
> "Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] TOBEREMOVEDgmailcom> wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>> On 10-7-2018 16:42, Shay wrote:
>>>> Loud!, just for fun.
>>>
>>> Nice one! I have a slight preference for the original curvy texture but
>>> that's me.
>>> ...
>>
>> For those of you that have not seen Shays' very fascinating original image of
>> this shape, you can find it in this thread:
>>
>> From: Shay
>> Subject: POV-Ray for geeks only?
>> Date: February 25th 2007 16:04:48
>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C45e1b3a0%40news.povray.org%3E/
>>
>> --
>> Tor Olav
>> http://subcube.com
>
> RIP, Steve Paget.
>
Yes, indeed.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-7-2018 16:29, Shay wrote:
[snip]
>
> Context matters.
>
I would say context and skill. Skill being embedded into the work of
art, intimate part of it, transcending it to a higher level. The Pieta
of Michelangelo for example shows this to a high degree. But, as you
say, without context, no art survives.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
