andrel wrote:

> BTW I do have access to a 3D printer in ABS plastic (see e.g. last
> item on
> http://members.chello.nl/a.c.linnenbank/visitekaart/en/ceramics.html). 

That's how you did it. I remember seeing these in p.o-t, but don't 
remember an explanation. Very cool. My mind is flooding with possibilities.

>  > I could have designed this as a wooden piece in 1/5 the time.
> 
> Only if they are separable but not too loose. That is a fine line.
> OTOH somehow I think you have already checked that.

The pieces in the drawing are separable, but currently a bit loose. They 
can easily be made tight because the individual pieces are so full, 
unlike the finger-width tentacles of other polyhedral art I have seen. 
There is another option of extending pieces to connect to one another on 
the outside of the group. The connections would meet at 90deg angles. I 
can make the whole thing very solid.

The end result would not be flimsy or spindly.

> Just in case that was not clear yet: I really do like your work
> and approach.
> 
> Aside: in my ceramics class nearly all seem to think that things
> should not be perfect because otherwise you might just as well buy
> them in a shop. I am really glad that at least somewhere on this
> planet there is one other person thinks that that is total
> nonsense. Keep up the good work and don't slow down. Sorry, I
> mean: don't speed up.

Thanks! And I have to let you know that I got quite a few laughs from 
your humor in this post.

>> [1]michelleywilliams (dot com)
> hmm slightly different style.

To be honest, I don't get it. I immediately think of some Rauschenberg 
pieces I've seen. ... didn't get those either. But many people *do* get 
it. She's had a lot of financial success. She left my wife a $600 tip once.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message