> 
> I don't share code.
> 
> It would take me weeks to clean it up,

Seeing the complexity of the object, I have no difficulty to understand 
that :-)




> More importantly, I feel that sharing to much of the "how" robs the 
> magic from the "what."


I don't know... Sometimes knowing how it is done can also deepens the 
mystery : 'ok, I know that I get this by doing so and so, but why is it 
so appealing?'

In fact, apart from the complex symmetries and transformations, I am 
also wondering how you got the coloring of each individual piece with 
hand-coding (I have not the least idea how to get such a coloring excpet 
with UV mapping)!

Thibaut

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:

> But the story bothers me.  The painter should have called the
> patron an idiot and left it at that, imo.  I mean suppose he'd
> painted it in a single stroke first time then and there!  Would
> that be more, or less, impressive/valuable?
> 
> More purely in the art realm, either it is beautiful/stirring/etc.
> or it is not.  Does it matter if takes Mozart second, a week, or
> ten years to come up with a beautiful musical motif?  If two
> hundred years later hearing it played gets us out of our seats
> cheering madly,...  then it does.

Painting the bird in a single stroke the first time would have been less 
valuable. Could the painter have done so and had he called the patron an 
idiot, the patron would have walked across the street and purchased 
another single-stroke painting of a bird. APTITUDE IS COMMON. The more 
art I see, the more certain I become that *the* open frontier in art is 
work ethic.

I will say of my own picture, despite its flaws, that although a person 
may not find it beautiful or stirring, nor understand why it took me 
months to complete, he won't often see another like it. The form can be 
repeated, but the details I have taken the time to include, however 
minuscule, are *something* extra-ordinary he can take from it. That 
cannot be said of a thousand nude photos one could download from the 
Internet, no matter how beautiful/stirring/etc. those photos may be.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> 
> Painting the bird in a single stroke the first time would have been less 
> valuable. Could the painter have done so and had he called the patron an 
> idiot, the patron would have walked across the street and purchased 
> another single-stroke painting of a bird. APTITUDE IS COMMON. The more 
> art I see, the more certain I become that *the* open frontier in art is 
> work ethic.

Yes, but need you show the room full of 'dirty linen' every time just to 
prove the worth of the result?  That worth should be manifest in the 
result alone, should it not?  I think the painter was, at a minimum, 
very patient with his patron.  Perhaps my impoliteness would be a poor 
thing, but in the painters place, I surely would have let the patron 
walk across the street and buy another artist's painting, if all he 
apparently wanted was a low price for a single stroke of the brush.



> 
> I will say of my own picture, despite its flaws, that although a person 
> may not find it beautiful or stirring, nor understand why it took me 
> months to complete, he won't often see another like it. The form can be 
> repeated, but the details I have taken the time to include, however 
> minuscule, are *something* extra-ordinary he can take from it. 


The latent craftmanship of a work, is something most people can respond 
to and take pleasure in.  You have always concerned yourself with 
latencies in artwork, latencies often beyond craftmanship alone.  It is 
the common thread, to my mind, in the various work I've seen you do over 
the years.  I is a level of awareness that I value very much, even if I 
don't always pursue it myself.*

*Craftsmanship is quite important to me though.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:00:31 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>But the story bothers me.  The painter should have called the patron an 
>>idiot and left it at that, imo.  I mean suppose he'd painted it in a 
>>single stroke first time then and there!  Would that be more, or less, 
>>impressive/valuable?
> 
> 
> That's not the point of stories set in far-a-way lands. It is like
> deconstructing a parable IM(ns)HO :)
Simple, old story, hoary, old debate. I'm up for it.

Post a reply to this message

On 04-Sep-08 23:39, Shay wrote:
> The second meaning required the extra work. All of my images are hand-coded, 
> but this one was done without the use of Python. No Python = no class(es). 
> One last time with pure POV sdl. 

I doubt that. ;)

> Wanted to show what could be done just by opening up the POV editor[1] and 
> typing. Got as crazy as implementing divide-and-conquer delaunay triangulation 
> in POV sdl.

Perfectly normal behaviour I would say (at least for that Shay that I 
know from p.b.i)


> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Very cool
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>>> This is my last image. It's been real.
>>
>> What????  I have been missing seeing your images up here lately - was 
>> wondering if we'd see more of your magic.  :-)
> 
> If only it were magic. This was months of work, and the reaction to all 
> who have heard that has been "what took so long?" There's a joy in 
> discovering the just-right look for a particularly challenging type of 
> corner, but that is a *very* expensive high, and no one can tell the 
> difference in the finished image - especially when POV goofs up my 
> triangles.
> 
> I'm having dinner later this month with a successful professional artist 
> and former gallery director[1] to discover the value of a wooden 
> sculpture of this model. My family have a laser engraver capable of 
> cutting out the dozens of necessary pieces. IF that works out, I may 
> design more. 

Funny, when I saw this I immediately started wondering if this was one 
piece or a couple of pieces. And if the latter, if you could physically 
separate them. 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). 
Possibly other materials as well if I really want to, but that would 
cost money. Can that laser engraver thing do rounded edges? If not you 
could employ a 5 axis milling machine or something like that.
Knowing you, I guess you want total control of what happens with your 
designs, but if you think some rapid prototyping could help, drop me a line.

 > 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.

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.

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

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:

> That worth should be manifest in the result alone, should it not?

It should not have to be. If that were the case, why have collage? or 
sand-painting? or whittling? or glass blowing? or print-making? or the 
butterfly stroke?

What is required to fully appreciate these things is a knowledge of 
their difficulty. Any idiot can tell that drawing a picture with sand is 
more difficult than taking a picture with a camera, but many wouldn't 
appreciate the difficulty of, for instance, lacquer painting.

And all of this is not to say that the worth *isn't* necessarily 
"manifest in the work alone." It may very well be, but, Christ, Jim, 
allow that the worth may require, at the very least, a second look to 
reveal itself. :) If showing the 'dirty linen' gets a second or third 
look, then I see no shame in at least giving the patron a peek.

> You have always concerned yourself with latencies in artwork,
> latencies often beyond craftmanship alone.  It is the common
> thread, to my mind, in the various work I've seen you do over the
> years.

Thank you.

> *Craftsmanship is quite important to me though.

Craftsmanship, process, journey, ............ and shoes. All themes I 
have recognized and appreciated in your images.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

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

On 05-Sep-08 23:31, Shay wrote:
> 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. 

yes, I get an idea, implement a user interface to adjust a group of 
splines. Add the symmetry constraints. Write an export to blender, 
compose a partial scene. Export to POV to see if it works. Get them 
printed. Create molds and some other things to make ceramic copies. Find 
out that they too easily fall over because I forgot to check where the 
center of gravity is :( . Redo in a somewhat larger size adding a few 
extra challenges. (these are not on the page yet. the other set just 
above it is hand modelled an they don't fit that well, but much faster 
to create)

> I remember seeing these in p.o-t, but don't 
> remember an explanation. Very cool. My mind is flooding with possibilities.

Machine reads the STL format, basically yet another triangle format, so 
that could be just your thing.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> I get an idea, implement a user interface to adjust a group of
> splines. Add the symmetry constraints. Write an export to blender,
> compose a partial scene. Export to POV to see if it works. Get them
> printed. Create molds and some other things to make ceramic copies.
> Find out that they too easily fall over because I forgot to check
> where the center of gravity is :( . Redo in a somewhat larger size
> adding a few extra challenges.

Whoa! And here I am belly-aching that I spend so much time sitting on my 
butt staring at vim! A lot of work, but your results are one of a kind.

>> I remember seeing these in p.o-t, but don't remember an explanation. 
>> Very cool. My mind is flooding with possibilities.
> 
> Machine reads the STL format, basically yet another triangle format, so 
> that could be just your thing.

Here's what I'm thinking: print a small sub-section of this 
(http://tinyurl.com/5s5nbm) earlier model, make a mold around the print, 
pour resin or ceramic (I've got a kiln), and glue the many pieces 
together into a complete sculpture. What do you think?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> A lot of extra work, but I couldn't resist the double-meaning of this
> title.
> 
> The first meaning will be obvious to any who remember my "...geeks
> only?" or "high school math" post.
> 
> The second meaning required the extra work. All of my images are
> hand-coded, but this one was done without the use of Python. No Python =
> no class(es). One last time with pure POV sdl. Wanted to show what could
> be done just by opening up the POV editor[1] and typing. Got as crazy as
> implementing divide-and-conquer delaunay triangulation in POV sdl.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Yep, some smudging in gimp to get rid of radiosity artifacts. Did as
> good a job as I have the patience to do.
> 
> This is my last image. It's been real.
> 
>   -Shay
> 
> [1] Don't want to mislead anyone. I didn't use the POV editor, which
> only comes with the Windows version.

Hi,

I have been going back and forth between your images and I must say that I'm 
appreciating them more and more. Since I have no math knowledge what so
ever (it just eludes me) I'm just stunned by how you can pull something
like this of. Not taking away any from my understanding how much time this
can take.
I would honestly love to have your objects sitting on a display in my home.
Sadly I can't afford to have you make one for me.

I'm in aw of what a bright mind and a texteditor can accomplish together :)
-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message