 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <sha### [at] none none> schreef in bericht
news:48c151f1$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I wonder how the story ends. Does the patron buy the painting or walk out
> of the painter's studio shaking his head?
Good question. I don't know. I suppose this is left to the imagination of
the listener as a kind of moral fable.
In any case, I have great respect for your achievements and your dedication.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:48c17746$1@news.povray.org...
>
> 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 think there are a couple of things playing here. First of all the attitude
towards painters and/or the painters craft, in imperial China. A bit similar
to the painters in Rembrandt's time who were considered artisans, not
artists: it was often the effort, the toiling, that was considered valuable
over the ultimate piece produced. The estethics of the final piece were
certainly appreciated, but more so through the awareness of shedded sweat,
so to speak. It is the way, not the goal, that counts.
Even today, such attitudes still exist. In the town I lived in recently, the
municipality had provided for several monumental sculptures in and around
town. A laudable effort. However, at the disclosure of one of them (A giant
child's top in stone) the municipality official in his speech told the
audience that the sculpture was indeed beautiful, but that in his opinion,
it would have been even more beautiful if it had been twice its present
size!
I think the story - in the sense of Confucius - is supposed to drive home
that you have to do your best to achieve something.... (?)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message news:48c1e358$1@news.povray.org...
> 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?
Hey Shay, wonderful work, as always! Been meaning to say something since
you posted it.
I've been looking at the image in the link again, and I think you'll
have a job producing that one if the base component doesn't have a gap in
it.
With this one though, it looks possible, and I would make it out of
pewter and then you could soft solder the units together. You could make a
jig that holds two units at the exact angles you need, solder them together
and then have another jig that holds those subsequent units together, and so
on.
This is something you could do yourself and you wouldn't need a kiln,
just a propane tank, the right torch and some Delft Clay:
http://www.delftclay.nl/index.php?page=home&hl=usa
I've used it many times with silver and gold, and it casts well, but
you can only use it once per cast, but with pewter, because of its low
melting point, you'll probably get 5 components (maybe more) before you'll
need to remake the mould.
How many components are in this image?
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:15:13 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>Craftsmanship is quite important to me though.
Firstly, Shay: your image is stunning.
I've had difficulty starting this reply (lie, I've had no difficulty starting
just keeping my thoughts in a straight line). As Thomas points out some art is
appreciated not just for its beauty but for the work that went into making it.
Knowing that an old artisan spent his entire life polishing one piece of jade
into a shape makes that artefact more "worthy" than if it were carved then
polished in a fraction of the time. I don't think so! Is it better to look at a
naturally beautiful woman (or man or sheep) than to look at one who uses
artifice to make herself beautiful? (Note the pejorative use of the word
artifice.)
thinking something is beautiful so it is subjective IMO ipso facto it must be
true 'cause I used a Latin phrase.
I say that Shay's work is beautiful whether he spent months working on it or
not.
But if he had not spent the time designing and developing it. It would not be
the same piece of work. He did what was needed in this case.
Art needs skill, juvenilia needs salesmen.
Shay, are you still on the rigs? And are you having fun during the hurricane
season?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:23:56 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> I'm up for it.
I don't know if I am but I'll give it ago :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06-Sep-08 3:54, Shay wrote:
> 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 think you might actually spend more time on your product. The
similarity is in it that I also do get accused of overkill sometimes.
>
>>> 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?
>
Difficult, but doable. You'd have to position the cuts that have to be
glued together very precise. Either where you just won't see them in the
finished model, or where you have enough access to polish the seams. The
mold also probably has to consist of several parts, because you have to
take the thing apart to get your piece of of it. That'll be a whole new
level of planning. I think the mold for this latest model would be more
easy. Ceramics tends to deform when drying. This building block is more
or less planar, so you can let it dry between planks to keep it in
shape. Resin has the advantage that it does not deform and that rubber
molds may be used. Ceramic does deform when drying out, but you can glue
it with clay before firing it, so you can have a seamless result.
All in all, I think that whatever you do it'll be a lot of fun and will
take more than a lot of time to get it right. Perhaps starting with
something that you design with physical construction in mind would be my
advice. Don't worry, even that'll go wrong the first few times if you
are lucky.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:48c24944$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message
> news:48c1e358$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> 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?
>
> Hey Shay, wonderful work, as always!
I'll take that back and replace it with wonderful *and* Masterful work.
> How many components are in this image?
After studying it most of the day, I'd wager not as many as I think
overall. There are two initial components, both with three arms each.
How you put that together Shay, I just can't begin to imagine...
Do I get a toffee? ;)
(Oh, and *I* do like the colours). ;)
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06-Sep-08 11:25, Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:15:13 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>
>> Craftsmanship is quite important to me though.
>
> Firstly, Shay: your image is stunning.
>
> I've had difficulty starting this reply (lie, I've had no difficulty starting
> just keeping my thoughts in a straight line). As Thomas points out some art is
> appreciated not just for its beauty but for the work that went into making it.
> Knowing that an old artisan spent his entire life polishing one piece of jade
> into a shape makes that artefact more "worthy" than if it were carved then
> polished in a fraction of the time. I don't think so! Is it better to look at a
> naturally beautiful woman (or man or sheep) than to look at one who uses
> artifice to make herself beautiful? (Note the pejorative use of the word
> artifice.)
> thinking something is beautiful so it is subjective IMO ipso facto it must be
> true 'cause I used a Latin phrase.
>
> I say that Shay's work is beautiful whether he spent months working on it or
> not.
> But if he had not spent the time designing and developing it. It would not be
> the same piece of work. He did what was needed in this case.
There is another thing to note here. That is that true art shapes the
artist as well as the other way around. Shay is not the same guy anymore
as he was a few years ago. Because Shay chose to do everything by hand
and not use any modelling tools, he now knows more about symmetry of
dodecahedra and 2nd and 3rd order continuity of triangles than most of
us, even probably all of us. Here I used 'knows' because I don't know
what other English word to use. I mean not just knowing in the high
school sense of the word, but knowledge that becomes part of your being.
One day it starts affecting his life. He won't be able to see a new
design for a car, boat, bike or sculpture without immediately seeing the
flaws in the way different parts are connected. At the point where he
starts applying this to his wife he will be in trouble.
Although many of us could re-create something like his images in less
time than he did[*] using other tools, the point is that we wouldn't. We
have the technical ability but not the right frame of mind. So we can
and at the same time we can't.
> Art needs skill, juvenilia needs salesmen.
>
> Shay, are you still on the rigs? And are you having fun during the hurricane
> season?
[*] possibly that is not even true. We could get close very fast, but
then every step closer would take an increasing amount of time. Most
would give up at 98% because they would not be willing to spend so much
time on getting it really right.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:15:29 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>There is another thing to note here. That is that true art shapes the
>artist as well as the other way around
I could not agree with you more.
I think that the word that you are looking for is internalise or even "grok"
from Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht
news:h8j7c452ld5s20hjf7d37l5svogc1hbh44@4ax.com...
>
>>There is another thing to note here. That is that true art shapes the
>>artist as well as the other way around
>
> I could not agree with you more.
> I think that the word that you are looking for is internalise or even
> "grok"
> from Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.
>
And I totally agree with both of you.
"grok" should be introduced officially in English (or in any language for
that matter). I think this describes perfectly the process Andrel writes
about.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
