[-empyre-] Micromissive 1: Craft and Maquettes


Beyond economics, what we're talking about are virtual maquettes.  I've
been doing thin in 3D programs since the mid-90's for museum
installations with various collectives.  I find making 3D maquettes
highly useful for the development of installations, but there are a few
rubs.  First, a lot of curators are not extremely technologically
experienced.  SL is fine for someone like a Christiane Paul, Steve
Dietz, or Ben Weil, but you may risk losing the chance if you approach
someone outside of the field who does no know about Second Life.

Secondly, most curators I know have about five to thirty seconds to do
an initial evaluation of a work (seriously).  Unless you have something
really spectacular, or something specifically of interest to them in SL,
I usually assume that the time to log in and teleport is _too long_.
Therefore, the image of the piece (which could be from SL) on your
description sheet/PDF is probably more important.  

In my opinion, I feel that doing a prototype of an installation is most
likely for the artist and the SL community unless the work is everged
off-server through what I've called here as "tiering"; multiple
representations/iterations of the work in multiple media, tangible and

In regards to the argument that something that is not fashioned by hand
is enslaved to the agenda of the toolmaker is only partially true, but
it tends not to hold water.  The same argument has been used for
Albierti's Drafting Grid, the Pantograph, and the Camera Lucida, and
even the great masters used aids in their work.  This is much like the
time when a curator commented my using a computer to make work, but then
I asked what brand and weight of brush made the oil on his wall.  

Of course, there are programs that are very specific, like the landscape
creator Bryce, or the old Kai's Power Tools plugins.  With these special
purpose programs, it's hard not to make a vista.  But, with oils and a
paintbrush (and this may be a bad analogy) it's hard not to make a

But on the other hand, I'm glad that GH has realized that his digital
video rants are the product of a few judicious bits of code and a little
clever engineering.

That, my friends, I seriously doubt.

Patrick Lichty
- Interactive Arts & Media
  Columbia College, Chicago
- Editor-In-Chief
  Intelligent Agent Magazine
225 288 5813

FAX 312 344-8021
"It is better to die on your feet 
than to live on your knees." 

-----Original Message-----
From: empyre-bounces@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
[mailto:empyre-bounces@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of G.H.
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:38 AM
To: soft_skinned_space
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Prototyping

On Aug 21, 2007, at 11:39 PM, Christy Dena wrote:

> Would other artists/curators be comfortable working in this  
> fashion? What do
> people think of this mimeses?

There are two salient issues in your discussion. One is using your  
hands to fashion something and the other is the exact reproduction of  
something visually (mimesis).

Using your hands to fashion something is primal. It is the beginning  
point for art. It is also the starting point of engineering. The  
difference between the two disciplines can be highlighted. Let me  
start with cave painting from 30,000 years ago. The ones in France  
were done by using a spray painting technique. The artists chewed up  
berries and then using a hollow reed, he would spit the paint. The  
images on the wall are are. The tools and techniques are  
engineering.  The learning how to use the tools are the process of  
physical learning. Something akin to a kinaesthetic learning  
process.   Trying to fashion something without using your hands  puts  
the creative process in the hands of an engineer or in this case it  
would be a logician who would figure out algorithm to describe the  
process in the physical world.  Within this rule set one can only  
operate as the programming dictates.  One cannot discover forms  
through the sense of touch. One cannot alter the programming with  
one's hands and movements. There is no intuition sense of the body.

Mimesis or fool-the-eye is the most simplistic notion of art.  the  
sensation is "gee that look so real I can't tell the difference from  
reality." Art history starts in the caves with glyphs and narratives.  
Mimetics is simply a trick.  Look at photography. Within the supposed  
trompe l'oeil of the camera lense there is a world of abstract ideas.  
The nature of art is to deal with these levels of ideas. Mimesis is  
once again a trick of engineering.

empyre forum

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.2/966 - Release Date:
8/22/2007 9:05 AM

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.