Re: [-empyre-] Micromissive 1: Craft and Maquettes

["hugh davies" <huedavies@gmail.com>]

I often use 3dsmax as a maquette making tool and even for designing
spaces but I dont pass these digital models on to curators or anyone
else other than as screen grabs. I agree with Patrick that assuming
tech savy in anyone is problematic. Even excluding the self proclaimed
ludites, techsaviness is a layered field with some of the most
programing heavy exponents not knowing or caring how to navigate
Second Life or other areas.

But amoung a group of practitioners who are comfortable in the SL
space I guess that it could be used as a kind of like a spatial wiki
towards creating a group exhibition or collaborative work.
hugh



On 8/23/07, patrick lichty <voyd@voyd.com> wrote:
> 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
> intangible.
>
> CRAFT AND HAND
> 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
> painting.
>
> 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
> http://www.intelligentagent.com
> 225 288 5813
>
> FAX 312 344-8021
> voyd@voyd.com
>
> "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.
> Hovagimyan
> 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
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>