Is digital sculpture....sculpture ?

[Giotto]

I Found a few of the St. George submissions were generated digitally. To me posed the question "If something is created through scanning and composed on a 2D computer screen...then printed out (3D) with no hands on manipulation...is it really sculpture ?" Is the person creating it a sculptor ? or should this form a new category ? i.e. computer generated art.

I wonder about this. A friend of mine spend months sculpting several figures for a contest she won. She took the maquettes to a enlargement facility and the owner suggested next time she just bring in the models. Have them stand in pose until the scanning is done and he would do the rest.

I would like to hear your comments.....

G

[GlennT]

It reminds me of when photography appeared...would it replace painting? Is it art?

Photography is not painting, and it is considered art, yet it is its own distinct facet, and painting is not threatened by it.

Computer generated sculpture has all of the appeal and all of the lack of appeal that such means can generate.

The enlargement facility owner sounds like a businessman (and perhaps a jackass), but not an artist. God help us if we no longer can discern the difference.

[evaldart]

Well you all can imagine how I feel about this. If the "competition" is entertaining these digital sculpture propositions then they are not looking for Art. They might just be looking for a draw, an ornament, a bauble, a physical piece of spectacle...a 3-d illustration. It will be bad enough that the product will certainly, in the end, have had many businesses "hands" all over it - but to make initial acceptances based upon typed and clicked manipulations will ensure the disneyland factor. They wont be getting Art...but perhaps thats not what they want.

[jOe~]

They wont be getting Art...but perhaps thats not what they want.

They will get what they want, or deserve. They are going about it with all due deliberation.

[cheesepaws]

Originally Posted by Giotto

I Found a few of the St. George submissions were generated digitally. To me posed the question "If something is created through scanning and composed on a 2D computer screen...then printed out (3D) with no hands on manipulation...is it really sculpture ?" Is the person creating it a sculptor ? or should this form a new category ? i.e. computer generated art.

Why does it matter to you? Would you consider moving your process to one that is digital at the outset? If not - just keep doing what you do and don't let it bug you. Like all the other processes of industrial origin - digital sculpture remains just another tool in the sculptor's arsenal.

I hope you win the commission.

[Giotto]

Originally Posted by cheesepaws

Why does it matter to you?

This is a very good question, Cheesepaws..as usual you go to the heart of things. I think we are coming to the end of some things and the beginning of others....In realistic figurative sculpture the most common item in the gallery is the single figure nude..usually female, typically Eichinger, MacDonald or Rodinesque ?... As computers, scanners and printers become more common I can see a market filled with computer generated sculpture of that type. This places a challenge on sculptors to rise above what a computer scanned image can be. I see this as a good thing for sculptors who are sincere about art....not so good for those who are in it for other reasons.

G

[evaldart]

I do not suppose that we should pay any attention at all the the computer generated things that will be proliferating in those places of commerce. They should not be the thing we try to out-perform - because THEY are already maximally under/unperformed. Technology is mistakenly connected to human progress. Sorry, not true. Tech is just a facilitator, a way for everything to become easier, a way for everything to become LESS human...and, as we should all even reluctantly accept our assignation AS humans - technology represents everything that will keep us BOUND to humanity. There are things we can do all by our little lonesome that will get us the Art.
But hey, some cabbage in the pocket will always be necessary...so drop the CD in the mail and wait for the sculpture to arrive, you'll probably get good bucks for it...pay some bills, get drunk...just know what you're doing...or NOT doing.

[dilida]

When computers started showing up in people's homes, Not mine-too poor. I would fantasize about everyone else becoming entirely dependent on them and then some dramatic crash would happen, and only those of us without one would somehow survive. Well, that didn't happen and slowly i became able to afford one, and it has crept it's way into our lives. I still remind myself what will happen if we become too dependent, but in the meantime, I find myself older, more compassionate to people who live different realities than I do, and I see there is a place for computers. I could still cling to my fantasy, but that just got old somehow. Guess it's called living, or life, that moves us along. Giotto, I just looked at your saint George maRquettes, (I like my spelling, it's always had an "r", much to the disdain of others, that's why i spell it that way, insert smiley). I think they are really cool, the speed with which you produced them amazes me. Computers are here, to stay maybe, who knows. Just another tool like cheesepwas said. A tool some needed, some don't. Competions make you look at the other guys means, nothing wrong with that. As one who does enlargements for other artists, i have to say it's a money/time matter, up to each artist to decide if there is a need for it, keep that in mind when encouraged to go that way. you say there is personal searching going on with this project, so let it happen. Do the old-way-of-doing-things sculptors, have to rise above the new-way-of-doing-things sculptors? or just make room for them?

good luck with the compitetion,
lisa

[CroftonGraphics]

I see it like Chess.

It is still one of the greatest games around, but the computer and the internet has helped the game a lot and not killed it.

While it has not killed playing it in the physical world either nor the beautiful sets that can be collected and are still made. Computers have given chess players a new medium to explore or not if they wish.

I think if one is making real world sculptures or other 3d works, the computer is not sufficient enough to develop it. When developing the 3d shape on screen, it is only an illusion of real world 3d and it is only 2d. The concept if developed on screen or on paper has to be taken off the 'plane' and into 3d/4d/5d reality.

If it is only developed digitally, it runs the risk of looking blandl dead and 'artificial' in the same way that a lot of contemporary architecture has.

pen/pencil Sketches, computer 3d concepts, maquettes, etc. An interplay of all or some of these mediums I feel is a good approach.

In the same way although the graphics tablet is useful, it cannot replace the raw nature of pen/pencil or charcoal.

[GlennT]

Originally Posted by Giotto

I can see a market filled with computer generated sculpture of that type. This places a challenge on sculptors to rise above what a computer scanned image can be.
G

My thought is just the opposite. The computer scanned image can never rise to what a living sculptor can do. The trouble is if people prefer the soul-less "perfection" of the robot creation to the humanity of the real thing.

[evaldart]

Originally Posted by GlennT

My thought is just the opposite. The computer scanned image can never rise to what a living sculptor can do. The trouble is if people prefer the soul-less "perfection" of the robot creation to the humanity of the real thing.

Glenn, I'm with you 100% on this. Even the soul part. But theres really no trouble involved. Whatever regular-folk decide to like and dislike is just another thing going on somewhere outside of our scope. Like weather, their druthers will be enjoyed or withstood. Either way, we do what we do.

[jOe~]

Glenn, I'm with you 100% on this. Even the soul part.

Well, i don't know what percent I with ya, but its probably around 33% or better. I think computers could do some of the stuff humans do as humans are doing the programming and also could do tasks where humans are too lazy/expensive . A really talented s.o.b can do really interesting work on one. I'm thinking of those modern Brits. They gotta be doing computer generated work. They just program in a dose of their signature style. I don't care, as long as I like it. And you know I'm easy.

[cheesepaws]

Originally Posted by GlennT

My thought is just the opposite. The computer scanned image can never rise to what a living sculptor can do. The trouble is if people prefer the soul-less "perfection" of the robot creation to the humanity of the real thing.

See, but we are back then to a hierarchy of processes and materials - so what's at the top? What best exemplifies this purist (most true?) form of sculpture that a "living sculptor can do"? Hand chiseled figurative stonework? Direct wood carving? Or perhaps the tools of sculpture - the chisels and hammers - dilute the experience and make for art that is too unlike the bare human hand can create? So direct modeling in clay? I don't intend this to sound sarcastic (well, perhaps a little) but really, once you make allowances for some tools - why limit the possibilities? Ultimately, establishing a hierarchy of process is just a line in the sand. Heck, even our idealist friend Evaldart uses a MIG instead of forge welding all his connections...does that make his work less "human"? What other technology/processes get tossed with the proverbial bath water if we claim that digital sculpting is bogus?

Perhaps the CPU assisted sculpture can achieve something different - not better and not less human - just different.

So you do not like digital sculpting so you say - try it, try it and you may. Try it and you may I say.

[evaldart]

Because . Cheese, there comes a point when your just back to thinking...and you're not sculpting or painting. And THINKING, as we all know, can only make half an Art. Thinking is where this digital stuff is leading...jack into your skull and the sculpture happens just as it was THOUGHT. Well thinking is hideously flawed and can only be salvaged by its rectification through the animations of your meat.
The "what is a tool" debate does not apply because during the Art process the tools compliment the physical interaction, they accompany the toil, they extend-from and relent-to the hand. Computer driven processes do everything they can do to REMOVE the artmaker...remove the surprise, remove the mistake, remove the catastrophe; all of which either make or break the relevence of the creative act. Thinking , like the scribblers, can only get you half-way (and half way is not always terrible, mind you). Leave the weakenings of technology for human function where it belongs. Its quite true that I might rather a machine slice me open to remove some bad stuff than a hairy handed ape. THAT is when we want everything to go as planned... no surprises.

[jOe~]

You know. I really like Techno music. And tons of other types. The computer involvement in the sound still makes me DANCE as much or more that other styles! Also I love shoegaze bands that have all the latest foot pedals and processors. Its MUSIC. Like I said ,I'm easy. I don't need much of an excuse. You'd think I was good or something. Nope, just a fool who likes to like stuff. Yet, I'm still picky. Same goes for art.

[cheesepaws]

Originally Posted by evaldart

Because . Cheese, there comes a point when your just back to thinking...and you're not sculpting or painting. And THINKING, as we all know, can only make half an Art.

Obviously not everyone agrees with this assumption.

Originally Posted by evaldart

Computer driven processes do everything they can do to REMOVE the artmaker...remove the surprise, remove the mistake, remove the catastrophe; all of which either make or break the relevence of the creative act.

Naw...just different surprises, different mistakes, different catastrophes.

You know, maybe Giotto is right to suggest we just call it something other than sculpture - I don't care WHAT it is called - I see digitally assisted art as having an amazing creative potential for 3D work. Bring it into the mix and let the historians give it a name later.

I agree with Joe - digital - like all processes - yields good stuff/bad stuff/stuff you like/stuff you don't care for. There is more than enough room in the definition of art for this "new" process - perhaps there is also room for it in the definition of sculpture.

[jOe~]

For me, the seeing, the experiencing, the thinking, the being, all trump the making. Its not about the making--unless its craft . Art doesn't create barriers of admission based on the making. Craft does. What ever hurdles the individual sets up for personal reasons should not affect the rest, the work and efforts of others. Its that freedom thing again.

[GlennT]

As Pink Floyd said, " Welcome to the Machine!"

[evaldart]

This is all just gonna circle back to all our varying definitions (or rejection of definitions) of "A"rt. I happen to see how art has infiltrated function and daily human life...it has not raised the function to art but it HAS made the function more intellectually digestible. This proves the potential, and as Art transforms function away from duty and servitude it will eventually walk it, euthanized by pure aesthetics, into a grave.
There are those that would gladly INclude all "art-affected" enities... fearful of closing a mind, or trodding a sensitive toe, or nipping a bud. Fine. The agreeable attitude will go over well with peers and colleagues.

And Joes trying to get us into another art/craft cage-match again. sigh, its late...maybe tomorrow.

Point is... anything CAN be, but very little ever IS.

[StevenW]

Originally Posted by cheesepaws

You know, maybe Giotto is right to suggest we just call it something other than sculpture - I don't care WHAT it is called....

Well this is my model that I made in 3D and this is my sculpture that I made with my grinder and chisels.

Oh, btw,.. I think each and every one of you is right.. I particularly liked the chess analogy.. When Deep Blue beat Kasparov (world chess champion) and they said a computer would never beat a human Grand Master it was as though humanity itself had been beaten down a notch, but in all truth, it took humans to program the computer to beat another human and it takes humans to program the modeling or 3d "sculpting" applications to make 3d MODELS..

Nothing to fear, doubt or worry our little heads about. (Cheese got me on some Dr. Sues thing there..)

[CroftonGraphics]

I beleive Kasparov ran experiments that involved having grand master chess players both playing against each other and at the same time being aided by a chess computer. Thus combining the cold logic of the computer with the genius of the human.

If people deny that any uses of 3d or 2d graphics are not compatible to 'scultpure' does that mean that contemporary architecture which often uses 3d/2d graphics technologies cannot therefore be classified as architecture?
I am sure some answers will be 'yes but sculpture is different'.
Well, throughout history, sculpture and architecture have had a relationship to each other.

I am sure Stephen etc, will tell you the 3d process is similar to sculpture.
I actually wouldnt be too bothered if 3d ceased to exist, I could get by. I just dont understand why some people are against it, it is probably because you have never got passed learning the interface stage of a 3d application if even that.

[evaldart]

Despite their history together sculpture has quite moved-on from architecture...to the point where it is barely even considered along with it. Now the architects would LOVE to consider their work "sculptural", its buys them respect as they borrow our existential priorities to form their ant-boxes. And of course THEY, clean-handed conceivers, embrace all things programmed. One fine day the ambitous "viewer" will notice that civilisation has succumbed to an uninspired design "mean". An easily predicted Jetsons scape fed to its inhabitants by computer savvy over-achievers. In the end it will make Art much easier to recognize - because it will be shocking; done by the rawness of a single hand, a single vision, a single desire to be more than just what is required.

[StevenW]

Originally Posted by CroftonGraphics

it is probably because you have never got passed learning the interface stage of a 3d application if even that.

Well there is that, the interfaces and modeling are actually very difficult to master requiring years and then there are bugs and nuances to contend with, but aside from this; They are two different disciplines. I know some of the best 3D modelers out there and they do not call themselves sculptors or use the word sculpture literally when they're creating their stuff. Not every modeler simply hooks up a scanner and say's "tada" either. This is no scan, it's something that took months even with the best tool set out there.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthre...f=121&t=624956

The funny thing about this, and I consider the work to be quite good is that these people consider themselves modelers, not sculptors and when they see works done by guys like Alfred or Matt or Glenn, Giotto or whomever, their jaws drop and they say; wow, now there's a fine artist. In their minds there is no confusion about the two..

About using 3D for submissions and entries or pre-visualization; it's a quick way to do a sketch and present it in 3d. It should not be confused with a finished work or simply printed and dropped in place. The reason (well there are actually many reasons) 3d prints will never replace sculpture is because they do not stand the test of time in terms of the suspension of disbelief (I should add that the suspension of disbelief has little to do with how "real" something looks, but rather how any given work impacts us in general)). A movie with cgi from the 1990's and their state-of-the-art special effects (king Kong for instance) looks almost absurd today in comparison to Iron Man and the same thing goes on with a printed model.. They look ridiculous virtually minutes after they are printed and go out of date as fast as computers themselves do..

[CroftonGraphics]

The pursuit of 'Photorealism' in cgi holds it back, that Bergman image does nothing for me.

I do not feel I can add more to this post and as someone said it will go round in circles and I have a lot of work to do. Good luck with the outcome!

[StevenW]

Originally Posted by CroftonGraphics

The pursuit of 'Photorealism' in cgi holds it back, that Bergman image does nothing for me.

I do not feel I can add more to this post and as someone said it will go round in circles and I have a lot of work to do. Good luck with the outcome!

You're absolutely spot on, when I say I think it's quite good, I mean that there's a ton of work that went in to making this photo-real and it does push the envelope of the technology itself. When you add that it does nothing for you, well, then you're looking at it the same way I am.