Sunday, February 10, 2019

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Prototype Print

While it's not a solid example of critical design or critiquing modern design, my prototype shows promise for my full idea, at least in my opinion.

Monday, January 21, 2019

My first draft of my design looks like this.

While it goes on the arm, it was inspired by this

It would probably serve as ceremonial or fancy wear. It's functionally useless and just serves to look good, like most jewelry, but that doesn't make it not important culturally or to people. I am unsure about details to add, though I'd like to, I think perhaps adding grooves or extending bits would make it look more unique, though I'd like opinions. It still needs a lot of work, perhaps a texture, and some detail, but this is my very first draft.

Sunday, January 20, 2019

Response for Week 2 Readings

A common theme throughout the three readings (or viewings) is the question of how 3D printing will effect the art world and economy, the socioeconomic effect, if you will. It makes reproduction infinitely easier and allows for the creation of ideas in a faster and more productive manner than ever before, maybe even in a way some consider an excess. Having access to much more productive potential than people could have hoped for could be bad if there is nothing but production creating an excess of products that go without recycling, but that depends on the product used to create. If anything, recyclable plastic used in 3D printing would solve most of the proposed problems, as being in excess of creative resources isn't necessarily damaging. Some claim that excess production material means anyone can be an artist and everyone will produce the same art, but replication has always been important to creating art. As far back as ancient Greek sculptures, apprentices learned by making replicas of the statues their mentors carved. There is no harm in finding a style and taking time to develop it through replication, especially if the means of creation is one that allows people who couldn't make art before to finally be able to create. As printspace3D's article says, anyone can be an artist with 3D printing, and having more creators in the world is never negative unless they are all the same kind of person or working for a single government. The ways people utilize 3D printers can vary from art to hardware to toy creation, each something individual to the artist who now has the chance to create what they want. Just as in a minecraft game, the excess of material leads to the creation of grand-scale artwork even if some smaller pieces may be similar or reproductions. Allowing people to utilize their creativity in the ways that work best for them allows new ideas to grow amidst a pool of reproductions. Keeping the definition of art on such a tight definition will never allow for progress and people will never be able to express themselves unless stiff fundamentalists loosen up and allow for progress. Ideas can now be made solid and artists can finally create what they've only been able to imagine, and reproduce it so much as to be able to make a living off of it, subverting the starving artist idea that comes from how difficult it is to live off of a few pieces of art, grand-scale or not. Excess of options means excess of opportunity to create what could've have been materialized before, and isn't a bad thing if creation is monitored and enviromental concerns are taken seriously.

Monday, January 14, 2019

Six Designs

first try, checking out the cut vs add 

playing with spirals/threads

tried arcs and sketches

tried pipes and moving objects

trying different physical settings, figuring out cut vs add new shape
ran out of ideas. made a face

Response to Walter Benjamin

Contemporary art is defined as the art of today, the 21st century. It is made within the same mindsets and social flavors at the time it was produced, as with any art piece, but contemporary art is specifically art produced today, in the near present. Benjamin argues that modern art has moved from something to be viewed with awe and amazement into something that can be taken in easily for a short distraction from life. He explains that art historically contained an aura, a perceived supernatural one that emanates from pieces surrounded with majesty. Old Greek sculptures of gods had an aura of power based on the god they portrayed, giving off powerful feelings to the viewers and letting them contemplate the work of art. The aura art pieces used to give off have depreciated due to the ways art has shifted from something to contemplate solemnly into something to distract for a minute or two. In a way, he is correct that auras used to surround majestic work, but they aren't fully gone. While it is true that someone can pull up images of famous artwork on Google or look in a magazine, many art pieces can only be truly understood in person. And the apparent deprecation of authenticity caused by more access to pictures or copies of an art piece isn't entirely true, either, in my opinion. More access to pictures of famous art pieces has made it easier for people who couldn't' hope to travel thousands of miles to an expensive museum to still study what they are passionate about. Seeing a piece in person is still an invaluable experience, but with more access to copies, more people are able to study and debate historical pieces than ever before. The aura of magic that comes with seeing something religious still exists, but now that beliefs are so numerous, a piece may be mundane to one or life-changing to another, and that's not something that can be blamed on reproduction, just on human diversity and development. Benjamin notes that the changes art has gone through aren't all bad and that more production and less traditional feelings towards works of art have made pieces impact people in very varied, personal ways. Freeing art from religion, where many pieces have been centered within, allows more nuanced study and perceptions, which in turn allows the study of art to develop.

Film itself brings viewers into an entirely different world and often allows them to see a story through the lens of a different time, despite at first seeming to be created to entertain more than anything. Consumers note that many animated films have the same style and same design for characters, especially women characters with round faces, button noses, and big eyes- easily chosen to appeal to viewers and make the most money. At the same time, movies such as the recent Into the Spiderverse movie use stylistic animation to call back to the original comic book inspiration, producing a film with a cell-shaded style like no other that tells a story using all of the available tools. Despite how movies are often cut and paste in style, there are still ones coming out that change the status quo, going against the cut and dry and mass reproduced. Art is still here to inspire people. Even if it's made for consumption, that doesn't mean it isn't radical and going beyond the industry standard, which can be a risk for movie-makers- films especially show that.

Chimera Drafts

Not yet made solid. I'm still not sure what exactly I want.