On 15 May 2007, at 2:41 pm, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> There is something very different about the act of creation - when
> fully
> understanding the medium in which one works. The medium must shape the
> design. Glass behave like glass - not a NURBS surface, ceramics take
> only
> certain glazes, etc.
>
> Creating artefacts by designers that have no contact with the intrinsic
> material process is an area ripe for discussion -
Read Kipling's story 'The Wrong Thing' in 'Farewell Rewards and
Fairies' -says it all . . .
> To the next point - if we can all use a CAD package such as Google's
> Sketch Up - should we all create artefacts with our home based
> 'fabbers'?
> -
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/
> 19ad302897772110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
>
> A suggestion, is that if society as a whole is responsible for the
> design
> with such technology, then we will again let loose an appalling kind of
> aesthetic - weirdly reminiscent of the 1851 Great Exhibition....when
> aesthetically untrained creators were let loose on society.
-or punk rockers, or fanzines: look at what happened to graphic design
and to music, yes it was scary to the aesthetes and elitists, but bring
it on I say, neither creative discipline seems to be in any danger -but
the balance of power has changed hands . . .
> Finally, I believe the ancient Egyptians could create perfect flatness
> -
> in a process we still do not fully understand
My Dad understood it, as did most first year engineering apprentices in
his day, -take a pot of 'engineers blue' two metal plates and a scraper
. . .
Regards
Andrew J King
|