Realisation of Changing Perceptual Qualities in Sculpture ...iafor.info/archives/offprints/ace2012-offprints/ACE2012_0333.pdf · Realisation of Changing Perceptual Qualities in Sculpture

Realisation of Changing Perceptual Qualities in Sculpture Produced Through Digital Processes

Sumita Chauhan

0333

University of Kent, UK

The Asian Conference on Education 2012

Official Conference Proceedings 2012

Abstracts

Digital technology has provided a very different outlook to sculpture, especially to those who are engaged in creation through technological processes as it offers and develops new possibilities for conception and experience of art. The role of the artist is to create a condition which leads to specific forms of expression and reception. The expressive quality of this condition is conveyed through the actualisation of the sculpture and the receptive quality through the analysis of perception of artwork by receivers. This methodology then outlines the conceptual and technological approach to trace the changing visual perception, cognition and evaluation in the process of shaping three dimensional forms. Digital sculpture is categorised in three divisions: works that have been created and manipulated digitally and then produced in traditional manual process; works created without the use of digital technology and then produced through digital process and works created and processed through technology. Redefining contemporary sculpture has become necessary and it can only be done through an understanding of perception as a mode of enquiry in relation to aesthetics of presentation and judgmental discourse of the constitution of a sculpture- actual and virtual. This research reviews the basic elements of sculptures ascertaining what is seen and how it is seen and to expose the shifting patterns of visual understanding in digital technology. The research outcome thus presents the potential to integrate seeing with critical awareness from analysis of perception affected by cognition.

iafor

The International Academic Forum

www.iafor.org

The Asian Conference on Education 2012 Official Conference Proceedings Osaka, Japan

635

1. INTRODUCTION Since 1990, the range of creative works and artistic practices using digital technology gives us an insight into how technology has provided artists, designers, engineers, architects and craftspeople the tools to manoeuvre and new expressions to reveal (Callicott, 2001). Terms which have been used over the years for digital processes, specially associated with creative purposes both in Art and Design discipline, are Computer Art, Virtual Art, Computer Graphics, Multimedia Art, New Media Art, etc. and they all come under the umbrella of Digital Art. To determine the date (or even year) of birth of an art form or artistic technique is always problematic, if not a futile endeavour, but it might be safe to say that the 1990s are the decade when Digital or Virtual Sculpture officially began to exist- even if it had its roots in earlier experiments (Paul, 2000). The term Digital or Virtual Sculpture has been broadly used for a variety of different forms and activities immersed in digital world (Ganis, 2005). The making of Digital sculpture is both a technological and a conceptual phenomenon. Technically, digital sculpture is a computer-generated process that either involves 3d modelling software to create forms or initiates from the digital inputting of real forms through scanning technologies, which are then manipulated using particular software, and ultimately produced through a computerised digital printing process. Simultaneously, at a conceptual level, digital sculpture originating from digital art, echoes elements from the art movements of Dada, Fluxus, Surrealism and Abstraction. Gabriela Celani analyzed four points of view of using digital processing to produce artwork be it an architectural model or an artifact in a museum (Celani, 2008). In her diagram (Figure 1), she emphasized on the digital generation of form, which can combine digitization of physical objects, computational synthesis, digital manipulation and the combination of the above, covering all possible digital processing. On the other hand, it has in some way led to further investigation of presenting such digital artworks in public spaces.

Figure 1: A diagrammatic interpretation of Digital processing. 2. ARTISTS USING COMPUTER BASED TECHNOLOGY FOR SCULPTURE Many contemporary artists have been exploring the conceptual and technical possibilities of digital technology to fit into their creative process more efficiently and effectively. Interacting and manipulating with the digital tools and helping in developing new software, these artists have not only contributed within the margins of virtual space but also in the actual physical space.

The issue of how a sculpture is made has diminished and the issue of what the sculpture is about has enlarged over the period. Digital technology has taken the meaning of sculpture to new levels


636

- beyond the known limits of form, scale, gravity and space. Dan Collins assessed the whole process as an artist would do and found that it places the artist in the center of an interdisciplinary conversation, not as a marginal agent peripheral to the dialog (Paul, 2000).

Both Robert Michael Smith and Dan Collins have used digital technology mostly receiving positive response considering the potential to encourage a broad interdisciplinary conversation involved in similar core issues (Paul, 2000). Dan Collin states, “My work is sourced, intended, produced, critiqued and hopefully understood in and for an interdisciplinary context apart from what normally passes for the history of art”. His “Of More Than Two Minds” and later “Twister” show amicably his interest “in the gap between the virtual space of the computer and the tangible, body-felt reality of sculptural objects”. Robert Michael Smith did crossover various disciplines as source for his images from “archaeology, anthropology, zoology, anatomy and scientific visualization to cosmic/microcosmic photography and sci-fi CGI special effects, Dada, Surrealism and Abstraction” (Paul, 2000). “Urchanticede” and the recent “Paradise Bird Burlesque” are fine examples to explain his belief, “Art is alchemy. Alchemy is the magic, observation, process and ritual of life…I build alien abstract worlds that become familiar through frequent immersion. These worlds are constructed to open exploration to the deepest regions of the human psyche for development within the landscape of the imagination” (Smith, 2010).

Michael Rees calls his virtual digital sculptures “meta-forms”, meaning that the end result can take on a variety of forms or be produced in different media. He has rightly pointed out at the very beginning that the development of computer based technology and software do not play the pivotal role but significant credit has to be given to “Art and Language and conceptual art in general” (Paul, 2000). His creations can be considered a reconfiguration and expansion of scientific discipline. He borrows images from medical anatomy to explore “spiritual/psychological anatomy” to give new meaning to his work, few examples of his works are “Ajna Spine Series 2 over 1”, “Putto 8 2.2.2.2” and “Foot S Curve to Toe, Equivalency Series”.

Christian Lavigne created the words "Robo-sculpture, Tele-sculpture, and Cyber-sculpture" for computer sculpture materialized with rapid-prototyping devices and other digital techniques. It is very right when he states, “For a poet of shapes, new technologies give perfect tools to materialize the creative verb. It is the first time in human history that writing and describing an object turn from virtuality to reality” (Wands, 2006). This definitely makes it easier to understand Robert Lazzarani’s “Skulls” which seems to defy resolution. In an interview with curator Harry Philbrick discussing his work “Guns and Knives”, he said, “When it comes to the physical, the digital manifestation of these objects, it’s all run through computer design programs. I start off with a non-verbal sense of what something should be, and then I slowly start to shape it and it becomes more verbal and more numerical until it becomes the final design, which is made up of extremely specific numbers”. As the overall foreshortenings and elongations become more complicated in three dimensions, the forms remain warped from all angles (Ganis, 2005).

“Art should, in any case, transcend the medium” is Keith Brown’s belief. His biomorphic forms with so many undercuts clearly denote the engagement of technical processes in creating relationships between the hollowness and solidity of his works. He says, “I explore the possibilities that are made available through manipulating forms in the cyber environment and because they don’t behave in the same way as they do in actual world it is full of surprises” (Brown, 2007). His works like “Geo_03”, “Shoal” and others show his concept of sculptures moving within and passing through each other in a way that the physical world would not allow.


637

Bruce Beasley said in an interview regarding his work, "It's better to make mistakes in electrons, than in granite" (Smith, 2008). “Challenge” is a fine example of his work. Beasley believes the ability to design digitally is very liberating because it allows him to play with shapes and design in a way that’s more freeing than working with a physical prototype. He manipulates overlapping geometric blocks within one another onscreen, creating a spatial assembly which would have an improbable physical balance if the center of gravity of the entirety was not verified by computer calculation (Lavigne, 1998).Kenneth Snelson’s preoccupations encompass both the macro and micro realms. “Atom I” describes his interpretation of the atom's electronic architecture. His conceptualization of the Snelson Atom was based on his enquiry of the structure of atom and its many manifestations in two-and three-dimensional mediums as seen in his work “Atom Animations”.

Bathsheba Grossman’s exploration of mathematics and science in sculpture and popularizing direct-metal printing as an art medium have made her a successful name in both art and design discipline. She says in simple words, “My work is about life in three dimensions: working with symmetry and balance, getting from a zero point to infinity, and always finding beauty in geometry” (Grossman, 2005). Corinne Whitaker, aka the Digital Giraffe, was acclaimed for creating sensuous and organic shape virtually and physically and the simplicity of the forms with a strong touch of feminism (example of her work is “Lip Service”). 3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS This section presents the key research question of the study, as well as a number of sub-questions related to identifying new approaches and perception of Digital Sculpture. It then introduces the methodology employed to answer these questions, giving details of strategy of work process and significance of interviewing and data collection and data analysis, as well as the possibilities of generalization beyond this study and finally its contribution to the shifting paradigm of digital sculpture theory. The key research question of this study is: How should we reframe our understanding of perception of Sculpture, mediated and produced through digital and technological processes exhibited online or in the physical space of a gallery? Considering the process of artistic and technical exploration of producing 3dimensional forms in answering this key research question, this study raises the following sub-questions regarding changing perceptual qualities of Digital Sculpture: • How to analyse the changing conceptual meaning connected with knowledge, experience and

evaluation of Digital Sculpture by artists and audience? • Which interdisciplinary aspect of the creative process of digital sculpture making should be

considered as the basis of learning such process? In order to answer these questions, the method of enquiry undertaken was in two stages. The initial stage was creating an effective working methodology through own practice in virtual and actual space and the final stage was a comprehensive explanation of the context of realisation of Sculpture and critical discourse of perception of viewers in an exhibited space. 4. FIRST STAGE OF METHODOLOGY - FROM VISUALISATION TO ACTUALISATION The initial stage of the research was an artist enquiry mainly seeking to develop new forms and develop new techniques as the basic exploratory nature of the pursuit. The process becomes a critical factor as a part of the creative work, be it from any resources, materials, tools or techniques which then influences the way it occurs. Therefore, the artists never aimed to create


638

new systems in the discipline of technology but new creative forms according to a variety of requirements for which digital technology was required. The digital technology was part of the method for making rather than an aim in itself. Hence expressing the work process is the intention and the forms created are the vehicles of communication which opens up an area of debate on perception. The process of transformation becomes necessary to be defined. 4.1 Digital experimentation in virtual space: texture, materials and light arrangement At the outset of studio work, forms were created in virtual space. Every step was intended to lead towards digitally generated images, as the modalities of digital technology not only become a vehicle but also a substance to be modeled, manipulated and juxtaposed in various ways. Firstly the two dimensional layouts were made and later three dimensional modeling of figurative formations and the interior of the gallery space were created. Simultaneous use of Autodesk Mudbox and Maya provided facilities to create human figure formations denoting a particular Yoga Asana literally meaning "posture" or "pose". The complete set of Yoga Asana covers the entire human anatomy, quite literally from the top of the head to the tips of the toes. It is interesting to note here as a practitioner, the working process in comparison to traditional medium using traditional methods of sculpting, definitely adds a new dimension to realisation and exploration. A traditional sculptor incorporates a process that starts with defining the volume and refining the surface. While using 3d virtual tools, a sculptor uses volume modeling, by growing, extruding and manipulating edges, faces and vertices of a polygon. Virtual sculpture allows form to occupy a multiplicity of possible formations continuously within the same form. But actual sculpture involves traditional methods of modeling, casting, welding, etc., a certain kind of physical engagement. The placement of eight figurative formations in a virtual gallery space was in accordance with the geometrical space division of the actual Studio3 Gallery at University of Kent, Canterbury. The floor space was divided by diagonal lines called ‘Dishas’ directing the cardinal points and inter-cardinal points and the center, ‘Bindu’, symbolizing primal point. When all these points were joined together, it formed a circle which is called ‘Mandala’, the mystic circle. Consideration for the material used for the models was a must in this research. Modeling and texturing of forms in wire mesh in virtual space is done in such a way keeping in mind the see through and reflective quality of the surface. Also the pedestals, walls, floors, ceilings, doors of the gallery space had to be exactly what was seen in the real gallery space. The spot light effect in Studio3 Gallery had to be recreated in the virtual gallery space. The light falling on each sculpture and its reflection, the light passing through the surface texture of each sculpture, the overlapping shadow of lines of wire mesh falling on top of the pedestal, the reflected light falling on each wall and floor had to be rendered in the same way as it was seen in the real gallery space. Therefore, working in virtual space three things were explored within the framework of the software - the modeling of figurative formation, the texture of the surface of the material of the model (fly screen wire-mesh) and other objects in the gallery space and finally the light arrangement in the space. These played a fundamental role in comparing virtual experiences with real world experience.


639

Figure 2: The process of modelling, texturing of each model and placement of each sculpture with spot light effect in virtual gallery. 4.2 Digital Forms- from virtual to real There are various ways to produce any 3dimensionalforms in actual space using digital technology and some of the terms used for such digital printing technology that we come across are “digital fabrication”, “digital prototyping” or even “digital materialization”. Although these technologies are primarily driven by industrial design and manufacturing industries, developments in Rapid Prototype offers a lot more potential in terms of creativity for the artist (Sequin, 2005). For the production of the models of sculptures, Rapid Prototype manufacturing technology was the most suitable in comparison to Subtractive Manufacturing Technology like CNC Milling. Rapid Prototyping is the automatic construction of computer-generated three-dimensional model created rapidly from a CAD drawing using additive manufacturing technology. Manipulation of the technique and technology and stretching to such an extent to get the best result in production of material like wire mesh, gives an impetus to expound interest in the epistemology of current technologies. Undertaking a technical evaluation of current Rapid Prototype techniques’ capabilities and emphasising on the latest development in Additive Manufacturing technology, there were few constraints which had to be dealt with. Three things became very important in this process. Firstly to execute the wire mesh texture on the surface of each figurative formation and maintaining the actual dimension and thickness all over and also keeping the inside hollowness to make it see through. Feasibility of manufacturing such sculptures and choosing the material for production directly affected the total cost of each artwork. Stratasys Prodigy Plus Fused Deposition Machine was used to produce the final sculptures in ABS plastic. Maximum build size measured 203 x 203 x 305 mm (8 x 8 x 12 in). Using the complex three-dimensional geometries of the sculptures as .stl files and creating actual models of the concept of the Yoga Asanas required lot of experimentation before the final sculptures were printed out in parts and then assembled together ready for exhibition.

Figure 3: Sculpture showing ‘Vyaghrasana’ produced by Rapid Prototype Technology exhibited in Studio3 Gallery.


640

4.3 Integration of virtual sculptures in real space Possibility of incorporating the virtual sculptures in such a way so as to be seen in real time real space was considered. Another way of displaying the virtual models was to use Augmented Reality Application on Android Tablet. For a sculptor, to engage with augmented reality applications that simultaneously display both the physical world and computer-generated images required special care and a different level of knowledge. This is a step further than just using existing software to create 3d models. This was considered to be part of the exhibition the reason being that it is very easy to visualise any virtual sculpture in real space. This is not only to enhance the viewer’s current perception of real space but also to associate the virtual and real space. For a sculptor it is highly useful. If it is made user-friendly for artists then a virtual model of any sculpture can be shown on laptop, tablet and even mobile phone anywhere in the world in any surrounding. The problem of transporting very heavy, fragile or massive sculptures can be dealt with by first visualising its placement and its feasibility using this application. By placing a marker at the exact place of the sculpture, a sculptor now has possibilities of seeing the sculptures and making adjustments in terms of materials, colour and size. 5. A PUBLIC EXHIBITION The exhibition was showcased in Studio3 Gallery, University of Kent in Canterbury from 28th August, 2012 onwards. Three methods of display were highlighted in the exhibition space – display of the virtual sculptures in virtual space projected on wall screen, display of rapid prototype manufactured sculptures placed on pedestals and augmented reality experience on tablet placed in the center of the exhibition space which incorporated virtual sculptures in the real gallery space. Before the viewers entered the Studio3 gallery they were led to an enclosed space at the entrance where the virtual gallery was projected upon a wall screen mainly to show the conceptualization of the exhibits and positioning of the sculptures with spot light effect in the virtual gallery space. Then the viewers were led to the real gallery space where the physical sculptures produced through Rapid Prototype manufacturing technology were displayed on pedestals and the sculptor explained the process of making in detail emphasizing on the transformation of texture of wire mesh from virtual to real sculptures. Pointing out the similarities of the effects of spot light in virtual and real gallery space and the set up of the placement of sculptures on pedestals in the virtual and real space highlighted mainly the comparison of virtual experience with real world experience. Later the viewers were encouraged to use the Augmented Reality Application on Android Tablet to see each virtual sculpture and place it anywhere in the gallery space using the marker. 6. THE ROLE OF THE VIEWERS The final stage of the research was to be able to present a comprehensive explanation and critical discourse of perception of the viewers. Following were the main objectives of the purpose of interpretation: • To establish the level of knowledge of Digital Sculpture and related terms of the viewers. • To investigate how viewers rate different display methods of Digital Sculpture. • To identify suitable examples of display and explain the techniques and processes of sculpture and its creation. • To establish which aspects of the exhibition were particularly liked or disliked by the viewers. • To analyse the relationship between the knowledge of Sculpture and its interpretation on the one hand and learning experience on the other. • To identify viewers interest to learn themes and narratives relating to the physical representation of sculpture.


641

The process which is highlighted in this exhibition involved the production, creation and display of sculptures in an exhibition space as an artist’s enquiry to create a working methodology and then presented to viewers who had different vision, understanding, perception and also different background, in order to know about their perception and opinion. The invited viewers were from different professions- academicians, researchers, technicians, artists, art-lovers, critics and general public. The experience of the artist is definitely very different from the experience of the viewer and sometimes unexpected and different interpretation of viewers modifies the understanding of the whole process. There are three assumptions on which the reaction of the viewers in response to any art-form is ascertained. Firstly, the traditionalist view traces back to the history to justify any art work, the institutional theory relies on the definition of what should be art and the third view has its basis in decisions on perceptual qualities of the artwork. Document the responses and reactions of viewers who are either aware or unaware of the process of realising the sculptures, opens up the main relevance of this research in redefining art through perception as a mode of enquiry. Viewers usually come under two categories: those who are “familiar with art and expect an exhibition to answer and broaden understanding of art within the confines of what is already understood” and those who are “more aware of what is going on in art scene and seek to find validation of this awareness or believe they are able to judge the quality of the exhibition on a deeper level” (Witkamp, 2007). Even though this distinction exists, the viewers have to undergo the art experience and become the ultimate judge of the work which directly or indirectly is enabled through cultural values, social context and personal state of mind. The attention and reception of viewers, and mixed perceptual experience challenges the unwavering line between object and subject. Perception involves information which is imparted to our senses and collected in our mind affecting individual’s insight and viewer’s response. 7. DISCOURSE OF PERCEPTION OF VIEWERS The first group of viewers who visited the Studio3 Gallery at University of Kent in Canterbury and the first study for this paper was based on interviews of 30 people, out of which 16 were female and 14 were male. The majority of viewers, almost 36.6%, were in the age group of 25-45 years; 16.6% were in the age group of 19-25 years, 26.6% were of 45-65 years and 20% were over 65 years. The chart in Figure 4 shows 36.7% of the viewers were already engaged in art and creative profession either working or teaching in the field. The remaining 63.3% of viewers were those who had general interest in art and creativity.

Figure 4: Background of viewers visiting Studio3 Gallery. It was interesting to note from the chart in Figure 5, that maximum number of viewers wanted to see the exhibition out of curiosity. In a way it implies that the term ‘Digital Sculpture’ which was mentioned in the publicity of this exhibition attracted these viewers, because of being more aware of Digital Art as part of Digital Age, irrespective of having either some knowledge or no knowledge of the subject.

Artist/Designer Teacher/Educator in arts,cultural or media subjects

Works in arts/design/creative

profession Others Artist/Designer &

Teacher/Educator

Artist/Designer & works in art/

design/creative profession

Total 6 1 1 19 2 1


642

Figure 5: Primary reason for visiting the exhibition. Determining the background of these viewers were important as the standard for judging digitally manufactured art forms cannot be the same as for the standard used to judge manually produced art since the latter is derived from ‘non-technically informed perception’. 70% of viewers who visited the exhibition had little or no knowledge of digital technology used for processing and producing sculpture. 27% had very general knowledge and 3% had expert knowledge. The method of displaying the sculptures in this exhibition involved the preference of the process of Rapid Prototype technology over CNC Milling technology and the projection and display of 3d images using screen and android tablet. It was necessary to find out if the viewers had any prior knowledge of these technological processes. 63.3% of the viewers had no knowledge of Rapid Prototype technology and remaining viewers already had knowledge of the process not only being used for creative works but also for industrial purposes. Interestingly less people knew about CNC Milling manufacturing technology, almost 70% had no knowledge about this process being used. When asked about projection and display of 3d images, 83.3% of the viewers responded positively. Most of these viewers have seen commercial displays and projections of commodities in shopping areas mainly for promotion or sale purpose. 17% of the viewers knew very few artists involved in making digital sculpture. Anthony Gromley and Scott Snibbe’s exhibitions have been seen earlier by most of these viewers. It was the first experience of 87% of viewers to see an exhibition of digitally processed and manufactured sculptures. It was important to ask all the viewers what is digital sculpture according to them? They were given four options to choose: sculptures which are manipulated digitally and then produced through traditional manual process; sculptures which are created without the use of digital technology and then produced through digital process of production; sculptures which are created and processed entirely through digital technology or all of the options. Maximum viewers, about 40%, considered digital sculptures as works which are created and processed entirely through digital technology.

Curiosity Gain knowledge Motivation See a specific

exhibit Stimulate creativity

Personal interest

Academic/professional

interest Total 36.17% 14.89% 2.13% 10.64% 6.38% 19.15% 10.64%


643

Figure 6: Viewers’ knowledge of what is Digital Sculpture. The next section of the interview questions was mainly to analyse the viewers’ cognitive responses to the exhibition. Based on the three modes of display method and three processes of digital technology involved in producing and presenting the sculpture, viewers were asked for their preference. Besides the display of real sculptures in the gallery space where the viewers could actually see, feel or touch the sculptures, the other two display methods only showed virtual sculptures. 60% of the viewers preferred the display of virtual and real sculptures together, of the remaining 37% of viewers preferred to see the real sculptures and preference for virtual sculpture was only 3%. The chart in Figure7 very clearly shows that 63.34% either strongly agreed or agreed that traditional sculpture using traditional medium is different from digital sculpture.

Figure 7: Viewers’ response on difference between traditional and digital sculpture

40.00%

10.00% 6.67%

33.33%

6.67% 3.33%

Works created and processed through digital technology

Works created and manipulated

digitally and then produced manually

Works created without any

technology and then produced through digital

process

All of the above Works created and processed through digital technology

& works manipulated digitally and

produced manually

Works created and processed through digital technology & works created

manually and produced digitally

16.67%

46.67%

20.00%

13.33%

3.33%

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree


644

Figure 8: Viewers’ opinion on what the artist wanted to emphasise in the exhibition Viewers were given a choice of five options- creativity, expression, composition, technique and technology - specifically to find their opinion of what the artist wanted to emphasize in the exhibition. According to the answers to the interview question, technology seemed to be highlighted in the above chart followed by creativity, technique, composition and lastly expression. It is interesting to note that the artist’s intention was to give equal emphasis on creativity and technology and subsequent emphasis on the value of expression, technique and composition. Those viewers who had little or no knowledge of Digital Sculptures i.e. almost 70% of total number of viewers, 52.4% were interested to learn and practice Digital Sculpture, 28.6% were interested to learn traditional sculpture using traditional medium and 19% wanted to try both together. Out of 26.7% of the viewers who had general knowledge of Digital Sculpture, 50% were interested to learn and practice digital sculpture and the remaining 50% wanted to learn both. Those with expert knowledge were only 3.3% and they showed eagerness in exploring Digital Sculpture further. Following are some of the interesting comments the viewers stated in their interviews giving preference to traditional sculpture: ‘Would rather do a maquette and go through the process of engaging with the material’ ‘Would want to work hands-on with materials, feeling how they behave, seeing how they balance’ ‘Would like to go by the pace of making dictated by a particular medium e.g. stone’ ‘Sculpture needs to be felt and touched as opposed to virtual sculpture’ ‘Would better start from basics of sculpture making and then move to technology’ Some of the comments of viewers who preferred Digital Sculptures are stated below: ‘Already familiar and has background knowledge’ ‘Interested in physical digital sculpture making’ ‘Seems very engaging process and encouraged to try’ ‘Like digital art, would like to try something digitally’ ‘Will try digital technology as it is more accurate and also not good with traditional sculpting’ ‘Would like to see how far it could go while experimenting’ 8. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS This paper examined the different types of Digital Sculpture models, virtual as well as real, and their applications, within the framework of available digital platform. It presented a number of applications for study, presentation, evaluation of analytical models which included the use of

23.40%

12.77%

15.96%

21.28%

26.60%

Creativity Expression Composition Technique Technology


645

different technologies, from 3D modelling to Rapid Prototyping. The changing perceptual qualities of Digital Sculpture were further analysed by interviewing viewers alongside the artist’s own experience of sculpture making. The next stage would be to create user friendly hands-on guides for artists and other people who would like to learn the process of making, presenting and exhibiting Digital Sculpture in any location - in virtual or real space. REFERENCES

Brown, K., 2007. The use of Integral Imaging to realise 3D Images, in True Space. [Online] Available at: http://newmedia.yeditepe.edu.tr/pdfs/isimd_07/keith_brown.pdf

Callicott, N., 2001. Computer-aided manufacture in architecture: the pursuit of novelty. s.l.:Architectural Press.

Celani, G., 2008. Digital fabrication in the arts: just another technical reproduction advance leap or a new artistic revolution?. In: Virtual and Rapid Manufacturing: Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping. London: Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 717-721.

Ganis, W., 2005. Complexities and Contradictions in Digital Sculpture. [Online] Available at: http://newmedia.yeditepe.edu.tr/pdfs/isimd_05/05.pdf

Grossman, B., 2005. About the artist. s.l.:http://www.bathsheba.com/.

Lavigne, C., 1998. Digital Sculpture , France: Computer Arts.

Paul, C., 2000. Fluid Borders: The Aesthetic Evolution of Digital Sculpture, Washington DC: ISC Web Special: Sculpture Magazine.

Paul, C., 2000. Fluid Borders: The Aesthetic Evolution of Digital Sculpture: Crossing Disciplines, Washington DC: ISC Web Special- Sculpture Magazine.

Paul, C., 2000. Fluid Borders: The Aesthetic Evolution of Digital Sculpture: Digital sculpture - A Trojan Horse?, Washington: ISC Web Special- Sculpture Magazine.

Paul, C., 2000. Fluid Borders: The Aesthetic Evolution of Digital Sculpture: Status and Value, Washington DC: ISC Web Special- Sculpture Magazine.

Sequin, C. H., 2005. Rapid prototyping: a 3d visualization tool takes on sculpture and mathematical forms. Communications of the ACM, Volume Volume 48 Issue 6, pp. 66-73.

Smith, R. M., 2010. Art Technology 002 Interview with Robert Michael Smith [Interview] (5 January 2010).

Smith, S., 2008. Stone Sculptures Blend Art and Technology. Dublin(New Hampshire): Desktop Engineering.

Wands, B., 2006. Art of the digital age. London: Thames & Hudson.

Witkamp, J., 2007. The Revised Artist : A Study into the Influence of the Computer on Art Making and Perception, Utrecht: Utrecht University.


646

Documents

Realisation of Changing Perceptual Qualities in Sculpture ...iafor.info/archives/offprints/ace2012-offprints/ACE2012_0333.pdf · Realisation of Changing Perceptual Qualities in Sculpture