This article really finished off the areas of replication technology and it implications to sections of design. With the Minecraft/Makerbot video we talked about resources and in the Materalizing Information we talked about the uses of the printing, but now with this short but sweet article we get to focus on the arts. It really makes for a fuller view of the replication technology.
I actually never thought of 3d printing as being disruptive. That was a word from the first part of the article and it really stuck me. I feel like disruptive is so much more violent of a word to actually show the impact of printing. It just seems like an odd word choice. Are 3d printing that radical? The article talks about the benefits of the tool and everything about it is certainly new age, almost science fiction but they aren’t affecting the arts based on the article. It just seems like they are adding a new feature. It’s just addicting a new means of distribution, so I do not understand the whole beginning portion of the arts being “familiar with disruption”. How is that relevant exactly?
Anyway, I think the examples they used in the article of distortion to be really cool. The whole thing about museums digitalizing their pieces is pretty cool. It’s like a new version of posters or reproductions of paintings and sculptures. And that’s just really cool. Plus it sounds like a good thing for artists to reproduce their work more readily not unlike the printing press or screen printing.
I think the whole fashion bit was very odd. I hadn’t associated this reproduction method with outfits. I thought of more of the line of sculptures or tools, but clothing? That’s just weird. But I guess that is fashion for you. It’s kind of weird.
No comments:
Post a Comment