What About 3D Printing in the Art World?

As 3D printing becomes more of a presence in the art world, many still question if it's really "art." It's a question that provides plenty of fodder for discussion and argument, and it's one that plagued the photography field for a long time. Does 3D printing make art too easy? And if so, does the fact that it may be easy (which is debatable) mean it's not valid as an artistic medium? What makes a piece of art, the tool or how the tool is used? Read more about these issues at 3DPrint.com: https://3dprint.com/135484/define-3d-printed-art/
https://3dprint.com/wp-content/uploa...51ec82b37f.jpg

I've never been convinced photography is art.

But 3d printed stuff sure, some of it is definitely art :-)

Anything can be art, especially if it's not useful as anything else. While some people cling to their own personal definitions of the term, usually what they're including is good art or even great art; nothing else qualifies in their minds. Leaving aside the question of quality, it's hard to claim that something an artist makes and decides to call "art" is actually something else - there's no generally-accepted term for an attempt at art that's fallen short.

3D printing can be a means for producing art as well as other things. The three examples in the accompanying article: https://3dprint.com/135484/define-3d-printed-art/ are actually pretty good sculptures in my opinion. The most exciting kind of art, for me, anyway, is the kind that breaks new ground, which manages to find things to explore that haven't been worked to death already, and 3D printing facilitates that by allowing an artist to dispense with the technical processes of creating physical structures by hand, and directly translate a virtual model into a tangible one.

It has been objected that this is "too easy" to be true art. But art is not, as some conceive it to be, like an athletic contest where everyone is trying to accomplish the same thing under a set of rules that can't be broken on pain of disqualification. There's no minimum quota for the effort that must be put in, or the amount of time an artist must spend on a piece. Making art is a process of bringing things out of an artist's brain and into the world; the way that's done is up to the artist. Like it or not, however it's made, it's art.

Andrew Werby
Juxtamorph.com

I have my own definition.

Art is a waste of the earth's resources. :)

What use are earth's resources if they don't make people's lives better, like art does?

:) True.

Generally it doesn't make my life better, mostly it just confuses me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awerby

There's no minimum quota for the effort that must be put in, or the amount of time an artist must spend on a piece. "

Andrew Werby

---

And herein lies the problem. Someone can load a bitmap into inkscape for example, convert it to SVG, put it in blender, extrude it - and they call it art. I call it an algorithm.

Whoever decreed that an algorithm can't be art? Perhaps Van Gogh was applying a sort of algorithm when he resolved the world he saw into streaks of paint, or Pollack, when he dribbled it onto canvas from a height. Arguing about whether something is "art" or not is time-consuming and ultimately non-productive, since different people insist on their own definitions of the term, which typically includes things they personally like and value highly while excluding everything else. We could get into a shouting match, I suppose: "It's art!" "No, it's not!" "Yes it is!" "No, it's not!" (repeat until tired). But it's more expedient to admit that anything an artist chooses to call "art" is art, and to talk about its impact (or lack thereof).

If a piece can make a big aesthetic impact on viewers, it doesn't really matter how much labor went into it. But that's not so easy to do, especially over the long term. When an art-making technology is new, it's possible to dazzle people with its novel effects for a while, until they've gotten used to seeing it. But then a reaction sets in, and the Photoshop filters or whatever that seemed so startling before become boring, and people start looking for the next art algorithm...

Andrew Werby
Juxtamorph.com