June 28, 2007: Trash shadow

This is featured in a Tate Gallery magazine item called "The Emblem of Earthly Vanities", featuring art with shadows or other things that make us see an art object differently. But xoB found it here at a blog entry featuring shadows in art.

Credit Tim Noble and Sue Webster for the work entitled "Dirty White Trash (with Gulls)", 1998. And the interesting thing is... the trash shown is said to be six months of the artists' refuse.

I think that is great. There are also some good ones on the Earthly Vanities website you posted.

Thanks UT and xoB!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coign The artist threw away a pair of perfectly good seagulls?

amazing detail in the shadow figures

I think this one illustrates how the 3-D pile gives no clue as to what the shadow will look like. I'm in awe of people who think this stuff up.

Is that Flint's drum set?

I don't think that's the actual shadow. Certainly that's the case for HE/SHE piece (in that second link).

They are all actual shadows.

With the possible exception of Flint's.

Bruce who? Bruce Lee? Bruce Almighty? Bruce the Shark? I don't recognize the 3D shape for that profile, Flint. Could you be more specific?

I'm always thinkin' ...

What about a sculpture that appears to be one thing, but casts the shadow of a different thing? Srsly

Like a would be cartoonist that proves to be a childish AGer.

No, really. If the sculpture that casts the shadow had a visual meaning of it's own, different from the shadow. That would be really tricky.

That's what the thread is about. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint ... If the sculpture that casts the shadow had a visual meaning of it's own, different from the shadow. That would be really tricky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce That's what the thread is about. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.

Flint -- even better if different light angles produced different shadow images. Then you could have the 3D object on a rotating platform and the shadow would change to show different 2D images.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint A pile of trash is pretty visually flexible when you're aiming for a desired effect on the other side. So is a welded together mess of pots and pans, or whatever that is. These pieces have one subject. What I'm talking about is a piece with two distinct subjects, IE a statue of object A that casts a shadow of object B. What would complicate this is that the shadow is fixed (2-D) but people could look at the 3-D part from different angles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HLJ Flint -- even better if different light angles produced different shadow images. Then you could have the 3D object on a rotating platform and the shadow would change to show different 2D images.

Julian Beever has done some interesting 3-D sidewalk drawings with chalk, like:


and



Here's another good one:



Keep in mind that these are all 2D, and only look right from one angle.

You can find more here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce A pile of trash with two seagulls is an identifiable sculpture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coign The artist threw away a pair of perfectly good seagulls?

The closest thing to what I'm thinking, regarding multiple images cast and reproduced on a single, complex 3-D surface, and this is a gross over-simplification, but you know those billboards that change as you drive by? Like that, but, not to name the particular object, it's much more interesting than parallel, vertical louvers with angled facets.

To do what I'm talking about, you'd need something like a Tracer, which I do have, and which most notably a friend and I used to blow up a single eye from an india ink, cross-hatched illustration (he did) of a photograph of a model's face, up from about one inch to about ten feet across, then re-colored it with oil pastels, thus making a perfect photographic reproduction of a human eye that you can only see from at least twenty feet away.

And what did it's shadow look like?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey More than the other ones, at least. They're all amorphous, but one has seagulls.

To carry this idea to a really ridiculous level (because, why not?), I suppose you could cast the shadow of one 3-D object onto another 3-D object, and have the resulting image represent a third subject (appearing to be 2-D on the surface of the second 3-D object). Continuing to expand upon the idea of shapes and images projecting and changing upon the surface of one another, eventually you could build an Escher-esque funhouse where you wouldn't even be sure what you were looking at! This thread certainly opens up what you might even call a can of worms. Like, art worms.

Seagulls, shadows, or whatever, we're all fortunate to be viewing this away from the stink of 6 month old garbage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce Aren't all piles of trash amorphous at first glance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint ...a perfect photographic reproduction of a human eye that you can only see from at least twenty feet away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon Seagulls, shadows, or whatever, we're all fortunate to be viewing this away from the stink of 6 month old garbage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LabRat Wow, do you or he have any close vs. far pics of that? I would love to see how that turned out!

Flint -- you've certainly put a lot of thought into this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey I think that was Flint's point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HLJ Flint -- you've certainly put a lot of thought into this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint 'always thinking' What about a sculpture that appears to be one thing, but casts the shadow of a different thing? Srsly

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce But the artist's point was to make a sculpture of the trash they generated in six months and have it show a shadow of them. To say that isn't a real sculpture, that it doesn't look like anything, the art work is only the shadow, is assinine. It was contructed to look exactly like the artist intended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce Projecting two images on a single plane and only see one of them at a 45 degree angle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV Over thinking. Nothing particularly hard about this. It's literally a matter of perspective.

"Image A reproduced on this plane". There is no plane.
"Image B reproduced on this plane". There is no plane.
Viewed from the image A projection point you will see half of image B if it's projected on a sphere or cylinder. From the same point you wouldn't see all of image A, unless it was a whole lot smaller than the sphere or cylinder, or what ever the hell that is, that has the planes that don't exist going through it. It won't work.
I won't even bother trying to explain why the other two are bullshit, his knowledge of optics is obviously zero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce "Image A reproduced on this plane". There is no plane. "Image B reproduced on this plane". There is no plane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey Perhaps he should have used the word "projection", or "cross-section". I understood it, at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce Then you are as fucked up as he is. You can't project on a cross section. Duh

I certainly don't have anything negative to say about the piece in the original post here, I think it's very clever. That the artist actually carried through with the idea, past the conception phase and into the execution (with real, stinky garbage, no less!) is incredible.

As a further compliment to the artist, their work has inspired me with a few ideas of my own. How great is that? Artwork that makes you think. Even got BigV to illustrate some pretty peculiarly-shaped objects (very cool, BigV).

For the most part, I think this has beed a very positive, stimulating thread. Thanks for another great IotD, Undertoad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey This all seems to be based on some misunderstanding you have of Flint's terminology and diagram conventions. It all works.

HM, you are doing a fine job in this thread handling some pretty mystifying assertions and addressing some baffling misconceptions.

You're doing this maturely and intellectually, in the face of unfounded name calling and ridicule.

This reminds me of some photos that are hanging on the wall in the lobby of Building 26 at Microsoft. Check out the Empty Spaces series: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/artc...wplay/gallery/

Totally not reading the main thread, but I almost can't believe those shadows are generated by inanimate objects like trash and metal circles or whatever.

Cool stuff. But continue on with whatever the mud slinging was here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce . You seem to be morphing the illustrations into some concept you have in your head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint I certainly don't have anything negative to say about the piece in the original post here, I think it's very clever. That the artist actually carried through with the idea, past the conception phase and into the execution (with real, stinky garbage, no less!) is incredible.

Quick and dirty demo of the first diagram.

Very nice, except it's not what's shown in the first diagram. Profiles A and B don't intersect.

Whatever that means. It's exactly what was portrayed by the diagram. If it is not what you thought the diagram meant, you were mistaken. The profiles "intersect" insomuch as any two different 2D projections of a 3D object "intersect".

intersect

• verb 1 divide (something) by passing or lying across it. 2 (of lines, roads, etc.) cross or cut each other.

— ORIGIN Latin intersecare ‘cut, intersect’.

I thought you said they don't intersect ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey The profiles "intersect" insomuch as any two different 2D projections of a 3D object "intersect".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint I thought you said they don't intersect ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey I'm not sure what it is you think the word "profile" on the diagram means, but that word seems to be what is preventing you from understanding the diagrams, which is why I tried a few other words. What I understand it to mean is "the 2D pattern that the object appears as when viewed from the designated angle". As such, any two of them, as long as they aren't colinear, will "intersect", though I'm not sure the word is completely relevant.

My interpretation works, yours apparently doesn't.

If you look at blueprints, you don't interpret the



as a quarter-cylinder.

Ah, well. We seem to be repeating ourselves.

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint I'd say this is definitely a case of someone suffering for their art! I don't have any pics; but as soon as I get a chance (whenever I go to my friend's house next) I will take some from the normal standing-next-to-the-wall-looking-at-a-painting range, and then from the distance-that-the-image-starts-to-make-sense range. . . . So, I sketched up some diagrams... ..the first two involving casting shadows on 2-D and then 3-D surfaces, while the 3-D surfaces retain their information... ..the third involving projected, visible light images, reproduced on 3-D surfaces, so that different images become visible depending on the angle:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey I'm not sure what it is you think the word "profile" on the diagram means...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey My interpretation works, yours apparently doesn't. If you look at blueprints, you don't interpret the as a quarter-cylinder. Ah, well. We seem to be repeating ourselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce I believe the divergent point was, "insert sculpture here".

Dual shadows

There was a (New?) Mexican ?artist? who carved some sculptures (10?) 70 years ago? in 1970-ies?

Anyway, those are now collector's items and best displayed in the corner with two lights, so that it casts different shadows on 2 surfaces.
The one I saw (TV, xx yrs ago, 3 min clip) was eagle with raised wings/elk with big horns.

Flint's third picture reminded me strongly of that, and nobody mentioned those carvings...

I (we) (you) (them?) am very confused (un-enlightened) (unsure?) (not clear) as to where you were going with your post.

BTW, welcome to the cellar!

This series is another excellent example of perspective-specific images.

I like the dead guy in pic 8