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

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.

Yeah, but it is impossible as drawn. Projecting visible images on planes that don't exist. Projecting two images on a single plane and only see one of them at a 45 degree angle. Even Disney can't do this fairy tale.

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

But the shape of the pile of trash is irrelevant, if not for the shadow. The materials are the artistic statement of the pile, not the shape.

On a plane, yes, but it's possible on a 3D surface for the shadow to make one image from one angle and another image from another angle.

Nice illustrations, BigV.

"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.

Perhaps he should have used the word "projection", or "cross-section". I understood it, at least.
And if it was neither a sphere nor a cylinder, but a shape designed to catch shadows in a very specific way, you get a different result.The other two work as well. The sculptures are not cylinders, the circles indicate "insert sculpture here".

Then you are as fucked up as he is. You can't project on a cross section. Duh "Projected image is not shadows, it's an image. Where the fuck does it say insert sculpture here?
1st diagram ~ In order to get the shadow of profile A alone, profile B has to be smaller. If Profile B is smaller, then you can't see it from "viewer".
2nd diagram has an order of magnitude more errors.

But, I tell you what, you build it and put it up on YouTube and I'll admit I'm wrong.

That's a pretty obtuse way to interpret it. You project on the surface, and the [plane, cross section, 2D projection, whatever you want to call it] is "what the pattern looks like from that angle". Like if you look at a cube from on angle, it's a square. From another, it's a rectangle. From another, it's a hexagon. If you project a pattern onto that cube, and move around it, the 2D projection of that pattern that you see will change shape. And if it's a more complicated shape than a cube, you can get more complicated patterns.

A projected image is a shadow. A shadow is a projected image. The shadow of a colored translucent film can be more interesting than the shadow of an opaque object, but it's all the same in this context.

Profile B is "what the viewer sees when looking at the object from the indicated position". If the object is visible, then the viewer can see Profile B. Whether it's bigger or smaller than Profile A is irrelevant.

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

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.

. You seem to be morphing the illustrations into some concept you have in your head. I said what he drew won't work, and it won't.

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/