June 28, 2007: Trash shadow - Page 2

Flint · 06-28-2007, 04:48 PM

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.

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.

HungLikeJesus · 06-28-2007, 04:54 PM

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.

xoxoxoBruce · 06-28-2007, 05:10 PM

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.

A pile of trash with two seagulls is an identifiable sculpture. Being easy to create or "visually flexible" has no bearing on it. It's recognizable and casts a shadow of something completely different. If you want it to be a more defined sculpture, why don't you go make one and stop bothering the adults?

Flint · 06-28-2007, 05:29 PM

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.

Interesting. What I've been working on is casting a flat image on an irregular surface, so that when viewed from a specific angle, the visual data compiles back into the original flat image. The obvious limitation, depending on how you look at it (no pun intended) being that you have to view it from that specific angle. Now, I don't know about moving images, but I suppose I could attempt maybe three fixed images viewed from three distinct vantage points, cast on one 3-D object. (I'll leave it to your imagination what specific object I'm using as a "canvas" here...)

HungLikeJesus · 06-28-2007, 05:52 PM

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.

Happy Monkey · 06-28-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

A pile of trash with two seagulls is an identifiable sculpture.

More than the other ones, at least. They're all amorphous, but one has seagulls.

This reminds me of the digital sundial (check out #8).

monster · 06-28-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coign

The artist threw away a pair of perfectly good seagulls?

Couldn't find a good recipe.

Flint · 06-28-2007, 07:51 PM

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.

xoxoxoBruce · 06-28-2007, 08:03 PM

And what did it's shadow look like?

xoxoxoBruce · 06-28-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

More than the other ones, at least. They're all amorphous, but one has seagulls.

Aren't all piles of trash amorphous at first glance? That was the point, they are supposed to appear as piles of trash and not hint at the shadow they would produce, even though they were carefully constructed like any other sculpture.

Flint · 06-28-2007, 08:53 PM

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.

spudcon · 06-29-2007, 11:11 AM

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

Happy Monkey · 06-29-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Aren't all piles of trash amorphous at first glance?

I think that was Flint's point.

LabRat · 06-29-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

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

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

Flint · 06-29-2007, 12:07 PM

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.

I'd say this is definitely a case of someone suffering for their art!

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!

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:

06-28-2007, 04:54 PM	#17
HungLikeJesus Only looks like a disaster tourist Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: above 7,000 feet Posts: 7,208	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. __________________ Keep Your Bodies Off My Lawn SteveDallas's Random Thread Picker.

06-28-2007, 05:52 PM	#20
HungLikeJesus Only looks like a disaster tourist Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: above 7,000 feet Posts: 7,208	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. __________________ Keep Your Bodies Off My Lawn SteveDallas's Random Thread Picker.

06-28-2007, 07:51 PM	#23
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	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. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio** Last edited by Flint; 06-28-2007 at 08:01 PM.

06-28-2007, 08:03 PM	#24
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	And what did it's shadow look like? __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

06-28-2007, 08:53 PM	#26
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	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. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

06-29-2007, 11:11 AM	#27
spudcon Beware of potatoes Join Date: May 2007 Location: Upstate NY, USA Posts: 2,078	Seagulls, shadows, or whatever, we're all fortunate to be viewing this away from the stink of 6 month old garbage.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)