Anyone Selling RP Models As Finished Sculptures?

[GaryR52]

I'm re-investigating the possibilities of using rapid prototyping to produce physical models of my digital sculptures and I'm wondering if anyone who is making RP models of their digital sculptures has had any success in selling these models as finished sculpture - or is it necessary to add another step or two and make a mold of the RP model, from which a bronze casting is then made? I guess what I'm really asking is whether there is a market yet for RP generated sculptures. Does anyone know of anyone buying rapid prototyping output (i.e., 3D printings) as completed artworks, or is this new medium going to be a hard sell until it becomes more commonplace?

Gary

[Ries]

Several artists are selling CNC rapid prototypes as finished sculptures, but usually not the sugar crystal or plastic ones.

Brent Collins has been doing some work with the CNC gurus at UC Berkeley-
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sequin/SCULPTS/collins.html

And Bathsheba Grossman has been selling her completely computer generated sculptures, in a variety of mediums, for quite some time now.

http://www.bathsheba.com/

Most of her stuff is in metal these days, but its still RP.
And its exactly the stuff so many people seem to hate, in that she doesnt make it herself, the machine does.

[GaryR52]

I've been aware of Bathsheba Grossman's work for several years, now. I guess what I was really thinking of is the fine art market. Is anyone selling RP sculptures there? Bathsheba's an independent artist - and yes, she is an artist - but, what I'm getting at is whether or not anyone's making any inroads into the gallery system with RP sculpture. Not that this is what I'd like to do; just wondering, that's all. Frankly, I produce better work with my own two hands in traditional (and maybe not so traditional) materials than I can with a mouse. My biggest stumbling block, where creating digital sculpture is concerned, is the limitations imposed by the software interface. I've tried just about every type of 3D modeler and very few are user-friendly enough to allow me to really express myself with them. The closest I've come to what I do with my hands is in 3DS MAX, but I don't own the program; too expensive for me. I've created several pieces with a demo of it a couple of times, over the last few years. Even so, I can still do things with clay or wax or plaster that I could never do with MAX or any other modeler. I looked into RP, about four years ago, and back then it was prohibitively expensive and the maximum build dimensions were way too small and confining. I'm amazed, now, seeing how far things have come in a few short years, though. The build dimensions have enlarged and the costs have fallen to a much more affordable level. Still, having done it both ways, I think I now prefer the hands-on approach. That way, the only limitations are those of the materials and my own skills and talent - not the artificial constraints of some interface. I find trying to model with most 3D modelers is like trying to sculpt clay while wearing boxing gloves. The interface just gets in the way more than it facilitates anything. Besides, the tactile qualities of the materials are entirely missing, also. I was really enthused about the possibilities of digital sculpture, at first, but now I'm coming to the realization that the more "high-tech" things become, the more I crave the "high-touch."

But, anyway, I just wondered if anyone was actually getting anywhere in trying to sell RP models as legit sculpture in the same arena with traditional sculpture.

Gary

[cheesepaws]

But, anyway, I just wondered if anyone was actually getting anywhere in trying to sell RP models as legit sculpture in the same arena with traditional sculpture.

Robert Michael Smith is a fine example of what you are looking for. Talk about a stamp of approval - president of the Sculptor's Guild and on the ISC board. Check him out here:

http://iris.nyit.edu/~rmsmith/

[Harryman]

I'm a fan of "the whatever works for you school" of getting things done.

Check out:

Freeform http://www.sensable.com/

Zbrush http://www.pixologic.com/home.php

Mudbox http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=10707763


Freeform has force feedback so you can feel the piece as you work on it, it's pretty intuitive. I've used it for over a decade.

Zbrush is the biggie in digital sculpting and it's a strong program, Mudbox is very capable too. Both offer free trials.

You can always work in traditional media and 3D scan it. Then manipulate and modify it in CAD. I do that too.

As far as RP for "legit sculpture", most RP methods have limitations in either surface finish, materials or cost. If you can work within these limits, you're golden.

You can also mill in wax and cast or just mill directly in whatever material you choose, stone, wood, etc. Limited only by the mill and money in your budget.

[GaryR52]

Robert Michael Smith is a fine example of what you are looking for. Talk about a stamp of approval - president of the Sculptor's Guild and on the ISC board. Check him out here:

http://iris.nyit.edu/~rmsmith/


Thanks, Cheesepaws. I was a bit disappointed that his gallery page doesn't seem to be online any longer, but that one representative example of his work on the splash page is definitely "the right stuff." :)

Gary

[GaryR52]

I'm a fan of "the whatever works for you school" of getting things done.

Check out:

Freeform http://www.sensable.com/

Zbrush http://www.pixologic.com/home.php

Mudbox http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=10707763


Freeform has force feedback so you can feel the piece as you work on it, it's pretty intuitive. I've used it for over a decade.

Zbrush is the biggie in digital sculpting and it's a strong program, Mudbox is very capable too. Both offer free trials.

You can always work in traditional media and 3D scan it. Then manipulate and modify it in CAD. I do that too.

As far as RP for "legit sculpture", most RP methods have limitations in either surface finish, materials or cost. If you can work within these limits, you're golden.

You can also mill in wax and cast or just mill directly in whatever material you choose, stone, wood, etc. Limited only by the mill and money in your budget.

Thanks for the links, Harryman. I'll check them out. I had looked into RP for metal castings, back in 2004 or 2005, but it was pretty expensive then and the build dimensions were disappointingly small. I know things have improved since then, though. I favor the direct metal approach over RP waxes, to cut out the expense of dealing with a foundry. As for whether I want to go the digital route or the "traditional" route, I guess there is no reason why I can't do a little of both; whatever works, right? In fact, I could have some of my "real" pieces digitally enlarged, at some point. I have an affinity for both paths and, having created many digital pieces, I'd consider it kind of a waste if they never get brought into the three-dimensional world at some point. Right now, it's a cost issue, but that's a temporary situation. I can't wait for the true desktop 3D printers, but that's at least a few years off, yet.

Gary

[cheesepaws]

Thanks, Cheesepaws. I was a bit disappointed that his gallery page doesn't seem to be online any longer, but that one representative example of his work on the splash page is definitely "the right stuff." :)

Gary

Strange - worked fine for me. Might be your 'puter.

[Harryman]

The link was a bit wonky for me, couldn't find the page the first few times, then I couldn't get past the splash page, then I could get in. Maybe give it another try.

Yep Gary, whatever works...

The one advantage of digital pieces is the ability to quickly play around with them; scale, mirror, stretch, chop up and incorporate older scanned works into new.

[shhark]

I'm currently trying to get gallery representation. I showed recently to a large audience in early December and received overwhelmingly positive feedback. I think there is definitely great interest in the medium however I think it needs to be established what makes it "special" compared to traditional mediums. In other words, if you're doing forms that can be done by other methods or in more substantial mediums what is the benefit of the process to a collector?

My work is done digitally and I have been using Objet, SLS, & other printer technologies to print my stuff. My work is too complicated for the DMLS (direct metal) stuff to do. I have been concentrating on getting bronze casts done by using printed patterns that will burn out. My opinion is that most of the RP materials are too fragile & come off as novelty but that is just one man's opinion. Durability by no means constitutes what can be considered art or sculpture.

The programs definitely have a learning curve but like with any tool practice and experience go a long way. I have used all the ones mentioned in this thread. I think Freeform is gimmicky with its "haptic feedback". It is neat but completely unnecessary. Last I checked it cost well over $20k. For less than $1000 you could own Zbrush & a Wacom tablet. Zbrush & Mudbox are also both superior in their toolsets & resolution compared to Freeform. I don't like to use the more traditional CAD programs for art (3DS, Rhino, Solidworks, etc.) but only because my work is too organic to fight with the way they work, however I think they're useful for hard geometries & math based/generated forms (i.e. Bathsheba Grossman).

[Andrew Werby]

[QUOTE=shhark;70885]I'm currently trying to get gallery representation. I showed recently to a large audience in early December and received overwhelmingly positive feedback. I think there is definitely great interest in the medium however I think it needs to be established what makes it "special" compared to traditional mediums. In other words, if you're doing forms that can be done by other methods or in more substantial mediums what is the benefit of the process to a collector?

[You bring up some good points here. There definitely are things you can do with RP and CNC processes that would be difficult or impossible to do using traditional methods. Whether you can persuade galleries and collectors that these benefits outweigh the inherent disadvantages they might see in digital sculpture is another matter. The art world has made a fetish of the "artist's touch" - the work of art as a sort of metaphysical souvenir of the artist.

Digital sculpture, because one can theoretically produce a vast number of identical pieces with no loss of quality, subverts that way of thinking about art, and hence the preciousness of the individual art object. Other media have met this challenge and overcome it, but photography, cinema, video, lithography, and music have all transcended an initial status as unique examples of art (and a period when people denied that they were art at all), and have thriven in the "age of mechanical reproduction". Galleries, though, are quite conservative, and tend to be slow to adopt anything new.]

My work is done digitally and I have been using Objet, SLS, & other printer technologies to print my stuff. My work is too complicated for the DMLS (direct metal) stuff to do. I have been concentrating on getting bronze casts done by using printed patterns that will burn out. My opinion is that most of the RP materials are too fragile & come off as novelty but that is just one man's opinion. Durability by no means constitutes what can be considered art or sculpture.

[There are some machines that build very strong models in plastics of various types; they are intended to create working prototypes or even functional parts in small quantities. If durability is something you need, you should do a little more research before dismissing all RP output as fragile. Certainly some is, but by no means all. Molding 3d prints and casting from the molds is another viable workflow to look into, if you're primarily interested in making bronzes.]

The programs definitely have a learning curve but like with any tool practice and experience go a long way. I have used all the ones mentioned in this thread. I think Freeform is gimmicky with its "haptic feedback". It is neat but completely unnecessary. Last I checked it cost well over $20k. For less than $1000 you could own Zbrush & a Wacom tablet. Zbrush & Mudbox are also both superior in their toolsets & resolution compared to Freeform. I don't like to use the more traditional CAD programs for art (3DS, Rhino, Solidworks, etc.) but only because my work is too organic to fight with the way they work, however I think they're useful for hard geometries & math based/generated forms (i.e. Bathsheba Grossman).

[I disagree with you about Sensable's products (Freeform is one, but there are others). No other system allows you to work in three-dimensional space with a 3d tool. The fact that you can feel what your working on is a huge bonus. Have you actually tried it yourself? The interface is a quantum level more intuitive than Z-brush or Mudbox. Yes, if you think of 3d space as a set of 2d pictures you can make sculpture with them, but as a sculptor I find that a lot less satisfying than working directly in 3d. For making organic sorts of forms, there's nothing else that even comes close.

And you're wrong about the price too - Sensable has systems, like Claytools, that list for as low as $5900 (and I can make you an even better deal..) I sell Z-brush too, but Claytools, although it does cost more, just blows it out of the water. I'm not sure where you got your ideas about resolution, because you can make your pieces as fine as you want, the only limit is what your computer can handle. You can use it to improve on something you've already built in another program, or you can export your model out of Claytools to another program if it has some extra tool you feel you need to use.]

Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com

[GaryR52]

Strange - worked fine for me. Might be your 'puter.

Nope, I got a 404 error. Even my "Way back Machine" plugin for Firefox (which looks up the page on Web Archive, I believe it is) didn't find anything.

Gary

[GaryR52]

...if you're doing forms that can be done by other methods or in more substantial mediums what is the benefit of the process to a collector?

Exactly. You have to consider your medium from the buyer's point of view. Will it last? Can I get the same thing in another medium for less money? Does the piece look better in ABS plastic than in bronze? etc, etc. There are lots of reasons why an RP piece might not be considered "real art" even though the form and the artist's talent are equally apparent. Of course, to answer the second hypothetical question I've posed here, unless you've created the same piece in more than one material, then the RP piece will be the only one available.

My opinion is that most of the RP materials are too fragile & come off as novelty but that is just one man's opinion. Durability by no means constitutes what can be considered art or sculpture.

True. Just look at the ephemeral materials being used by today's sculptors, whose works grace the pages of Art in America, ArtNews, Art Forum, etc. It seems many are successful selling sculpture that is not composed of what is normally considered "permanent" materials. In fact, there are (and have been, since the fifties and sixties) sculptors working in plastics, which are no different from the ABS used to make some RP models today. Don Frost, one of my favorite living sculptors, works in carved foam and fiberglass.

On the molecular level, there may be a difference in deposition models, as opposed to injection-molded ABS, though. I would think injection molding holds up better because it is not made up of layers, but is, instead, one solid piece.

I think Freeform is gimmicky with its "haptic feedback". It is neat but completely unnecessary. Last I checked it cost well over $20k.

That's ridiculous. If I miss the tactile element, I'll just pick up a ball of real clay, thank you.


For less than $1000 you could own Zbrush & a Wacom tablet. Zbrush & Mudbox are also both superior in their toolsets & resolution compared to Freeform. I don't like to use the more traditional CAD programs for art (3DS, Rhino, Solidworks, etc.) but only because my work is too organic to fight with the way they work, however I think they're useful for hard geometries & math based/generated forms (i.e. Bathsheba Grossman).

Really? I thought Zbrush was more expensive than that. I already have a small (4"x6") Wacom tablet, so maybe I'll save up my pennies for Zbrush and give it a whirl. They have a demo, don't they?

Well, with the possible exception of Solidworks, I don't consider 3DS MAX or Rhino to be "CAD" programs at all. I've been a professional CAD technician for over twenty years and, while most CAD software these days does include some 3D modeling tools, such as those found in Autocad, 3DS Max and Rhino have been used more in the design industry that serves the motion picture special effects industry and the game software industry. But, maybe I'm just splitting hairs. I know what you mean about MAX and Rhino, though. I've gotten fairly close to what I want in MAX, but Rhino doesn't have the same subtlety in its deformation tools. The model always seems to wind up distorted in ways I don't intend, while MAX is much smoother and more predictable. Like you, it's organic form I'm shooting for, but I haven't found a modeler that will allow me to achieve it without some serious compromises.

But, if they get these software tools to the point at which anyone can truly duplicate the same effects one gets in real clay and with the same ease and fluidity, then what? I don't think traditional sculptors will ever be replaced and don't have anything to fear from this medium. It will likely never (I know, never say never) advance to the point at which the results are indistinguishable from what humans can achieve in real materials with traditional tools. It will more than likely remain as distinguishable from traditionally created sculpture as digital paintings are from "real" paintings. I've tried my hand at Corel's Painter X (I bought the program), but it's also like trying to paint with boxing gloves on. I can achieve exactly what I intend with a real brush and real paint, so why bother with the frustration of trying to get something that looks like my paintings out of something like Painter X? I finally wound up uninstalling it. Yep, the dream of being able to quickly and easily create artworks out of nothing, with no investment in art supplies is a tempting one, alright. The manufacturers of these programs want us to believe it's really that easy. But, in the end, I always wind up returning to the real tools and materials, which I already know how to use, and I get what I want from them every time.

Gary

[donnadodsonarti]

I got into 3D prints from a demo class I on Solidworks and the vendor, CaddEdge had other products that were more suitable to my needs. I got some small (2"-1") Z-Corp prints made of my sculptures made for a collaborative project with a jewelry designer and I've also looked into 3D scanning and enlargement technologies to bid on public art projects with my work that could translate it into a larger scale that would be fabricated in materials that are suitable to the outdoors like stone, using CNC routers, and bronze, using CNC routers on foam and then sand casting or lost wax casting techniques. I sculpt animal headed goddess figures in wood approximately 1-4 feet tall. My signature artwork is suitable for indoor galleries but I am now investigating the technologies available to me to turn my original wood sculptures into small prints (6" tall) that I sell in a signed limited edition. They are made of gympsum, sand and a cyano-acrylic resin Additionally, the 6" print I took in two more directions- one I took to a pewter foundry for centrifugal force casting in rubber molds and another one I took an RTV mold off of it and poured a wax positive that I am going to cast in both bronze and kiln cast glass. These will be smaller size, signed and limited editions of my work at lower price points and different materials. I dont think it takes anything away from my gallery work. I think for some artists it might be too much of a leap to think of their sculptures as designs which is what the process of digital scanning, printing and 3D translating is about. If it helps you market your work to a wider audience and make money by generating more business opportunities, I think it's great. If I didnt feel like my aesthetic could hold up through all the different computer translations, I wouldn't do it. My work is online at http://donnadodsonartist.blogspot.com.

[GaryR52]

The jewelry collaboration is especially applicable, since many jewelers are now using RP as a precursor to investment casting. Using RP models for bidding on public sculpture projects is an idea I hadn't considered, though.

I know what you mean about the resistance to the term "designs." As an abstract painter, I cringe at the use of it to describe what I'm doing. But, the people who most often use the term in that way are coming from the perspective of people who do graphic design for a living, so, to them, everything is a "design," whether it's illustration, photography or painting. Same thing with sculpture and the architectural/interior design establishment. In their element, it's all "design," even the public artworks they commission. I think it's just a matter of one's viewpoint.

Gary

[donnadodsonarti]

See What's New on Vivian Pratt's website for her work, www.vivianpratt.com.

[john wendelbo]

Frank Stella uses RP as elements of larger more complex sculptures, ie he uses RP and mixes it with other stuff like rolled stainless, carbon fiber, whatever else he can think of. It's very impressive in the end, and is definitely fine art! He's gone so far as to RP pieces on the 6ft scale which are elements of say 10ft scale pieces, it's really wild.

[Andrew Werby]

Have you got any links to pictures of these Frank Stella pieces? They sound pretty interesting...

Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com

[donnadodsonarti]

We saw this onehttp://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/artnetnews/artnetnews12-23-1.asp at the National Gallery of Art in Washignton DC

[CroftonGraphics]

Does anyone who has had any RP made,
can u tell me how much it cost you?

All the companies I am checking in the UK look good but they dont give ballpark quotes and that means having to contact them then they will e mail me all the time etc.

I possibly want to get an RP of works I have made,
only a few inches tall and simple design from some 3d studio max work.

I like to use 3ds max, and also zbrush. I also sometimes print wireframes plan view black and white and use these as a guide. That can work.

[john wendelbo]

ball park is 15-25$ / cubic inch of build material.

good luck

[Harryman]

These guys are pretty cheap, not the best resolution, but you get what you pay for.

http://www.shapeways.com/