No human language has the proper language for 3-D shapes. Like, it's really hard to describe abstract shapes JUST using words without using the phrase "It looks like a...."
Wouldn't that be a cool game? You are given a card with a drawing of an object on it (it could actually be a 3-D object, which is much better because it's harder)
And you'd have to describe this object in words. Like, "it's a cylinder, with a triangle-shaped notch cut out..." I dunno.
Then the person you're describing to has to draw the thing you're describing.. Or in the more challenging version, they'd have to shape it out of clay. Of course, this could be intensely challenging, or really easy depending on the complexity of the shape.
You could make it competitive, of course. Like which pair is better at describing the thing so their partner will be able to render it more perfectly without seeing it.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
AHEM, OK.
I have a 3-D object in my mind. I'm going to describe it in terms of shapes and geometry. You try to form a mental image of this thing. (If you're up for the CHALLENGE, WEAKLING!!!!)
For this game, you'll need to imagine a 3-D field. Imagine the X,Y and Z axis. Look as if you're standing at Z 10 or something (let's say that means 10 meters away), so that you see Z running under your feet, like rail road tracks into the distance.
Now, coming from left to right (crossing the Z line in the middle of your field of vision) is the X axis.
From the sky to the floor (crossing the Z line in the middle of your field of vision) is the y axis.
Now I'll describe the object to you. Listen up.
Imagine a solid cylinder that's wide and short, sitting on the floor, with the circle parts of the cylinder facing towards the ceiling and towards the ground. From the floor to the top, it's about as tall as half the diameter. So it's wider than it is tall.
Let's say it's one meter wide and half a meter tall.
Now, imagine making another object. This new object will become an appendage to the first object.
Let's use the workspace IN FRONT OF the object (that 10-meter area closer to you, along the z axis) to construct the new object
Start with a rectangular prism that's as tall as the cylinder.
It's about as wide as 1/4 of the cylinder and it's about as long as the cylinder's diameter.
In terms of meters, this rectangular prism is half a meter tall, 1 meter long (z-axis) and 1/4 meter wide (x-axis).
Now let's move this prism so that it touches the cylinder. Push it directly away from you (along the z axis), toward the original object, until the far wall of the appendage touches the curved wall of the cylinder. Now, along the x axis, push the appendage to the right until the right wall of the appendage is in line with the farthest right point in the circle of the cylinder. Now push it AGAIN directly away from you in the z plane, so that it touches the cylinder again. The far left corner of the appendage object should be making contact with the cylinder.
Now, pretend that it's all made of clay.
See how only the far left corner of the appendage is touching the cylinder? And just to the right of that point of contact is empty space? Fill in that empty space by extending the far right wall of the appendage away from you in the z plane until it touches the cylinder. Extend the top and bottom walls of the appendage away from you in the z plane until they touch the cylinder. Now, you have these two objects joined.
Since it's made of clay, blend walls together, to make these two objects into one. Smooth the walls out.
Therefore, the right side of the new whole object you've created should be totally flat and straight.
Looking to the left side of the appendage, where it touches the curved wall of the cylinder, blend the walls of the appendage (in the z plane) so that it forms a nice curve into the wall of the cylinder.
Now make the whole thing hollow. Hollow it out. Do it. Make the walls thin, only about 10 centimeters thick.
Since it's hollow, you can cut into it easily, like cutting into clay. Cut an opening from floor-to-ceiling of the closest-to-you wall of the appendage.
Start the incision 10 centimeters up from the floor, 10 centimeters in from the left wall. Run the incision upward in the y-plane, so it runs parallel to the wall of the object. Stop it about 10 centimeters down from the top of the object. Withdraw your knife and get ready to make another incision.
From the point you left off, move right on the x axis, until you're 10-cm from the RIGHT wall of this object. Make another such incision top-to-bottom here, parallel to the first incision.
Now you should have two incisions that run up and down and are parallel to each other.
Now, just make two more incisions that connect the ends of these two incisions. So you just cut out a thin rectangle. Throw this away, so there's a thin slit in the wall. If you look into this slit, you'll see the hollow interior of the object.
You know the part where the "appendage" touched the main cylinder? Delete these interior walls, so when you look into the slit, you can see all the way into the hollow body of the main cynlinder.
Put your knife safely away. Now run your hand along the right wall of the appendage in the z axis. Stop when you get to around the point where the appendage met the wall of the cylinder (even though you can't see the seam, because you blended it all out a minute ago, remember?)
Cut a slit here that runs the height of the object (in the y axis). The incision should start about 10 centimeters up from the floor, and stop about 10 centimeters down from the top of the object.
Now keeping moving on the z axis, until you're about even with the center of the circle. Make another such top-to-bottom incision here.
Now you should have two incisions that run up and down and are parallel to each other.
Now, just make two more incisions that connect the ends of these two incisions. So you just cut out another rectangle. Throw away the two rectangles you just cut out.
Go back to your original vantage point. You have just created an object that's hollow and has two long rectangular slits as openings. One of the slits is on the appendage, going up and down, on the wall that faces you. And the 2nd slit is along the right side of the object, also running up and down..
Now take the entire object and rotate it 90 degrees counter-clockwise around the z axis. The appendage should now be facing you still, but its long wall, which used to be the height, is now the width. The slit in this wall is still facing you, and it's now oriented horizontally. The second rectangular slit you cut is now facing up at the sky. Got it?
Now, take your viewing position from +10 on the z axis, and move to -10, and shift your view 180 degrees in the z plane. In other words, just view the object from behind.
From this vantage point, you're basically just going to add a small object to the butt-side of this thing. It's the shape of a torus (that's the geometric name for "donut") with the hole oriented in the x plane.
Now, the size of the torus:
The torus is about as tall as one third of the circle of the original cylinder. (So, like one third of a meter) It's thin; about the width of 1/5 of a meter.
Stick the edge of this torus to the direct back of the object, directly in the middle. Solder it on firmly.
Now go back to your original viewing position.
Make a sphere with a diameter about one fourth of the height of the object.
Put this sphere directly inside the hollow cavity in the center of the object.
Now shrink the whole thing down so it's about two inches long.
Turn all of it into steel.
Now you should know what it is!
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
whimstar.blogspot.com
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
That was a crazy game, huh? If the players got used to the terms, it would be a lot more concise. And you probably could get to the point where you don't need any "like a...[actual object]" phrases. Because the whole point is to NOT say "it looks like a ....". The whole point is to construct the thing in someone's head without any reference to real-life objects. (I guess geometrical objects are still a reference to SOMETHING, but...)
In this exercise, obviously the object was a real object in the real world, but like I said in the introduction, it would be interesting (and more challenging) if the object was abstract.
I guess the point of the whole thing is more of a commentary on language. I wonder if aliens have a way of communicating where they could tell the other person more concisely exactly what some complicated object looks like. Like, they'd be able to "beam" the whole in-out-over-and-under schematic to the other guy, and he'd be able to imagine it instantly.
Assuming you limit the vocabulary to all geometric shapes, it's basically the same thing is 3-D modeling on the computer. Only it's probably even more annoying.
iPad table
Imagine an office where everyone is sitting in cubicles, isolated from one another.
Now imagine a large room where 5 - 10 employees are communing around a table.
Which scenario do you think is more productive for the company?
The second one, obviously, because more heads are coming together, communicating and sharing ideas. Working with, or even just AROUND other people, is so much more synergistic. And good for morale.
Even if you're working on your own thing, it's sometimes nice to have other people around the table working on their own thing. You can reach out for help at any moment.
What's the downside to the around-the-table arrangement? Well, for one thing, how is each person going to have access to their computer?
So here's the idea: It's an iPad the size of a table. Imagine it. A half dozen people sitting around a gigantic iPad. Files can be grabbed and moved around. "Here! Look at this file!" you can say, and then you can actually physically pass it to the person next to you. Because of it's large amount of RAM, each person can be working on their own project at the same time; their own section of large screen.
Now imagine a large room where 5 - 10 employees are communing around a table.
Which scenario do you think is more productive for the company?
The second one, obviously, because more heads are coming together, communicating and sharing ideas. Working with, or even just AROUND other people, is so much more synergistic. And good for morale.
Even if you're working on your own thing, it's sometimes nice to have other people around the table working on their own thing. You can reach out for help at any moment.
What's the downside to the around-the-table arrangement? Well, for one thing, how is each person going to have access to their computer?
So here's the idea: It's an iPad the size of a table. Imagine it. A half dozen people sitting around a gigantic iPad. Files can be grabbed and moved around. "Here! Look at this file!" you can say, and then you can actually physically pass it to the person next to you. Because of it's large amount of RAM, each person can be working on their own project at the same time; their own section of large screen.
Privacy is artistically liberating
While I'm more musically inspired than ever before in my life, my good friend Scott — a "real" musician — is not doing music because he doesn't have privacy. He says he doesn't feel comfortable really getting into it when he knows he's in earshot of his upstairs neighbors.
I know exactly what he was talking about: I really need my privacy to make art, too. Because every time you go to put down a brush stroke, or sing a note, you are taking a risk. It might work. It might not. It's part of the creative process. You can't have people listening in or looking over your shoulder.
That's why this month has been such a blessing, because I've been living in a practically empty house. If I want to play the guitar and sing stupid lyrics at the top of my lungs, I can.
When I look back on my childhood, I'm really glad that I had this luxury. Besides the fact that my parents were really encouraging of my creativity, my isolated circumstances really made a fine breeding ground for talent. With nobody around most of the time, I could really explore my creative side in total privacy.
My house was completely separated from all the neighbors, so — as weird as this sounds — no one could hear you scream. I remember how fun it was to play electric guitar as loud as I could stand it. To sing and shout and holler. To compose songs on the keyboard. Playing into the empty air, where nobody can feel judged.
On another topic:
Earlier tonight, we got talking about the artistic relevance of pop music. It was a pretty stale debate, but there were some interesting points made. I pointed out that in the early 20th century, music wasn't the sole domain of musical renaissance men, which is how it became in the 50s, 60s and definitely the 70s, where full-package musicians became prominent: wonderkids who could sing, write songs AND play their instruments like virtuosos. AND looked pretty on camera. Way back when, there was a song writer behind the scenes and a performer on stage. Nowadays, that's still the case, but even more so: there's a whole team of professionals that bring any given CD to market: marketers, advertising a producer, a song-writer, hired-gun studio musicians and singers. The person on the cover of the album isn't even a musician, really. They are just a pretty face. However, there's still the MYTH lingering from the 70's that a musician is all those things at once. It's like we want to believe in these god-like icons who have more talent in one finger than we ever could. AND they're young and cute to boot. Therefore we can worship them and make them into a commodity at the same time. All the while, —- insidiously -- we can absolve ourselves of any responsibility to explore our own talents because we know we can never be the full package: writer, producer, performer all at once.
In my case, I know damn well what my strengths and weaknesses are. And I'm not going to let my lack of ability in one area stop me from exploring my talents.
I know that I suck at playing instruments. I don't have chops. My fingers just aren't dexterous enough. And I don't have the patience to practice. (But, incidentally, there are many people who have this skill. And these people can be hired or contracted.) I'm not a great singer. I'm an OK singer, but I don't have a voice you'd go out of your way to listen to.
On the plus side, I can write. I have a sense of humor, a talent for poetry, rhyme, rhythm and melody. Not so much harmony, but melody. That's what I offer. And I'm satisfied with the idea that I don't have to be everything at once. I can write song shells and then have real musicians come and enhance my ideas. Collaboration is way more fun anyway.
I'm proud of the two songs I recorded today! (The first and last songs are the new ones.)
I know exactly what he was talking about: I really need my privacy to make art, too. Because every time you go to put down a brush stroke, or sing a note, you are taking a risk. It might work. It might not. It's part of the creative process. You can't have people listening in or looking over your shoulder.
That's why this month has been such a blessing, because I've been living in a practically empty house. If I want to play the guitar and sing stupid lyrics at the top of my lungs, I can.
When I look back on my childhood, I'm really glad that I had this luxury. Besides the fact that my parents were really encouraging of my creativity, my isolated circumstances really made a fine breeding ground for talent. With nobody around most of the time, I could really explore my creative side in total privacy.
My house was completely separated from all the neighbors, so — as weird as this sounds — no one could hear you scream. I remember how fun it was to play electric guitar as loud as I could stand it. To sing and shout and holler. To compose songs on the keyboard. Playing into the empty air, where nobody can feel judged.
On another topic:
Earlier tonight, we got talking about the artistic relevance of pop music. It was a pretty stale debate, but there were some interesting points made. I pointed out that in the early 20th century, music wasn't the sole domain of musical renaissance men, which is how it became in the 50s, 60s and definitely the 70s, where full-package musicians became prominent: wonderkids who could sing, write songs AND play their instruments like virtuosos. AND looked pretty on camera. Way back when, there was a song writer behind the scenes and a performer on stage. Nowadays, that's still the case, but even more so: there's a whole team of professionals that bring any given CD to market: marketers, advertising a producer, a song-writer, hired-gun studio musicians and singers. The person on the cover of the album isn't even a musician, really. They are just a pretty face. However, there's still the MYTH lingering from the 70's that a musician is all those things at once. It's like we want to believe in these god-like icons who have more talent in one finger than we ever could. AND they're young and cute to boot. Therefore we can worship them and make them into a commodity at the same time. All the while, —- insidiously -- we can absolve ourselves of any responsibility to explore our own talents because we know we can never be the full package: writer, producer, performer all at once.
In my case, I know damn well what my strengths and weaknesses are. And I'm not going to let my lack of ability in one area stop me from exploring my talents.
I know that I suck at playing instruments. I don't have chops. My fingers just aren't dexterous enough. And I don't have the patience to practice. (But, incidentally, there are many people who have this skill. And these people can be hired or contracted.) I'm not a great singer. I'm an OK singer, but I don't have a voice you'd go out of your way to listen to.
On the plus side, I can write. I have a sense of humor, a talent for poetry, rhyme, rhythm and melody. Not so much harmony, but melody. That's what I offer. And I'm satisfied with the idea that I don't have to be everything at once. I can write song shells and then have real musicians come and enhance my ideas. Collaboration is way more fun anyway.
I'm proud of the two songs I recorded today! (The first and last songs are the new ones.)
Extemporaneous Album
I accidentally had some ganja cookies last Monday. I was so high I couldn't do anything but sit in my car and talk to myself. Fortunately, I had a small digital recorder with me. I started talking. And then I started singing. It was so much fun I didn't want to stop. I was there for hours.
The next day, I listened to what I had come up with. Most of it was quaintly weird and random, like a dream, or like my sub-conscious wringing itself dry. A lot of it was laugh-out-loud funny! I spent the next few days winnowing out the boring parts. But I left the final product in tact, with minimal edits, and only a few over dubs.
The next day, I listened to what I had come up with. Most of it was quaintly weird and random, like a dream, or like my sub-conscious wringing itself dry. A lot of it was laugh-out-loud funny! I spent the next few days winnowing out the boring parts. But I left the final product in tact, with minimal edits, and only a few over dubs.
Click here to hear
Ready to Explode
This album really inspires me because I'm enthralled when I can make something of "quality" with little effort. One take. Totally off-the-cuff. It's an abundant feeling, because it means you can make gold at any time out of nothing.
There are some really good ideas — gold nuggets — buried in the horse shit. I am excited to extract the juice and use it to fuel an ever grander vision, but I actually think it is release-worthy as it is. I mean, it's totally crappy. But it's a good kinda of crappy, like the kind of thing that would become an internet phenomenon. Like the kid who posts the video that's just weird enough to make people go... "Hmm...? What can I do with this?" And the next thing you know, there are 100 remixes on YouTube, complete with crappy animation.
Pure, bare expression of the inner freak is a thing that people can grab onto. They are happy that someone else can really let it out — the way they wish they could.
Just naked voice in a vacuum, like raw materials, can be used to build something even bigger. For that reason, I didn't alter these tracks much. I want to see what will happen when I put my bare art out in the "free box" for anonymous people to scavenge.
Tattoo stencil
This is so obvious, I don't know why I've never thought of it before.
Here it is: Get a piece of sticker paper and cut a stencil into it. Put it on your arm and use sharpie. It looks really crisp. People will wonder how you did it.
Here it is: Get a piece of sticker paper and cut a stencil into it. Put it on your arm and use sharpie. It looks really crisp. People will wonder how you did it.
Simply Simplement
I just thought of a cheesy thing. When you want to "implement" an idea and "simplify" at the same time, why not "simplement"? Eh?
What can Yudu do? How about STEAL MY IDEA?
I'm actually kind of flattered. Someone out there stole one of my ideas!
Remember my post, Hobbyist Silkscreen Printer? Well, it looks like some company called
Yudu has done it!
Now will someone please steal my other ideas, too? I do so want an electronic drum kit in my car.
Remember my post, Hobbyist Silkscreen Printer? Well, it looks like some company called
Yudu has done it!
Now will someone please steal my other ideas, too? I do so want an electronic drum kit in my car.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
