Right at the beginning he talks about his useless machines, which despite my usual distaste for such arty projects, I found very intriguing. He went on to briefly mention his comic machines he thought up in his youth. I found these on the internet and they're even better. He ends the section quoting Pierre Ducasse 'Machines would not exist without us, but our existence would no longer be possible without them.'
The comic machines were published in a book called Le Macchine di Munari, but since its very rare and out of print its far too difficult and expensive for me to get a hold of. And it's in italian.
However google images offered a solution
These machines proposed to do such tasks as "wagging the tails of lazy dogs, predicting the dawn, making sobs sound musical and many other facetious things of that kind." were inspired by the machines of Rube Goldberg and Heath Robinson.
This all got me thinking about drawing machines, and how essentially thats what photoshop and computers are/are becoming. The task would be creating a drawing machine that has an organic analogue prossess and creates a hand drawn aesthetic.
Existing drawing machines do so, but none in a suitably controlled or sophisticated way.
Now by no means am I proposing to make my own drawing machines, but I am proposing to propose my own drawing machines.
Existing Machines
Olafur Eliassons drawing machine uses an ink coated ball in a circular frame suspended by springs so as to move along with the train its on.
I like that the whole thing is contained in a purpose made box/set, with the inbuilt draws for the custom made paper, but mostly I like the scratchy erratic lines made by the balls predictable but unpredicatble rolling movements.
It makes a nice experimental effect, but really after it's done this the machine has exhausted its purpose as there's no practical use for the drawings it creates, which I consider to be its major failing.
Olafur Eliasson, Connecting cross country with a line, 2013 from Studio Olafur Eliasson on Vimeo.
Hektor is a machine that spray paints, using a pulley system and connected to computer to communicate the intended image. The website describes it as 'a portable spray paint output device for computers', which, clinical as it sounds I think is very accurate. It's less of a drawing machine and more similar to a laser cutter, or even a printer, where the image is put into a computer and recreated by the machine onto a different surface, it isn't really drawing anything at all, unlike other machines that randomly generate their own unplanned marks. It's fun to watch though, it appears to be in a constant battle with gravity.
Hektor inspired this machine, http://www.designboom.com/art/heart-bot-intel-sms-audio-09-01-2014/
which monitors peoples heart rates and translates them into marks with different pens. Here the stimulus for the visual is still communicated by a computer but originates as something completely organic and not at all designed.
It would be unpleasant to discover one had a heart condition from using this at an exhibition though.
My favourite example I found was this article, making drawing machines out of existing (mostly obsolete) machines.
http://www.designboom.com/art/echo-yang-programs-everyday-obsolete-machines-to-create-autonomous-art-02-28-2014/
And so on, the rest are in the article. But I found it fascinating that these machines, when enabled, can make such textural man made marks, but the placement and rhythm of the marks remained mechanical and repetitive, so it becomes the perfect combination of hand made and machine made. I think these machines have more potential too because each one creates a certain dictionary of marks, and using several machines together on one image could build up a bank of tools and strokes big enough to at least resemble a crafted drawing.
I also thought about the automaton in Hugo, which I started reading the other day. It seems related but I'm yet to find out what it actually does when mended, but it has a pen in hand, drawing robot I assume.
Anyway this research lead me into a tirade of notes, which I shall transcribe below.
The Drawing Machine
Essentially, photoshop +tablets are drawing machines. The complaints traditionalists have is that it does not replicate the process of hand drawing. is there a way that the two can be combined? A way to capture the handmade mistake ridden mental process yet also refine it to a machine made visual standard, which benefits from the shortcuts possible made possible by a computer. (list of research items explained above) But they're all MARK MAKING machines.
Something still very analogue about cogs and wind up handmade machines
Would the robot...
- make the imagery alone- brain? unplanned? how would that benefit from digital?
- be an artists tool?
- draw a digitally programmed image
- harmonize the two somehow
- be programmed with principles of design and illustration. Generate imagery at random using programmed motifs. Because even though it's made by a hand it can't be considered organic.
Why? Because I hate drawing today? Because I disagree that handmade is always better?
Is it based around a hand? Ir a series of mechanisms which are akin to a human hand in their level of control and unpredictability.
Are the mechanisms whimsical?
Selects random mechanism/material
Selects composition framework (like in Creative Illustration by Andrew Loomis)
Selects motifs + subjects
Is drawn by mechanisms digitally assigned of traditional media.
Am I making some kind of unintentional sly comment about the current homogenised state of illustration and its copycat sameyness. So deep so profound.
Anyway that aside, my intention as of this moment is to propose a series of drawing machines for different purposes and achieving different visual effects, one of which being the above described machine.
Is this stupid?
Probably.
No comments:
Post a Comment