I am absolutely, thoroughly fascinated by this guy’s creation. It’s a fully mechanical three-dimensional printer. For those of you familiar with the context, this is a really great idea. From the “geek’s” point of view, for lack of a better term, it’s amazing to think that this could have existed in essentially the same form hundreds of years ago. From the artist’s point of view, the conceptual considerations are noteworthy as well. Take a look at this quote from the creator:
3d printing allows me to create products more swiftly and more efficiently than ever. but these products are not mine. they are merely a product of this new technology. I love technology but how can I reclaim ownership of my work? perhaps by building the machine that produces the work. perhaps by physically powering the machine, which I built, that produces the work. in hopes of rediscovering the sense of having created something, I create.
So I posted the following comment under the video, essentially saying that he shouldn’t be so hard on himself (though I expect that he’s just raising some ideas and knows the history full well):
I would also add that we have a long history of generative art which, anymore at least, no one really says is not the artist’s creation. (Listen to that, nowadays forty years constitutes “a long history!”) Plus, the biggest mainstream artists like Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons have legions of people making their art, so why not you and a robot. Plus, you “programmed” it with that bent length of wire, which is not that far a step from writing sheet music for someone else (or a machine) to perform.
With this machine, I would say that the creator has certainly taken back ownership of his work.