Storytime:
In March 2020 I had a piece accepted for an exhibition. It was a digital render of a computer model. The renders take a long time to make, especially these high polygon photogrammetry based computer models. So for the submission I made a jpeg thumbnail (above left). The exhibition was postponed as part of the broader Covid-19 shutdown.
Fast forward to 2023 and I get an email announcing the show will go ahead this year. During the pandemic I suffered a hard drive failure which took away all my model files for this project. I was left with only the thumbnail sketch of the piece. I set about re-creating the piece (above right).
This is a screengrab on the software environment that calculated 3D form from multiple photographic sources.
You get the picture: In the end I made the same piece but slightly different.
I reminded myself of things I like about the whole process:
a) How the translation of photography into 3D objects is 'amazingly clever' and is a process that logs spatial form accurately.
b) VR models in 3D renderings can appear very much like traditional analog or digital photographs.
c) One can place oneself spatially anywhere in relationship to the object, if you are prepared to consider a virtual viewpoint, a point of perspective where one can be placed.
Also surprises can happen when you make things; Like when I framed this and laid it on it's back.
The dimensionality of the structure popped of the page. Partly because of the water.
Because of this phenomena, I made a stereo pair of these to be viewed by a stereoscope - but I need to check that the water is the true dividing line shared by the matte in 3D space and behaves as the neutral (neither close nor far). (stereoscope update to follow)
There is another question here regarding the distinction between the first version, which was an idea that was not fully realised, and the second realised, version. How are they different? Could they be considered the same piece?