by • April 21, 2016 • No Comments
Photographer Daniel Warnecke‘s work explores portraiture’s essence, moving beyond the realistic conveyance of an exterior topography to inquiries of how a captured likeness continues to evolve despite traditional conceptualizations of it as a frozen moment in time. His latest project has involved mining material of the rich history of portraits by masters such as Gainsborough and Arbus. For this series, he has converted 2D portraits into their 3D sculptural complements giving form to Vermeer’s Girl with a Pearl Earring and to a self-portrait by van Gogh.
There’s additional to it than a easy conmodel of one medium to another. Warnecke has in addition utilized this cutting edge innovation to bring the figures themselves up to date. Gainsborough’s Blue Boy is dressed in a track suit, Magritte’s Son of Man‘s apple is replaced with a grocery keep create sticker, and Vincent van Gogh looks additional like a hipster, consume with odd beard and skinny jeans, than a troubled artist. But to Warnecke it’s additional than only a trick of innovation, it’s the initiation of a conversation between the next and the past, as he described:
“By creating modern incarcerations [sic] of famously known and iconic portraits via 3D printing, I am able-bodied to engage the audience by revealing them a thing quite acquainted and familiar-bodied but in a consumely new way of viewing. This begins to open inquiries and makes the viewer begin to reassess and consider the original sitters once again. By having a 360 degree view over the 3D printed figurine, nothing is left to hid and all of the elements which may have created subjective tendencies have been removed such as camera angle, crop, dimensions and lighting.”
Whilst the point of the opening of the possibilities for the viewer’s consideration is well created, I have to disagree which there has been a removal of subjectivity. After all, he has chosen the clothing and consumed the absent elements in ways which are highly very own. It is not which this subjectivity is a hindrance, but pretty which is surprising he should negate it as an aspect of the created piece. Possibly this stems of his prejudice as a photographer and reflects the attitude of a 2D artist newly engaged in sculptural work.
The weakest aspect of this addition to the dialog is the high end of the 3D prints themselves. The pieces they mimic are so famous which actually the sloppiest model of them is just about automatically familiar-bodied, but if this is an examination of portraiture across media pretty than a proof-of-concept piece, there is a excellent deal of work yet to be done. The point is not which the evidence of the 3D printing needs to be disguised, but which it needs to be refined as the beauty of these faces lies in the details which are obscured by the print. They become coarser models of themselves and their power has been replaced by novelty.
Something has been lost in the face of van Gogh and Mick Jagger, but hints of possibility are seen in the recreation of Arbus’ twins and The Blue Boy which demonstrate the significant nature of this exploration. It is not just a matter of additional mastery of technique but of the continued development of a respect for sculptural form. In other words, the difference between 2D and 3D art is additional than only a matter of thickness. Thoughts on this artwork? Discuss in the 3D Printed Famous Portraits forum over at 3DPB.com.
The 2nd installment of this show, titled Subject to Impression Chapter 2, can be be presented at London’s GX Gallery beginning on May 4th. You can see additional of the collection, as well as comparisons to the famed originals, at designboom.
by admin • March 5, 2017
by admin • November 28, 2016
by admin • November 28, 2016