Meeting with Yvonne Kulagowski

Apologies for the generally negative tone of this entry - just getting stuff off my chest.

I had my first one to one meeting with Yvonne to discuss my ideas for my project on Tuesday this week. I was a bit nervous about it as I have to admit to being a bit confused.

The problem is I think I had my heard far too far inside the technical aspect of all this stuff and I have become a little detached from my 'artistic engine'. So a good time for a chat and a good time to find a fresh perspective.

Yvonne had the pleasure of receiving highlights of the last five years of practice as I warmed into the subject of the CPD project (what does CPD stand for? - I guess I should know), and she proved to be an attentive listener.

On the subject of the technological kit that is available at Metropolitan Works through this project. My particular interest from the outset was in the EOS Direct Metal Laser Sintering machine - there seems something almost magical about being able to create objects from what is essentially (carefully prepared) dust, but I have to admit that some of the constraints of the process are giving me headaches. Now every technique or process has its constraints and limitations, and we, as makers, have our own to add to the mix. The way one makes successful work is to negotiate ones strengths and weaknesses - constraints can provide direction - it's just at the moment I don't like the constraints of DMLS - a lot of these CAD/CAM process wear the badge of Free Form Fabrication (FFF) - ah! a dream of being able to produce any shape imaginable - DMLS with its requirement for extensive support both as a scaffold and a heat-sink, which then must be brutally removed with a wood chisel or other sharp implement, seems just now very far from this dream. My original design idea was to use it to create shaped sheet components that would then be joined together - a development of some previous work (below)
This stuff (Superabundant) was created from regular sheet in sections, welded together and inflated. I was attracted by the idea that I could create much more complicated geometries whilst retaining the required accuracy. I could of course but the huge amount of hand labour to remove the support structure rather goes against one of my maxims which is to try to utilise the most direct (one way) processes to create form - this is how, I whimsically think, the 'energy' of the piece is evident in its final state.

Another problem with DMLS is its cost - not so much the material but the combination of the hourly rate and the slowness of the process of building. I imagine it is fine for the creation of tooling but it certainly concentrates the mind for creating finished objects. Then of course is the limited choice of materials (but I've known about that for a while so...).

OK stop complaining - fact is there are limitations, as always, the question is once I put my preconcieved ideas away, how do I work with them? That is for another day.

One bit of kit I did get exited about was the stereolithography machine - which is a fairly established technology these days and very much more a FFF method than DMLS. I have an idea for creating low density objects and this might just fit the bill.

I have been playing with fusing wires with a view to creating permeable objects with a 'tenuous presence'.











and have done some bowls as computer renditions











I think there may be some worth in pursuing these with the stereolithography machine.

Just need to come up with a good (great) idea for DMLS.

So what to draw from it all at this stage: I think technology cannot to be the driver of creative endeavour it must be the (humble) servant.