Art in the Age of Matter Compilers

17 responses to “Art in the Age of Matter Compilers”

1. 

   jurvetson

   Apr 23, 2013 at 2:51 am

   for example, a Klein Bottle opener that she showed us (and I bought one from Shapeways for my desk):

   

   Reply
2. 

   seatonsnet

   Apr 23, 2013 at 7:15 am

   [http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson]

   I think IP law faces a peculiar transition when matter becomes code.

   We are coming to the end of a strange era, historically speaking, when a song could be considered a physical object.

   More and more my intuition tells me that IP is "doomed" or totally fungible and fugitive. Soon value will be in know how and execution, what the automotive industry calls "fit and finish". Check out this article from the NYT on making Japanese makeup brushes:
   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/fashion/24iht-rbrush24.html Nothing invented, the raw materials are cheap, but you can bet that the brushes are expensive as hell. In the future, nobody is going to get royalties for the concept "table", but cabinet makers that can make the perfect table are going to get paid well for doing it. My advice to a young person in search of way to earn their bread and cheese is to look for things or services that cannot ever be digitized, offshored or repetitive enough to be replaced by a robot.

   Reply
3. 

   obskura

   Apr 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm

   I think she is the reason why Shapeways (3D printing service) lists "Mathematical Art" as a product category 🙂

   Regarding IP law, I am sure some things will change, but I don’t think it’s the fundamental, sweeping change some see. Designs and drawings can be protected by patents and copyright, and this applies to digitally manufactured goods as well. As a parallel example, the photocopier did not fundamentally change IP law even though it allows easy replication of books.
   The software industry protects itself by not releasing source code, or now with cloud computing, not even releasing binary code.
   Already, some designers (such as Sheba) sell their 3D printed products on Shapeways with a markup. Anyone could print the objects at the plain material costs using the same service or their own printer, but they don’t have the "code", i.e. the CAD file.
   Reproducing 3D objects has become easier with 3D printing, but still requires reverse-engineering of the CAD file (for some objects scanning would be possible, but not always).

   I read a blog post by Raspberry Pi that they wished to release the schematic to make tinkering easier, but were worried about cheap rip-offs. However, in the end they realised that a lot of work went into the PCB layout, component selection, supplier contracts, and optimisation of manufacturing processes. Releasing the schematic alone does not make it so easy to replicate their design. Reverse-engineering the physical product to a full specification set for manufacturing is not easy. However, if someone got access to all their specifications, they could replicate very quickly.

   Current 3D printing is still limited to some materials, and can’t achieve the same complexity as assembled products (i.e. you can’t print a smartphone just like that). Once the technology evolves to combine plastics, metals, electronics, etc. the range of products that can be "printed" grows, but equally it would become more difficult to reverse-engineer all those materials from the finished product into a CAD file for all of it.

   The big potential I see is the potential for "mass customisation" of products, and this is where creative designers can apply their skills and earn income (of course most customisation will be done via clever software that generates 3D files from customer wishes, so product design will become more software design).
   With a huge product diversity, it might become less interesting to protect one particular "piece of IP" or a particular product, and the process of creating becomes more important than making money from things done in the distant past (as now, 70 years after the death of the originally creative person…). As "product development cycles" shorten from a few months to the duration of an individual sale, multi-decade protection time frames will appear more and more ridiculous…

   Reply
4. 

   ukweli

   Apr 23, 2013 at 4:53 pm

   I’m still dubious that the machine that can print an entire working electro-mechanical device will actually become common. The maintenance on such a device would be non-trivial. I understand there is a potential recursive loop once such a thing exists. Most of the people I know are exasperated by their regular printers. I think a CAD/CAM/Kinko’s is much more likely.

   As IP law might disintegrate with distributed manufacturing, liability might also. How can you hold Motorola liable for phone failures if every phone is produced somewhere out of Motorola’s control?

   Reply
5. 

   obskura

   Apr 23, 2013 at 6:19 pm

   @ukwell: I agree, a "printer" for electro-mechanical devices will remain elusive for quite a while (however, metal deposition on plastic is already here, and I think Stratasys teamed up with a company that has that expertise). To really make a universal printer, it would have to do nano-assembly of atoms (at least here we’re limited to a few 100 key ingredients). Otherwise it would just be easier to stick with traditional methods and do a final assembly (maybe the pick&place of electronics could be integrated somehow).

   However, with a slightly wider view of digital manufacturing, I can right now send my electronics files to a PCB manufacturing/assembly place (a few $100 overhead for tooling costs), the 3D CAD to Shapeways/Ponoko/i.materialise… for plastics, metals, ceramics parts, 3D printed or laser-cut (no overheads, but still a bit costly per part), or ProtoMold for injection molding (tooling starting at $1500). They all have web interfaces with automated quotes and online ordering. Some of these companies even have a shop system integrated to sell to others through their platform.
   This means everyone with the right skills can already launch suitable products world-wide with no or very little initial investment, (supply chains, distributors, etc all taken care of). While I’m convinced that we will see desktop 3D printers becoming more common, the printing of quality parts and novel materials will remain with service companies (like photo printing services are still strong despite everyone owning an inkjet).

   What is still missing is an online assembly service if the components come from different sources – so far it is up to the customer to order the parts and put them together.
   Regarding liability, this also leaves the problem with the customer as it is a "kit" and not a finished product…

   Reply
6. 

   seatonsnet

   Apr 23, 2013 at 6:30 pm

   [http://www.flickr.com/photos/ukweli]

   I’m still dubious that the machine that can print an entire working electro-mechanical device will actually become common. The maintenance on such a device would be non-trivial.

   There might be an opportunity for a very well paid, highly skilled job or jobs.

   Reply
7. 

   scleroplex

   Apr 23, 2013 at 7:01 pm

   IP laws need to be totally rewritten

   that klein bottle opener is very witty 🙂

   Reply
8. 

   Bathsheba Sculpture

   Apr 23, 2013 at 10:13 pm

   Right now I feel like what I have is more trade secrets than defensible IP; at any rate that’s how I operate. Lots of NDA’s.

   I feel bound to mention that most of my work is original design, with mathematical illustrations as a smaller part of my portfolio. As 3D printing has exploded and math/art has become a well-populated category, I’ve been able to move away from more rigorously algorithmic designs and pursue design for its own sake.

   I suppose it is likely that Shapeways started that category for my stuff, but I think my lock on it lasted about ten minutes after they launched. 🙂 It’s just a good thing to do with the tech.

   Reply
9. 

   jurvetson

   Apr 24, 2013 at 4:06 pm

   The laws for things and ideas started in different places, and the transition phase is poorly defined as the law did not envisage matter becoming code.

   It reminds me of a law school class I co-taught with Larry Lessig and a brainstorming session with Autodesk:

   

   Reply
10. 

    obskura

    Apr 24, 2013 at 7:59 pm

    Thinking more about it, there are some fascinating aspects of IP here:

    Say, someone writes a program that automatically generates CAD files to be printed (as is the case in Sheba’s art as far as I can tell). Clearly the programmer "owns" the software, but what about the CAD files and the physical product (as they were indirectly and automatically created by software)? What if there is some randomness in the output – does the human creator own the rights to all possible incarnations? What if the software becomes "smarter", can it be considered a "creator"?
    What if customers can modify the output of the software to customize their product? What if the software evolves based on customer demand?
    I can see parallels here to the questions around patenting genes (which can generate a big variety of organisms). I guess there are also parallels in fan-fiction or other derivative arts (sampling in music, etc.)
    In the end I guess it all boils down to "terms and conditions" that nobody reads but everyone agrees to 🙂

    Reply
11. 

    scleroplex

    Apr 24, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    it boils down to "terms and conditions" that thwart the future.
    as argued this week at the Myriad trial.

    plus, patenting genes is just icky.
    it’s possessiveness gone pathological.

    thankfully it’s also an outmoded business model.
    even if you are the sole owner of the license etc. fewer and fewer folks are going to pay you.
    which is good.
    something sanofi-genzyme would do well to think about.

    Reply
12. 

    jurvetson

    Apr 25, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    [http://www.flickr.com/photos/obskura] — yes, and what if the software is an agent, built via an evolutionary algorithm, and trained a bit before being released in the wild. Beyond IP, who is "responsible" for crimes committed? See the vending machine for crows experiment (by a guy suspiciously named "Klein" no less!)… beckoning a fascinating thought experiment for the future…

    Meanwhile, I have to get one of these Klein Bottle Openers. I like her original, hopped-up description:

    The problem of beer  That it is within a ‘bottle’, i.e. a boundaryless compact 2-manifold
    homeomorphic to the sphere.  Since beer bottles are not (usually) pathological or "wild" spheres, but smooth manifolds, they separate 3-space into two non-communicating regions: inside, containing beer, and outside, containing you.  This state must not remain.

    A proposed solution  Clearly the elegant course is to introduce a non-orientable manifold, which has one side and does not divide 3-space.  When juxtaposed with the beer-bounding manifold described above, it acts to disrupt the continuity thereof, canceling the outdated paradigm of distinction between interior and exterior.  This enables the desired interaction between beer and self.

    Implementation The Klein Bottle Opener1 shown above is an example.  It is palm-sized, durably constructed in stainless steel, effective2, and blissfully ergonomic.

    Q E D  You need one.

    And the current, edited version:

    The Klein Bottle is a mathematical joke: a surface with only one side. It’s just about to enclose a space like a regular bottle, then it curves back with a twist so the inner side of the surface merges with the outer, and suddenly it doesn’t enclose any volume at all. The inside and outside spaces become one, like the sides of a Möbius strip.

    This neat trick of space can’t quite exist in three dimensions, since the surface has to cross through itself, but we can still make models to see how it works. This one is 3D printed in stainless steel with some bronze for color. It’s durable, washable, and ergonomic, sized to fit the hand sweetly.

    The perfect finishing touch for any math fan’s kitchen, and you don’t have to study geometry to enjoy it.

    Yes, it really opens bottles!

    Reply
13. 

    Bathsheba Sculpture

    Apr 26, 2013 at 4:25 am

    Obskura, yes generated sculpture is a tough case. My stuff runs the gamut from things that I drew with a mouse to purely algorithmic meshes. In the second case some of the tools that I use to generate them I wrote myself, some are commercial, and some are freeware with various different licenses. Many designs are hybrids of some or all cases. Now I’m working on a setup that will enable user input, just so I can hit every possibility.

    Meanwhile, back at the copyright office, their list of approved file types doesn’t contain a single 3D CAD format.

    Lots of IP fun is in store…lawyers are just starting to smell the cheese.

    Reply
14. 

    scleroplex

    Apr 26, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    http://www.france24.com/en/20130426-doctors-say-cancer-drug-cost...

    "The authors suggested that setting high prices is akin to profiteering at a time of disaster, and called for dialogue among all sectors of health care to begin to change the situation.

    They pointed to the popular drug imatinib, marketed as Gleevec in the United States and Glivec in other parts of the world, as a key drug with a rising price tag that brought its maker, Novartis, $4.7 billion in revenue last year.

    "Being one of the most successful cancer targeted therapies, imatinib may have set the pace for the rising cost of cancer drugs," the letter said.

    Its price at the time of release in 2001 was $30,000 per year, but by 2012 had risen to $92,000 per year in the United States "despite the fact that all research costs were accounted for in the original proposed price."

    In France, the same drug costs $40,000 per year. In China and Australia it costs $46,500, and in South Korea and Mexico, it costs around $29,000."

    bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/early/2013/04/…

    Reply
15. 

    jurvetson

    May 7, 2013 at 2:16 am

    another cool detail… the confirmation email when I bought the Klein bottle opener and some other fun stuff through Shapeways:

    Hi Stephen,

    Thanks for your order!

    We’re taking one final look to ensure it can withstand the 3D printing magic; given the nature of converting digital files into physical products, every now and then we catch designs that will be too fragile to create in certain materials. After we get the green light, we’ll start creating your order in our factory of the future.

    Once our robots have finished creating your order, you will receive an email from UPS, which will include the tracking information of your package.

    …

    Shapeways
    Made in the future*
    http://www.shapeways.com

    Reply
16. 

    donkorycansky

    May 25, 2013 at 3:43 am

    A small nit: Sheba does not "borrow" time on printers–she has always paid full freight! part of the business plan, you know.

    Reply
17. 

    jurvetson

    May 25, 2013 at 4:39 am

    yes, I think that was her choice of words, paying tribute to the willingness of those with productive assets to sell excess capacity.

    Reply