Digital design – Drifting to the product
This is an excerpt from the essay on jewelry I’m preparing.
A Canadian student has sent me an expertise request, so I decided to share this section of the essay, where I talk about 3D modeling tools and how they can/can’t affect the design process and the final product.
What happens to a product “affected” by technology? The result is not easily predictable as it is not the product itself that is actually technology-driven, it’s the designer.
A skilled goldsmith/jeweler knows exactly all the secrets of traditional (analogic) making tools and all the properties of the materials (metals and gemstones). On his side, a skilled digital designer and maker must know all the secrets of:
- digital 3d modeling
- 3d printing
- digital 3d making
as well as
- analogic (traditional handmade) product finishing
and he must run through the whole design process (from concept to final product) always considering what materials he wants to use in the different phases.
Let’s say that the designer is skilled, meaning he has full knowledge and comprehension of all the tricks of digital fabrication. Let’s concentrate on the 3d modeling phase, where uncontrolled technology can be dangerous.
So for example we have a designer that can use Rhinoceros (or any other 3d modeling tool): the result (the jewel) is not necessarily bad, as a 3d modeling software is just an aid, a digital tool instead of an analogic one. In this case, the problem is how much traditional making experience the designer has got.
As long as the digital designer is skilled enough, being somehow a “digital evolution” of a traditional designer, the product will most probably be an erudite mix of design and technology, which is not bad at all!
But if a) the digital designer is a “novice” in terms of traditional jewelry/goldsmith techniques and materials, and/or b) the designer has no idea of what product he’s going to design, technology can easily become the leading/unique “technique”, thus producing only shapes whose value tends to be the mere value of metals and gemstones.
So it takes a skilled designer/maker to drive the technology.Let’s move along and talk about generative/parametric modeling with Grasshopper, Paracloud GEM, Processing, etc.
Basically it’s just the same: if you’re skilled enough you know exactly where, when and how to use such tools, be it Grasshopper, Processing or whatever.
Take once again Nervous System: they study natural forms, which usually means natural patterns, and patterns usually lead to algorithms. Computer are based on algorithms, so Nervous’ totally technological approach to jewelry (design jewelry of course), made of digital pictures, math studies, processing sketches, 3d printed models and 3d making is more than appropriate.
Another nice (non-jewelry) example: Iris van Herpen’s dresses.
My concerns with this kind of tools arise when designers have the compulsive urge of being generative/parametric.
Recently I have seen a Grasshopper definition with dozens of sliders to control dozens of parameters: I tried to imagine how much time that person has spent on Grasshopper to develop such a definition, probably months of work from draft to refinements. Well, that definition draws a set of 3 surfaces that usually takes *seconds* to model, probably half the time needed by that person to draw few section curves, reference them into Grasshopper and then adjust all the sliders.
Is that definition absolutely necessary? Is it producing an extra value in terms of modeling time or model quality? Does that definition have some commercial value? I don’t think so. This kind of work, in the end, is just a nice exercise.
The fact that you can use Grasshopper to parameterize the model doesn’t necessarily mean you need to parameterize the model, in any case not a simple model or a model that doesn’t need parameterization.The internet is full of renderings of generative/parametric designs, but pictures are one in a million. IMHO, 90% of generative/parametric designs on the internet is pure exercise, a way to improve one’s skills and/or prove one’s skills to someone else, possibly hr managers!
Finally, regarding my work as a teacher (considering only my courses for jewelry), I usually work with university students and goldsmiths.
Students are absolutely prepared to use 3d tools for jewelry, but of course their designs tend to be more technology-driven.
As regards goldsmiths that come to my ARTC for training, I love them! They have the right knowledge and soon after the course they do their best to integrate 3d tools with traditional processes. My work with goldsmiths doesn’t end with the course: I always give free support to people requesting for expertise, especially goldsmiths that have attended my courses. And it’s a work in progress, they always ask for the best way to solve a modeling problem or achieve a result. My blog shows some jewels made by one of these goldsmiths using Rhino: nothing special in the end, the jewels look like handmade jewels… but this is exactly the point!I don’t believe these tools are or can be at all an issue: they’re just tools. A bad product is bad not because of the tool but because of its design.
You can use Grasshopper for your designs and it won’t make them better or worse, just like driving a Ferrari or a Fiat 500 doesn’t make you any safer if you don’t observe the rules of the road.
The rules of the road make you travel safe.
Knowledge and experience (and a bit of good taste) tend to generate good designs, no matter what tools you use.
In: design, fabrication, industrial design, jewelry, prototyping · Tagged with: artc roma, cad/cam, fabrication, fine jewelry, Grasshopper, industrial design, jewellery
