While it might be self-evident to most, would you be kind enough to
elaborate on your statement: "modeling vs carving"?
On 3/20/09, Nakazawa Hideki <email@example.com> wrote:
> Dear Alejandro and All,
> Thank you for your understanding on my patenting to serve as a way
> for disseminating my ideas in a clear way.
> I also understand your saying that the creative technological
> outcome can provide so many cultural benefits if left open.
> I think this your idea is close (or the same) to the so-called
> open source/copyleft/creative commons. I suppose you might also
> have considered so.
> However, I do not always agree to the idea like open source/
> copyleft/creative commons.
> First, I think there are two types of invention.
> One is improving invention whose value can be understood as to be
> needed from the first at least by those who concerned the matter,
> because the field has been already existing and is considered
> meaningful. Almost all inventions, like blue diode, are of this
> type, and I think this type matches well with the idea like
> open source/copyleft/creative commons. The talk on open source/
> copyleft/creative commons is effective only after the consent
> (often being tacit) having been made that the inventions are the
> inventions to be valuable self-evidently from the first.
> The other type is basic invention whose value is hard to be
> understood as to be needed at the first, because nobody is aware
> of the existence of the field, or nobody is aware of the field to
> be meaningful. Basic (or principled or fundamental) invention is
> an action to establish meanings or values on a field where nobody
> recognizes being meaningful nor valuable. Only few inventions
> are of this type, I consider including mine. What is necessary
> primarily on this type is to be consented as a matter being
> meaningful and valuable. The idea like open source/copyleft/
> creative commons is necessary mere secondarily, and I think
> it is even harmful before the consent having been made, because
> the idea like open source/copyleft/creative commons will sometimes
> work to block establishing the value of the invention, likely to
> be said, "Your new idea is interesting, although being not valuable.
> Being suitable for toys for kids." As for this latter type, the
> process of invention is not the response of a recognition of a need.
> Secondly, I am not sure that the idea like open source/copyleft/
> creative commons always work good for providing cultural benefits.
> On the contrary, I experienced several cases that other persons or
> other companies have recieved benefits or honor for originalities or
> inventions in spite of that I was the originator or the inventor.
> I do not deny the idealistic thinking that the open idea can provide
> cultural benefits like essential communists' world, but I see the
> actual outcomes were far from being idealistic or communistic.
> I think the new idea as knowledge is good to be opened always,
> while the new idea as rights is good to be paid sometimes. I think
> patenting is a scheme to let the new idea being opened always as
> knowledge, while being paid sometimes (not always) as rights.
> Formerly, in 1980s and in early 1990s, I used to be an advocator who
> claimed anti-copyright and anti-patent as a post-modernist from a
> communistic or anarchistic point of view. I also denied being a
> fine art artist at that time and styled myself an illustrator,
> because a fine art artist is a modernist who has to claim originality
> and has to establish values of his/her own works separating from many
> things being not so valuable. However, after I believed that my
> inventions to be nothing other than fine art, I reformed character
> to claim copyright and patent sometimes (not always) as a modernist
> and turned to be a fine art artist with totally changing my style.
> Besides, my project "Art Patents" is not business. It is a failure
> if it were business because applying and maintining patents costed
> great expense, because there was a risk not to be patented even
> though I applied them, because there was a risk not to be used by
> anyone even after they were patented, and because there was a high
> risk to be regarded as an enemy by big companies after my invention
> having been recognized valuable. My project "Art Patents" has been
> only an artistic matter derived from my righteous indignation toward
> the truth in the world of the fine art, modeling vs carving.
> Hideki Nakazawa
> >Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: alejandro tamayo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] ARTISTS AS INVENTORS, art as
> > invention
> >To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <email@example.com>
> >Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Dear Hideki and All,
> >I've been following this discussion from afar and some times I have
> >skipped some emails, so my apologies if some of these ideas have
> >already been covered.
> >I quiet understand your feelings about being considered mad for your
> >3d printing proposal back in 1996.
> >However, I think that there is a fine line between madness and genius
> >and, for good or for bad, they are not mutually exclusive, they can
> >coexist, and art sometimes happens to be precisely in that borderline.
> >It is up to the understanding of others which classification to put
> >on you or on your work.
> >As for the patenting issue, I personally don't have any, although I
> >have been tempted to apply for more than one. But I have never ended
> >up filling out any application, specially after considering that the
> >creative technological outcome can provide so many cultural benefits
> >if left open. Although I agree that patenting (as well as writing
> >books) could serve as a way for disseminating your ideas in a clear
> >I just feel that today we are more and more understanding the
> >importance of open and free processes and the benefit we all gain in
> >supporting a collaborative, unrestricted, construction of human
> >knowledge, and technology in particular. Perhaps what we need is to
> >find new strategies for disseminating *clearly*, and *openly* our new
> >--- On Sat, 3/14/09, Nakazawa Hideki <email@example.com> wrote:
> >From: Nakazawa Hideki <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] ARTISTS AS INVENTORS, art as invention
> >To: email@example.com
> >Received: Saturday, March 14, 2009, 2:08 PM
> >Dear Robert,
> >Because patenting was the closest way to describe fully my original
> >of my invention.
> >The actual product software "Digital Clay," which I persuaded Ask
> >to produce, had very limited functions (i.e. only 32x32x32 voxels)
> >because of the then machine specs in 1996 and to save on expenses
> as well.
> >However, I could describe ideal 3D bitmap software with full
> functions in
> >my patent even in 1996.
> >I could persuade no company to produce 3D bitmap printers at that
> >However, I could describe 3D bitmap printers in my patent.
> >As for my invention of 3D bitmap printers, patenting was the only way
> >which made 3D bitmap printers "exist" in this world.
> >Anyway, I can say as the following also: describing idea as intangible
> >idea like patents is more perfect than making actual tangible
> >especially in the case of basic invention, not mere improvement.
> >(Close to Plato's Idealism)
> >Writing monographs to a scientific society might be another
> intangible way.
> >However, my invention is actual invention rather than to be
> academic study.
> >Writing books might be another intangible way. However, I was
> afraid that
> >my claim to be seen mere mad. To be patented by nations was one
> way to
> >prove my claim being rational, not mad.
> >Hideki Nakazawa
> >Dear Hideki,
> >Why did you choose patenting as a way to represent, communicate ,
> >and/or embody your method of "inventing 3D bitmap materials; software
> >and printers (product 3D bitmap software 'Digital Clay' in 1996,
> >patents for 3D"?
> >There are other ways to establish a "new basic genre '3D
> >bitmap' as
> >digital modeling."
> >Robert Thill
> >On 3/9/09, Nakazawa Hideki <nakazawa at aloalo.co.jp> wrote:
> >ARTISTS AS INVENTORS, art as invention
> >Hideki Nakazawa
> >Dear Yasminers,
> >Thank you to Roger and Robert for inviting me as one of the
> >I am a fine art artist who invented the first 3D bitmap software and
> >printers in the levels of both products and patents. In this my case,
> >I believe invention itself is ART, rather to call art-RELATED
> >Yes, my interest is whether art as invention or invention as art
> can be
> >accepted or not.
> >Besides, I do not want to think about some kind of conceptual art
> >places non-art objects into an art context. NOT because non-art
> >objects (such as invention) can be called art in the sense of
> >art, I believe some of inventions are core of art as they are.
> >Here I am giving 3 past cases with 1 my case.
> >1) George Seurat's pointillism
> >Purpose = representative painting focusing color
> >Method = pointillism (color division and touch division)
> >Result = many of Seurat's pointillist paintings
> >I think creating method from the purpose is invention, while creating
> >art works using method is making-art. Here, pointillism is invention.
> >We can say with no doubt that pointillist paintings are art and Seurat
> >is one of the artists as inventors. Then, can we say inventing
> >pointillism itself art? We know that Seurat himself disliked to be
> >called pointillist. But I think inventing pointillism itself was core
> >of visual art.
> >2) Arnold Shoenberg's dodecaphony
> >Purpose = music composition using 12 notes equally
> >Method = dodecaphony (forming tone rows symmetrically)
> >Result = many of Shoenberg's dodecaphonic pieces
> >Here dodecaphony is invention, the method created from the purpose.
> >We can say Shoenberg's dodecaphonic pieces are art and Shoenberg is
> >of the artists as inventors. We know that Shoenberg himself
> >dodecaphonic "COMPOSITION" denying "DODECAPHONIC" composition. But I
> >think inventing dodecaphony itself was core of music composition.
> >3) Leonard Da Vinci's inventions of paint material and drawings of
> >Purpose = representative painting
> >Method = preparing better paint material and better drawings of ideas
> >(later called academism)
> >Result = very few Da Vinci's paintings in spite of many tried paint
> >materials and many drawings of ideas
> >We know that Da Vinci tried each different paint material for each
> >different painting and even he often invented it. We know that he
> >prepared many drawings of ideas. (Attention: drawings came to be
> >considered art today, while not in those days. Drawings were kind of
> >invention.) We also know that once he thought his invention has done,
> >he lost interest to continue making art works. Only few paintings
> >remain till today; one reason is that some of his paint material which
> >he invented was defective, another reason is that he lost interest
> >after invented paint material or finished his drawings of ideas.
> >Let's think more about the latter. I believe the core of Da Vinci's
> >art is inventing paint material or drawings of ideas rather than
> >art works. In this case method as invention itself turned to be the
> >purpose again. I want to say method is art and invention is art in
> >this case.
> >4) My 3D bitmap software and printers
> >Purpose = to establish new basic genre "3D bitmap" as digital
> >while so-called "3D" is only the world of 3D vector as digital carving
> >Method = inventing 3D bitmap materials; software and printers
> >(product 3D bitmap software "Digital Clay" in 1996, patents for 3D
> >bitmap software and 3D bitmap printers in 1996)
> >Result = no 3D bitmap art works of mine yet
> >First I have to say that I have produced many art works as a fine art
> >artist, but I have never produced 3D bitmap art works except examples
> >for my software. When I decided to apply patents in 1996, I consider
> >patents themselves art. Again the method turned to be the purpose.
> >No need my 3D bitmap art works, because I do not think that 3D bitmap
> >materials are mere steps to making 3D bitmap art works. My purpose,
> >establishing a genre "3D bitmap," is more essential than making art
> >works, I thought. I named this project "Art Patents" that is to claim
> >my intangible patents themselves being art without any tangible art
> >works. However, I am feeling to be misunderstood even today, 2009.
> >If you also have questions, I am willing to hear.
> >If you want to know more on my inventions, please visit:
> >If you can read Japanese, the above argument is written in my
> >"Method of Art and Art of Method" carried on
> >"Philosophy Vol. 7,"
> >Iwanami Lecture Series, 2008.
> >Hideki Nakazawa
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
> HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In
> the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your
> e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the
> unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set
> Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.