Because patenting was the closest way to describe fully my original idea
of my invention.
The actual product software "Digital Clay," which I persuaded Ask
Company
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 time.
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 products,
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.
Best,
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."
>
> Best,
>
> 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
> discussants.
> >
> > 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
> invention.
> > 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
> which
> > places non-art objects into an art context. NOT because non-art
> > objects (such as invention) can be called art in the sense of
> conceptual
> > 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 one
> > of the artists as inventors. We know that Shoenberg himself
> emphasized
> > 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 ideas
> > 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
> making
> > 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
> modering,
> > 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:
> > http://www.clancco.com/featured/hideki_nakazawa_art-
> > related_patent_inventions_in_t.html
> > http://aloalo.co.jp/nakazawa/200511kandada/patent_e.html
> >
> > If you can read Japanese, the above argument is written in my
> monograph
> > "Method of Art and Art of Method" carried on "Philosophy Vol. 7,"
> > Iwanami Lecture Series, 2008.
> > http://www.iwanami.co.jp/moreinfo/011261+/
> >
> >
> > Hideki Nakazawa
> > http://aloalo.co.jp/nakazawa/
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
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.
