It’s fascinating to see how perceptions of work evolve, especially in the realm of 3D printed art. I’ve noticed that some people still struggle to fully appreciate this medium. Perhaps it’s because there’s a misconception that the artist simply presses a button and lets the machine do all the work.
But the truth is, the artist’s role is as vital as ever. The creativity, the conceptualization, the intricate design process—these are all deeply human efforts. The machine is merely a tool, an extension of the artist’s vision, much like a paintbrush or chisel.
One of the artworks I created last year brought this idea into sharp focus again. The 3D printed parts were simple—just plain flat blocks that formed a black rectangle with a protruding shape at its center. To make it more visually engaging, I spent a couple hours using an iron to alter the surface, giving it a stony appearance.
Now, if I had tried to generate that same texture directly in the 3D model using CAD software, it would have been a nightmare. Not impossible, but it would have required a tremendous amount of time and effort. Yet, many people might see more value in the hand-altered version done with an iron in a couple of hours than in the painstakingly detailed CAD version that would have taken much longer to achieve.
In my opinion, the CAD version would be far more interesting in terms of skills and creativity than the iron version. But it’s intriguing how perceptions differ.
