Odd but true

Below are the all familiar shapes we all have grown to know, me included. I was not intentionally wanting to create something that would have me finding myself at odds with same rules of engagement that the classic shapes below follow.

From my perspective the compass, rule and scalpel where my essential tools in creating hexatrigon ( name not necessarily a certainty but relevant). No other adaptations were used.

Yet being a person born with an awareness of a digital reality naturally wanted to use all the mediums at my disposal.

What is odd is how what can be created by hand is not even in the 21st century always a smooth transition.

I have heard the phrase a bad work man blames his tools I do not believe that this is the case in this instance. One particular kind of modelling software was better placed to provide something for me that all modelling software claimed it could do.

Does the digital world accept that because of how way we engage with technological progress. A user has no option but take what is given as something that assumes to have the answers to the questions or demands a user may ever need. When it doesn’t does that mean it should not be done? And if it is that it should be pitted against something else?

Now in the past a technological device was a self contained box. Producers/ Manufactory and consumers

What provisions have been made for the dynamic where Producers, consumers and production could well be the same person / body? Also when the provisions have been made and used become something that is no longer marginal and may somehow draw some attention to the limitations earlier processes?

I don’t hear much that promotes its failings even though it may well have them, and yes that is understandable. But can you have one without the other?

Another word ‘One’ has connotations of a whole, but that is not wholly true.

Do we have to set in motion an understanding where things are seen as only approximations rather than certainties which has alludes to a completeness which is indivisible?

Maybe the word for understanding could be derivatives of? In my case a hexagon Above see where the inspiration for wanting to see its sides and the manifestations thereafter.

Geometry and its sides work together don’t they?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.