 So at this point, can we ask Nick, Charlotte and Daniel to join Mark here and we'll do a little discussion for our meeting time. Alright, so our first question for everyone is. So, we've learned so much here about everything's about materials there's techniques and post processing. What would it take to reprint something at a later time that is identical to the original object. I can. From my perspective on this so most of my job is 3d printing with custom materials and custom systems so this is something that we've had to deal with when we send work to museums. If you really want to 3d print the exact thing that came out of the machine, you need to actually have the machine code that was sent. So that has to include the positioning of the extruder. If it was heating things what temperature to heat to, if it was curing things what was the wattage of the laser, you need to have all that information so that you can get the same object out of the 3d printer. You need to know exactly the post processing steps that were taken, and since most post processing is not fully automated, you're not necessarily going to be able to recreate that you just have to talk to people who did it. And then the other thing is material stocks so a lot of commercial material stocks while you might be able to buy the same thing. A lot of these companies they're quickly emerging and going out of business so if you know the chemical information maybe you can find something similar, but otherwise you're going to have a challenge of recreating that what I would advise as a designer from this perspective is less to think about recreating the exact object, and more to understand what the intent of that object was and whether or not you can create something that serves the same function looks to embody the same sort of process etc but I would be curious what others would say on that too. Yeah, you're right Nick it's like a huge thing like reproducing 3d objects. That's why I force all the time my my artist they work with me to go a step further and go from 3d printed object to a cast or something. So, most of the time, you know, I did like last month's like 18 birds. And they're like now in bronze and not in like a 3d printed material, of course we did like this really scanning, then the printing in wax forecasting. So 3d printing was totally involved, but we went one step further, because still like 3d print material. We experienced that at the age a lot. And they are not stable, even if they come out of production line so also with the project, we had some color changes in normal cartridges so it was like crazy how much the prints were like changing color in one on the other direction getting darker or or less darker it was like just the game with with the material and also the settings for the print even everything was like the same print file wise machine was doing just weird things. And I think that's also with with with other printing methods, especially FDM printers. They're also they're not totally stable. You know how they built you know, even because you have like most of the time, you have not the air or the room around the printer is not totally controlled like temperature wise so you have warping and like the warping the mini deforms during the process. And it's really hard with all these three prints to get totally the asset at the exact print two times specially after a lot of time you know when you get in again. And we also like try there like an old machine just to get like the same than before, but it was not possible it was like just you know we spent I don't know how many weeks we were like trying again and again to match the colors from one object and I think it's it's the goal is like to match the look of the art piece and also there you know like when you have an art piece that was like fading to yellow or in a different way. How, how do you react to that you know, do you start with the totally yellow, total white piece again, or you just like try to match the yellow. So if you add something that was like broken to existing piece. We did that to we try to match the yellowness of of the rest of the print just to to get like a total piece again. So I think it's, it's, it's a big topic and I think, especially for me, your side. In the in a conservatory thinking, it's, it's hard to to to make this decision and then match the goal that you want to reach. I was really struck by, again, Charlotte mentioning that there's a move from 3D printed prototypes as to 3D printed products, and I'd love to hear everyone else's thoughts on that as well. I think we to kind of continue on a little bit from the first conversation was the fact that the objects that were made 1020 years ago are probably going to be very different materialized in terms of ingredients and formulations, then what we have now. So, maybe, being an optimist, we would be able to print, reprint, perhaps an object with a more stable materials as things progress forward, but we have to keep that in mind, you know, is this now a replica, how do we treat this object is it. Is it treated as an original, do we display it side by side with the original. The other thing I wanted to mention is being, if you have ways of documenting the object once you have in the collection, not just, you know, collecting the computer files but also doing what we did at LACMA, putting it under the microscope. So, as a conservation photographer taking really good pictures. If you have a 3D scanner that's even great because then you have a little bit inception wise but scanning your object. So things like that that might help and I do hope that as more and more folks, you know, get into additive manufacturing that the materials that will be available will be more, more stable. You did sorry about that. Happens to the best of us. Can you find the artist fingerprints in either the files or the prints. So, what kind of like artists, I guess like hints or references to an artist specific style or flourishes. I understand that post processing can obscure this is something's been sanded, etc, but I don't know what are your thoughts on this do you think that there's certain styles that you come across that you can find. I worked on an object by very well known sort of architect who worked with sort of these futuristic or speculative architectures and make these interesting models and they'd have motors and stuff like that. But, and I was talking to a studio technician, and he liked to work in Maya, and Maya is more for visual effects and video games and things like that is really not a hard surface modeling program. The, the, how it was and the tools and how he could be creative in it, and then you have to hand it to a studio technicians and they'd have to take his creations and sort of make them 3D print ready make them watertight to make sure there weren't some impossible overhang or something like that. And then it would go to print. So it was quite interesting because you know that these are the creative tools that he wanted to use, but it would have to go through a pipeline to make it possible to be physically fabricated. Probably because of like, I work a lot or like I model like every day in 3D files and like big 3D files that like over like four gigs in one file. I think there when I sometimes when I receive files from other guys that work and like the same level I really recognize how the files are built and at the language in there. And I think it was like two or three years ago, I received like, you know, like the STL file like the polygon structure in a file like in a printing file. So when I talk about like the triangles that the file is made the mesh was kind of like Mandela style, and I was like, freak, kind of like the, the, how can I say, like the mother of all STL files and I don't know how they made the thing. Probably Nick you, you were like, you know this file. But I sympathize with being able to identify the software someone used by the quality of their mesh that is something that I think it's changing a lot of cat software is much more capable of working with meshes these days. But I would say, you know, like this would be a fun game to play, but I bet that you could set me meshes and I could tell you what they were made in just from knowing how they deal with angles and things like that. Yeah, totally, especially I work a lot with Voxels, probably you're familiar with that. And what was like a three dimensional pixel. It's especially good for like huge prints if you have enough machine power. And with with Voxel you get kind of like a special STL file out of of your of your program. And even there you already can say that somebody worked with with the Voxel program before they exported the file. So it's kind of like archaeology that you can get with experience where you can learn a little bit more about the artist process. So on that note, what kinds of questions should artists be well should museums were collecting these artworks be asking artists, are there any like things that wouldn't be immediately obvious that we should be asking them. One of the things I'm particularly see that moving toward is I, you know, Daniel you mentioned that there's some artists really like to do their own post processing. And so that suggests that you then need to involve the artist in the future and then in my experience, that's not something that is always immediately communicated during the acquisition. So just thinking about what kinds of questions you can have. I think when we were first approaching this at the museum there were the expressions of like should we acquire the original CAD files right. But that also created challenge right because a lot of these pieces suffer very expensive thousands of dollars, some are free, you know they're all over the all kinds there's a whole diaspora. So like one could acquire the CAD file but you might not have a, you know, $3,000 $5,000 license of Maya to support this one artwork. And then we could say well okay just to export as an OBJ, but then you might lose something right like a Maya file contains a lot of different texture and possibly animation information, wouldn't be appropriate to 3D print, but that would be the original 3D visualization. So the question is, yeah, do you do you ask for the original CAD file, more standardized file the OBJ. And then of course the G code because that contains all the information about the tool path. It's infill density it supports and how it was printed. So in my case I would ask for all of it, but knowing that you know we may not have the tools to open, you know, like a CAD program that is very expensive or no longer in business, but going in the future we may be able to reopen that to emulation or something. I think if you ever done with like complex artwork reverse engineering. I tell you like you're really happy if you have everything that you can have, like you're from the SDL the OBJ color information print like take everything what you can get, even what we had like for breakfast. Like take everything, every information. The company who printed the printer the material it's really important that you have all information, because on the end, I think from like 20 specs that you get. In three years, I think already the half is is not existing anymore, because the material is not produced. The printers are not existing, and so on and so on so and you try to avoid the reverse engineering. And especially with with the complex or art pieces there were like glued together that's also if you have a lot of undercut. I went all already with some pieces to a CT so we did like x ray, and it's awful and you get like 1000 of hundreds of gigabytes of data, just to do a small piece and know how. The whole thing was built so please collect everything you can get from the artist. So this in way, the beyond bling show as part of that exhibit. The curator did reach out to the artists that were still alive or the artists, you know foundations and things to gather survey as much information of not just, you know, what what materials were used in the artwork, whether it was three or not. Keep in mind that sometimes they don't know if they shipped it off to shape ways or something like that to, to, to, you know, be built who knows what they use. They might not have that information. We found that with even traditional artists, you know they say that piece of jewelry had rubies and there were not rubies. That's one thing another thing would be to talk to the artists about the future, you know, just like we would do for any other types of artwork. How would they want it to be conserved, do they want it to degrade and yellow because that's how they like it. Would it be possible if the material that they printed out of is no longer available, what kind of material would they want, what kind of resolution would they want, would they want it to be higher resolution if the technology is already there. Lots of questions and like Daniel said, you have to gather as much information from them as, as you can, while you can. This is a good point though, because there's so many different artists and these objects, you know, my realms have been spanning both media arts but also architecture and design and architecture and design go into, you know, companies. And so you may say well you know I want this Raspberry Pi case STL I'm sure Raspberry Pi would be cool with that but like a different company might be like no you can have the object. That's it. So I see that we are about 10 minutes of our time here so I just want to be respectful of everyone's time. But thank you so much to all of our speakers today for such a wonderful discussion just now and also for sharing all of your expertise and your knowledge with us. It's been a really, really informative day. And we will pick up on this topic again however on Wednesday, and on Wednesday we will be looking more at 3d printed artwork specifically as they enter the museum, and we will continue the conversation with acquisition and also some display as well. So once again let's give a warm round of applause to all of our speakers. And then in addition to that also to Sarah Sater and and to Martina Hyde Google who've been supporting on the back end. Thank you very much. And we'll see you all on Wednesday. Thank you have a good night everyone, or good, good midday. Wherever you are have a good rest of your day. Bye everyone. Bye. Bye.