Lab report week4

brief description:

We used photography to make a model of this duck trophy, which was the prize for a Midwestern swim conference.

The “Dilly” duck trophy is a medium-sized wooden artifact painted in vivid blue, red, green, and multiple other colors. On the front end, the title “Midwest Conference Swimming Champs” tells the trophy’s history of honoring the best athletes in old swim meets participated in by past Carls. The names of the colleges that won the yearly championship from 1958 to 1969 are listed in black underneath the duck tail, with “Carleton” appearing four years in a row from 1961 to 1964.

【How does attempting to model an object compare to simply viewing one in an exhibition?】

Firstly, when prompted to create a model of an exhibit, our attention naturally gravitates towards the exhibit itself. When exploring Carlton’s exhibits, my scrutiny extends beyond a casual visit as I examine the intricacies of each item from various angles and perspectives. This approach fosters a more profound comprehension of the exhibit, drawing parallels to the disparity between passive and active learning processes. Actively engaging in the process of learning about each item naturally sparks curiosity about both the artifact and the narrative it embodies.

【Does the process of photogrammetry encourage close looking and attention to details you might otherwise have ignored?】

The process of photogrammetry did spur lots of close looking at the object. First of all, I had to physically get closer to the duck trophy in order to capture the trivial details. This prompted me to carefully spot the particularly elaborate parts of the object and those hidden or covered in shadow—which required close-up documentation. For instance, the names of past champions were written upside down on the back tail end of the duck trophy and were hard to decipher from top view. Yet because the photos of the duck trophy were still easily retrievable after we left the archives room, I was able to read the words from one of the close-ups by rotating the image. I don’t think I would have bothered to check what exactly was written had I only been a visitor browsing the archive collection, with no interaction with the object through photogrammetry myself (especially since we could not move the object around). But during the process, I urged myself to examine every single corner from all angles, simply because I cared if I was documenting the artifact as faithfully as I could.

【Does engaging with objects in this way make you more curious about this (and/or other) things, as well as the stories they can tell?】

Yes, engaging with objects in this way definitely makes me more curious about other things! One aspect that specifically drew my attention was the damage that could be seen on the duck. I wonder what caused the paint to chip. I wonder who painted the duck and what the design says about their creative vision. I think being able to closely examine an object from many angles and from different distances definitely makes one more curious about its life. How was it made? How did it come to be in the condition it’s in today?

Interactive model:

image: