Glass + Digital Making
Aaron Oussoren
2016 MDES Candidate
Emily Carr University of Art + Design

1

Glass + Digital Making
Emily Carr University of Art + Design
A Thesis Essay submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
MASTER OF DESIGN
Emily Carr University of Art + Design 2016
© Aaron Oussoren
Made possible with the support of:
Emily Carr University of Art + Design
SSHRC
BC Arts Council

Many thanks to:
Keith Doyle
Helene Day-Fraser
Louise St. Pierre
Philip Robbins
Deborah Shackleton

2

Abstract
Since the mid-1970s, 3D printing has been used as an ideation tool by industry. Recently,
broad access to 3D printers and other digital manufacturing technologies has delivered
these tools to artists, designers, crafters, and makers, enabling us to expand, develop, and
challenge our concepts of approaches to cultural production. This design study looks at
new production paradigms emerging from access to digital manufacturing, and explores
approaches to creating in the digital manufacturing context.
This study focuses on emergent modes of creation using glass, in particular how 3D
printing not only provides room for innovation with material production, but also
extends the poetics of materials. The bases for these conclusions are founded in a
practice-led study, which developed workflows that incorporate both 3D printing and
traditional glass working techniques. This practice-led study led into a course-led study
which used the previously gained material knowledge to develop a new approach to
digital manufacturing, taught in a third-year design course at Emily Carr University of Art
and Design. A reflective practice throughout these studies served to inform the
codification of an emergent method and approach to glassmaking within the context of
digital manufacturing.

3

Contents
Cultural Production in a Digitized Creative Environment

.5

Aims

.8

Materiality and Virtual Space

.9

Shifting Meanings in Virtual Space

.11

Practice-led Study: Digital Methods and Traditional Glassworking

.13

Course-Led Study: Engaging Students with CAD and Glassworking

.17

Insights

.19

References

.22

Appendix - 3D Printing and Artisanal Glass Production

.24

4

Cultural Production in a Digitized Creative Environment
Neil Postman (1998) discusses the impacts of technology as ecological rather than
additive using an analogy – if we add a drop of red dye to clear water, do we then have
water plus a drop of dye? Obviously not. We have a new colouration of every drop of
water. After the invention of the printing press in the 1440s, we did not have Europe
plus the printing press, we had a new Europe. After the introduction of television in the
1940s, we did not have America plus television, we had a new America (p. 2).
Technological change is not additive, it is ecological. In the spirit of Postman, our recently
gained, broad access to digital manufacturing technologies – machines which encompass
all methods of computer controlled additive and subtractive machine production, such as
3D printing and CNC machining – is altering our creative ecosystem.
In our altered ecosystem of production, the roles, sites (of production and knowledge
exchange) and visual language of creative production are being re-negotiated. In the
midst of new access to digital manufacturing, we are re-framing how these roles, sites,
and objects interact. As we collectively shift our ideas about how something is made, by
whom, and where, our theories associated with creative practice are evolving.
The work presented in this paper is an exploration into the emergence of a creative
practice that incorporates both digital manufacturing and material-based methods. An indepth discussion focused on definitions of different creative practices is beyond the
scope of this paper. Discussions of craft and design are presented here within a
contemporary context that includes digital manufacturing – the intention is not to define
the terms craft and design, but to explore how elements of these creative approaches
may align with a contemporary creative practice that combines analogue and digital tools
and methods.
Creative Background
My studies at Sheridan College’s School of Craft and Design (2004-2008), and as an
Artist in Residence at Harbourfront Centre’s Craft Studios (2008-2012) in Toronto,
Canada, have given me a base of knowledge in traditional and contemporary craft
practices. Project funding from the Ontario and Toronto Arts Councils (2011, 2012), the
Ontario Crafts Council (2013), and collaborations with industry have encouraged my
education in digital manufacturing. Over this ten-year period, my practice consisted of an
exploratory approach in glassblowing, glass casting, kiln casting, fusing and slumping, and
architectural and public art projects.
My studio practice in recent years has increasingly blurred the line between analogue
and digital glasswork, conceptualized digital manufacturing (3D printing, CNC milling,
CAD) as a craft material, and intuitively explored this new material and the perspectives
it may offer craft practitioners. The opportunity to combine a material-based approach
with digital manufacturing motivated my enrolment in the Master of Design program at
Emily Carr, with the goal of furthering and codifying my explorations in this area.
5

Contextual Overview: The Introduction of Digital Manufacturing into Craft
Traditions
Since the mid-1970s, 3D printing – an additive digital manufacturing process, in which an
automated machine builds up an object from stock material according to a digital model
– has been used as an ideation tool mainly in industrial design, as a tool to envision what
could be. The steady emergence of direct digital manufacturing through 3D printers that
can inexpensively produce high-quality objects now enables us to manipulate craft
materials to directly achieve final objects (Schuette & Singer, 2011). How these
technologies are employed in contemporary creative practice has the potential to
expand and enrich our material culture. Worldwide, arts institutions and funding bodies
are directing their energies towards the integration of digital manufacturing into creative
practices. Canada’s largest funding bodies and cultural centres increasingly devote
resources to digital manufacturing (Anisef, 2010). Critical discussion in this area is
needed to uncover the disconnects and affinities between traditional creative practices
and new paradigms of digital production.
Contentious Creative Terms
As a society, we know that many of our patterns of production and consumption are
socially and environmentally unsustainable. Since the Industrial Revolution, craft
production has been an empowering response to this unsustainability, with craft
practitioners protesting against divisions of labour, standardized designs, and unethical
production methods (Ruskin, 1892; Morris, 1898). Often cited as defining the philosophy
of the Arts and Crafts movement as an ethical movement in response to the First
Industrial Revolution, Ruskin (1892) forecast some of the implications that mechanized
production would have on the culture of his day. These ideas have not lost their import a
century and a half later. In his view, the danger inherent in a mechanistic approach to
labour is that conceptions of wealth and pleasure shift; people no longer find pleasure in
work itself, and instead look to the wealth that they might gain in exchange for labour as
a source of pleasure (Ruskin, 1892, p. 179). After mechanization of production removed
the need for craftspeople to produce everyday objects, craft became a pursuit of
individuals who strove to find pleasure in labour itself. This broad conception of craft,
not as a discrete set of techniques but as a way of being within society (Alfoldy, 2012, p.
89), is an approach which separates craft from an association with any specific
production method – handmade, small batch, local; rather, this conception relates craft to
a way of being in the world.
The word maker has entered the mainstream lexicon following an increased ease of
access to emergent personal production platforms (Troxler, 2013). In this thesis, the
term refers exclusively to creators who work within the context of the maker
movement. How do we speak about making in 2016? If we parrot the popular notion
that now everyone is a maker, the catchphrase of Anderson’s (2012) third industrial
revolution, we may naively mistake a willingness to try with gaining in-depth knowledge.
6

Anderson (2012) describes the following chain of events, which sets the stage for his
definition of a maker:
Transformative change happens when industries democratize, when
they’re ripped from the sole domain of companies, governments, and other
institutions and handed over to regular folks. We’ve seen this picture before:
it’s what happens just before monolithic industries fragment in the face of
countless small entrants, from the music industry to newspapers. Lower the
barriers to entry and the crowd pours in… The Internet democratized
publishing, broadcasting, and communications, and the consequence was a
massive increase in the range of both participation and participants in
everything digital… Now the same is happening to manufacturing. (p. 63)
This democratization manifests in the maker movement as “open source appropriate
technologies” (Pearce, 2012) and “commons based peer production” (Benkler, 2006),
where individuals work to subvert mainstream manufacturing models by developing
open source production devices and accompanying software. This new production
ecosystem shifts our notions of access and proprietary knowledge related to objects and
manufacture, just as torrents and YouTube shifted our notions of cost and copyright
associated with entertainment.
The phenomena of the maker movement and maker fairs has built community, spread
knowledge, and in general has educated people on a large-scale who would otherwise
not consider how things are made, but when seen through the lens of contemporary
craft and design, the maker movement does not actually seem to be about making things.
As Wark (2013) describes: “the stuff has already been made, you put it together. Like Ikea
furniture, but, you know, fun”(p. 297). Wark’s (2013) comments point to a re-framing of
the maker movement as a movement of assemblage, concerned mainly with a broad
education in modes of fabrication.
As the word maker has entered the mainstream lexicon, craft has emerged in the
mainstream as a marketing fad, wherein the word is used to its full anachronistic
potential – craft-washing places the word back in its pre-industrial production light, an
action out of time and place. To speak about craft in this sense is to speak about a
different concept than the craft which has foundational philosophies, studio movements,
and redefinition as an approach and philosophical mechanism – dialogues which all make
up a material practice relevant in this time and place.
Both terms – maker and craft – are provocative and carry different meanings depending
on the contexts they are used in. There is a common connection between them, in that
both movements claim to see the creation of goods as a political action. The idea of
making as a disruption of mainstream manufacture and as an empowering activity aligns
with the ethos of the Arts and Crafts Movement as a response to the First Industrial
Revolution and the mechanization of hand labour. In hacklabs, fablabs, makerspaces,
7

garages and libraries, a new wave of makers builds on open source resources and social
platforms in response to a contemporary alienation from production.
Aims
This study looks at a new production paradigm that is emerging from access to digital
manufacturing, and explores the roles of craft and design in the digital manufacturing
context. My line of inquiry addresses the emerging visual language, inherent efficiencies
and complexities, and meanings that might be found in digital manufacturing and its
products. The objectives of this inquiry are:
-

To connect the material specific practitioner and their tacit knowledge to
digital manufacturing

-

To develop novel workflows that incorporate digital manufacturing while
expanding its inherently linear, certain nature

-

To locate transferable skills and sites of knowledge transfer when craft and
digital manufacturing are combined

Outcomes of this work include expanded glassforming workflows using digital processes,
an updated approach to craft and design education, and a furthering of the discourse on
our emerging collective ecosystem of production.
The design study presented here encompasses three main aspects. These include:
-

Material research, developing workflows that include 3D printing and
traditional glass working techniques;

-

A course-led study, in the form of a third-year design course at Emily Carr;

-

And a reflective practice throughout these activities, which serves to inform a
mixed craft/design methodology and approach.

This study is founded on theories of creating and knowledge, the key concepts of which
are introduced in the following section. These concepts and my remarks are interrelated,
and serve to mark the conceptual boundaries within which this project is framed.

8

Materiality and Virtual Space
A creative’s practice encompasses varying aspects depending on their goals, disposition
and skill sets. The term can describe individuals who draw on varied approaches to craft
and design, including digital manufacturing. Their practice may be driven by anything from
a rich interest in historical technique, to an ethos of responsible production, or perhaps
a philosophical search for meaning through objects in an age of uniformity. It may be the
route to making a critical comment, might be driven by social engagement, or reflect a
desire for autonomy in work and in life. Wherever the work locates itself, the
practitioner’s relationship with materials is a central focus. The understanding that the
ideas which arise through materials and processes are as valid as the ideas that the
creative brings to the project is vital to a material-centric practice.
As material production is increasingly informed by digital manufacturing, defining
materiality and how a creative can bring this approach into their work in virtual space
becomes relevant. Seelig (2009) describes a relationship with materials, saying:
To make form that responds only to a material’s physical properties – to what it
can do rather that what it encourages us to do – more often produces results that
are predictable and familiar. The artist’s ability to discover qualities in materials that
go beyond their scientific properties will provoke form with a far more convincing
sense of expression… materials contain clues that allow us to discover our own
personal sense of reality through a subconscious process, an intuitive, creative
process in which material is an active partner. (p. 55)
Seelig’s (2009) idea of responding to materials in terms of “what they encourage us to
do” (p. 55) refers to the experimental dialogue that practitioners enter into with
materials. This concept can be a challenge for practitioners arriving at their materials
from within an outcome-driven culture and mentality. Creating for ideation, producing a
design slowly, and reflectively moving through production processes are methods that
generate a specific type of knowledge.
Knowledge of materials refers to an understanding of the physical characteristics of the
material, and also the meanings that that material carries. To be with a material through
as many stages of its transformation as possible gives a practitioner insight into how a
material may take on meanings through its origins and processes. For example, a glass
artwork may be made from the raw materials of sand, soda and lime, mixed and melted
by the craftsperson, or it may be made from re-melting discarded florescent tubes. Each
of these material origins may allow a different type of discourse through the produced
object. A 3D printed object may be made using a filament derived from petroleum
extracted at Fort McMurray, Albert or a corn-based filament extracted from corn fibre,
using the same machine and resulting in a dimensionally similar 3D printed object. The
origin of the material used, however, allows for a different set of meanings to be ascribed
to the objects produced.
9

In a similar way, practitioners may gain insight through the processes that their materials
go through. In the above example, consider the practitioner being with the material from
its raw state, as it is prepared as a stock material, to its use in production processes. At
each of these stages of transmutation, there is the opportunity for a more expansive
understanding of material. In her essay “‘Reading’ the Language of Objects,” Fariello
(2005) points to transmutation – the transformation of material via process – as part of
an expansive making methodology that gives creatives the potential to “lead in an infinite
number of directions” (p. 154).
The knowledge of how materials take on meanings through their origins and processes
gives practitioners an intuition about their materials that is essential to a design process,
consequently giving them a stronger visual language to draw upon. Pye (1968) lauds the
value inherent in a deep understanding of material practice, asserting, “there is in the
man-made world a whole domain of quality which is not the result of design… the
designer is deep in its debt, for every card in his hand was put there originally by the
workman” (p. 2); this knowledge is especially valuable when a creative is acting as both
designer and craftsperson.
This expansive making methodology, central to building the resources from which to
design, is a creative approach which at first glance does not seem well suited to the
linearity of the virtual spaces of computer-aided design (CAD) or computer-aided
manufacturing (CAM). Materiality is what we touch, feel, and break; it is tangible,
something offering haptic feedback, texture, and temperature.Virtual space is limitless
and infinitely replicable, existing in a perfectly theoretical space without any of the direct
physicality of material. The words virtual material seem an obvious oxymoron. In her
disertation, “Integrating Digital Design and Fabrication and Craft Production,” Kamath
(2009) contends that craft thrives on physical phenomena that are computationally
unpredictable. Where are the knots, the cracks, the loose threads in a 3D printed object?
When a creative is engaged with a traditional material, they are working in the realm of
risk and error; in their response to error, the creative discovers and learns. It can be
hard to see where risk and error might be found when working in virtual space.
Pye (1968) presents his view of risk and certainty related to craft making in the context
of mechanized production in The Nature and Art of Workmanship. Pye describes two types
of workmanship – the workmanship of certainty and the workmanship of risk.
Workmanship of certainty refers to industrial production and industrial design, the goal
being to design, prototype and test repeatedly until results are 100% predictable – a
traditional industrial design fabrication method. Pye describes workmanship of risk as a
realm where individuals, not entire industrial systems, hold the key to success (as cited in
Malins, Press & McKillop, 2004). In this production system, any mistake on the part of the
creative at any point in the process could ruin the final object. In the hands of the
practitioner, the work could be destroyed, or improved, through their direct actions. In
this space of risk and potential error, is the possibility of responding to any error and
thereby gaining information about process and material.
10

With our recent, broad access to digital manufacturing, we may apply Fariello’s (2005)
approach of expansive making with traditional materials to virtual space by using process
for idea generation, and employing the workmanship of risk to gain information about
our virtual material, just as we might with traditional materials. We may also seek to
expand our understanding of and the poetics of traditional materials. These
considerations can guide us to use approaches that are fruitful in traditional spaces in
virtual spaces as well, creating opportunities for expansive making using virtual materials.
Shifting Meanings in Virtual Space
How do our associations of value, and the creation of meaning, shift as we begin to work
creatively using machines which allow infinitely replicable, yet easily customizable
objects? In this section, I consider perspectives on the creation of value and meaning in
objects in the context of digital manufacturing. Chikszentmihalyi’s (1991) exploration
into quantifying the creation of value, “Design and Order in Everyday Life,” considers
how possessions create meaning for an individual. He concludes that objects create
meaning and order in our lives when they symbolize our values. To the owner, an object
in the home may reflect the socio-economic conditions in which it was produced, reflect
considerations of environmental impact and product life-cycle, or symbolize a
relationship to a giver (if it was a gift) or to a memory (as in an heirloom). While
Chikszentmihalyi addresses the creation of meaning through symbolic representation
imposed by an owner onto an object, he does not touch upon the information that a
creative embeds into an object. This information, which might include design affordances,
aesthetic choices or historical references, for example, can be embedded by a creative
and can become points of access for a viewer to reflect their own values.
This relationship between what a creative has to say through an object and how a viewer
reads an object can be further described in terms of information and meaning. In Why
We Make Things and Why it Matters, Korn (2015) defines the difference between
information and meaning in the context of objects, saying
Information is intrinsic and permanent. It resides in the object’s physical
characteristics, which are an unchanging record of thousands of decisions
made by its maker during its creation. Meaning, on the other hand, is
extrinsic and subjective. It resides in the minds of respondents, and will differ
among them, just as two readers may arrive at widely divergent
interpretations of the same text. (p. 65)
The values of the creative are expressed through that embedded information and made
accessible to the viewer, providing points of access for the creation of meaning by the
viewer. These values are often the starting point of the practice itself, informing not only
what the practitioner wants to make, but who they want to be, in a philosophical sense.
Korn (2015) explains, “My own values became clear when I eventually realized that the
words I used to describe my aesthetic goals as a furniture maker – integrity, simplicity,
and grace – also described the person I sought to grow into through the practice of
11

craftsmanship” (p. 102). In this way, a link is established between a creative’s mode of
being and the values they seek in their life, and what they make. These values become the
embodied values of the object, and are made accessible to viewers in a physical way.
This conversation through objects is made possible through a creative’s relationship to
materials as described in the previous section; that relationship is a direct result of
engaging with materials and their affordances. This association is also often an abstraction
of the material processes, as the centering of clay to a potter may be broadened into a
philosophy of life. This abstraction is an important part of the creation of meaning – it
allows a creative to relate to the world through a new lens, and share that view with
others through objects. As we begin to work in virtual space, where is the opportunity
to express the values and meanings we find in materials? Moving into virtual space, how
does the creative retain their link to what is made when the process is digitally
mediated?
Massumi (2002) suggests a starting point for understanding how creatives and viewers
can find meaning in digitally mediated products, by turning to a familiar example:
All of the possible combinations of letters are enveloped in the zeroes and ones of
ASCII code.You could say that entire language systems are numerically enveloped
in it. But what is processed inside the computer is code, not words. The words
appear on screen, in being read. Reading is the qualitative transformation of
alphabetical figures into figures of speech and thought. This is an analog process.
Outside its appearance, the digital is electronic nothingness, pure systemic
possibility. Its appearance from electronic limbo is one with its analog
transformation. (p.138)
Drawing on word-processing for this example, Massumi alludes to digital space as a site
of infinite possibility, but one wherein potential can only be realized when an idea is
translated or connected to the analogue. This translation, or transition, from one state to
another is analogous to the transmutation of material for a material-centric practitioner.
To carry the analogy further, in the context of a relationship with materials, a creative
can find opportunities in knowing the virtual material, or its grain, intrinsic qualities, and
embedded metaphors. In this sense, a connection to the creative may arise from their
interaction with virtual space, and be extracted by them into analogue space. Without
this relationship to the virtual materials, the practitioner risks making what Lunenfeld
(2001) describes as “artefacts of digital culture whose appeal is essentially their
perceived novelty. They attract less for what they mean than for the fact that they
are” (p. 173). Without consciously forming a relationship to virtual space, employing the
workmanship of risk in this realm of certainty, and pursuing an individual line of inquiry,
objects made using digital manufacturing run the risk of expressing only technological
enchantment.
New production paradigms open up space for creatives where considerations of
materiality and meaning are shared between digital and analogue processes. How we
12

respond, consider, and look at this shared digital/analogue space allows us to make the
best use of our new access to these technologies. We can respond to virtual space in
terms of what it encourages us to do, much in the same way that we can respond to
how traditional materials encourage us to work in certain ways. We can consider the
whole process of production in virtual space, from CAD to CAM to output, as points in
an expansive making methodology, similar to Fariello’s (2005) discussion of points of
transmutation with traditional materials. We can look for points of risk, as described by
Pye (1968), and consider how to subvert the predetermined nature of digital
manufacturing processes. These considerations of materiality, meaning and abstraction,
shared between digital and analogue processes, fortify links back to the creative, as the
creative forms relationships with digitally mediated processes.
Creative Design Study: Practicing and Teaching Creation in a Digital Environment
I synthesized my motivations and the theories outlined above over the span of two
years, as a two-tiered study. My ongoing, practice-led study into the development of
novel workflows incorporating 3D printing and glasswork informed my approach to
digital manufacturing and this aspect of my creative practice. The study is presented here
in two sections: Practice-led and Course-led.
Practice-led Study: Digital Methods and Traditional Glassworking
My practice-led study focused on innovative techniques associated with glass tools and
processes. In parallel with this practice, I documented reflections on both artifacts and
processes through journaling. This reflective practice attended to both the formal
considerations of structure and form and the nature of phenomena and materials. The
resulting documentation includes discussions on:
-

Making information visual using symbols and mapping
Conversations regarding outcomes with participants and collaborators
Comparisons of different works to discover similarities and differences
Analogy and metaphor to abstract the work
Sorting information into a creative framework, i.e. a mock exhibition with
a theoretical statement
Insights from both a micro view and a macro view

These were valuable lenses through which to consider and synthesize the outcomes of
my practice-led study. The study itself is concerned with the building-up of information,
and the artifacts that I produced are the result of a consistent investigative process. A
discussion of the practice-led work is presented here. Technical details referring to the
development of the process of 3D printing glass and moulds for glass casting are
attached as the Appendix.

13

Optic Tableware and Rise
My approach for this project was to use the digital prototyping resources at Emily Carr
in an intuitive way, with my previous knowledge of glass as a guide. I created two works,
Optic Tableware and Rise, using novel workflows enabled by digital manufacturing, though
still based in traditional glassworking methods. By workflow, I mean a methodical process
of fabrication wherein a set series of actions produces a predictable result. A traditional
workflow for glassworking includes melting material, forming, annealing, and cutting and
polishing. My novel workflows incorporated digital manufacturing into a traditional
workflow.
Optic Tableware draws on glassblowing and CNC milling – a subtractive digital
manufacturing process, in which an automated machine cuts away from stock material
according to a digital model. In this case, I machine cut plates of brass according to a
digital model, and then hand rolled them into a form suitable for a glassblowing mould. A
shift from traditional moulds used to create uniform texture in glass, this mould
accentuates the seam and handmade variation, while referencing machined production.
The seam became an important focus, as it broke the monotony of the machined
pattern, and led me to further exploration. In all, I made three moulds in this series, each
building on the successes of the previous.
My considerations for this work were historical reference (the traditional optic mould in
glassblowing), the ontological decoration of virtual space (i.e. its intrinsic aesthetic), and
an overt reference to handmade production (the seam). I wanted the work to use the
efficiencies of CNC milling, yet retain a connection to a mode of handmade production.
What I ended up creating was read either as handmade, or machine-made. Dormer
(1997) asks us to consider the Turing Test1 as it applies to craft and digital manufacturing
– what does it mean that the line between handwork and machine made becomes nearly
indistinguishable when using digital manufacturing?
Dormer’s question became increasingly intriguing to me, as viewers mistook my blown
glass tableware for 3D printed glass. There is an assumption by most viewers that most
objects in the prototyping lab that my work was displayed in are 3D printed, however
this was also indicative of a broader assumption within the general population that 3D
printing is capable of anything. To me, the hand/machine aesthetic was a subtle reference
to the broader question of how a craftsperson might approach digital manufacturing.
According to Korn’s (2015) definition (p. 9), this was information I was placing in the
object. To others, of course, this aesthetic presented different meanings, and because it

1 In ar&ficial intelligence, the Turing Test is a method for determining whether or not a computer is

capable of thinking like a human. According to this kind of test, a computer is deemed to have ar&ficial
intelligence if it can mimic human responses under specific condi&ons. In Turing's test, if the human being
conduc&ng the test is unable to consistently determine whether an answer has been given by a computer
or by another human being, then the computer is considered to have "passed" the test (Dormer, 1997).

14

was necessary to look closely at the objects to catch the clues that they were in fact
handmade, about half of viewers assumed they were completely machine fabricated.
Observing how people engaged with Optic Tableware deepened my understanding of the
digital process, what it produces, and how those results are received. It is difficult to
break away from what Adamson has refered to as the determinate language of digital
fabrication (2010). That language is related to things that computers do well: repetition,
scale, skewing, distorting. But is this a negative point? Does not every process and
material have, in some sense, a predetermined visual language?
Within both digital fabrication and traditional craft processes, form and surface may
follow the cue of the materials and processes. In architecture, this is referred to as
ontological decoration – an example of this is in laid brickwork, which forms patterns
through its application “and nothing more” (Brett, 2005, p. 220). Reflecting on Optic
Tableware, and considering this perspective of a visual language predetermined by digital
fabrication, I re-directed my approach. I wanted to look more closely at what computers
do well, in the same way that a craftsperson would look closely at their material and
take cues from what it does well. This is the inquiry that led me forward in my practiceled study, through work which I called Rise.
Rise was made in three media – animation, print, and glass. Using an animation program
that has the ability to simulate natural forces such as wind, turbulence, and gravity, I
animated bubbles rising through water. In virtual space, these rising bubbles were
dynamic, three dimensional forms. When the animation was paused, it was possible to
export the animated forms as three-dimensional objects. I then used these exported
objects as positives, and made a 3D printed mould from them. In this way, I extracted the
mould from the paused animation.
Rise was an opportunity for my relationship with traditional glassworking to extend into
digital space. I think my previous work in glass has been strongest when I have followed
the cues of the material, allowing heat and gravity and the forces working on the material
to guide my decisions. In these cases, I have avoided overly interfering with the material,
guiding it as it moves in its liquid state, and choosing the moment to pause and let it
solidify. I think of this less as glassblowing, and more as creating compositions of the
subtle forces that act on the material. Relating to the material in this way led me to see
myself, and the people around me, in the same way – as compositions of the subtle
forces at play in our lives. This is the way I relate to creating in glass, which is a result of
working with glass over a period of time. Rise gave me the opportunity to take my
conception of glass, developed through material practice, and extend this abstracted
notion of material into digital space.
If this type of glassworking embodies Pye’s (1968) workmanship of risk, where is the
parallel in virtual space? I searched for this as an algorithmic risk involving virtual forces
of gravity, wind and turbulence. However, this risk needed to be balanced with the
pragmatics of casting glass. Here, material knowledge had to be balanced with the digital
15

process; I chose a composition that would work well as a glass mould, where glass would
flow into the chosen form. I used a 3D printer to make the mould from plaster
(technical details in the Appendix); the ability to 3D print plaster moulds was received
with enthusiasm within my creative community. While making Rise, I dedicated a
significant amount of energy into the refinement of 3D printing plaster moulds for glass
casting. I realized that moulds could be printed directly from animated forms, and in the
animation a risk could be realized which had parallels to handwork.
After feedback and discussion, I showed the cast glass piece alongside the animation
from which it was made, as well as a two-dimensional drawing of the animation. This
composition of three media allowed viewers to engage with the work through video,
print, or object. The effect of this juxtaposition was that as their gaze shifted from one
piece to the next, viewers realized that each piece was an expression of the same digital
data. To encourage viewers to engage with the work, I created a subtle experience, to be
felt and easily entered into, allowing space for viewers to draw their own connections.
Rise allowed me to take cues from the digital platform; following those cues led to a new
workflow for glass casting. Creating a form using simulations of forces such as wind and
gravity resulted in a more dynamic composition for Rise than with Optic Tableware, and
presented my response to the notion of a predetermined visual language of digital
manufacturing. I brought my material knowledge into digital manufacturing through the
pragmatics of the mould design and my abstraction of glass as a material, both of which
are a result of my previous, more traditional glassworking experience. In this way, I used
my tacit knowledge of the material in the development of the forms and tooling using
digital manufacturing, and the outcomes are the result of both the knowledge of material
and the affordances of the digital process.
Throughout this practice-led study, workflow opportunities were quickly revealed at
each stage, from 3D model, to 3D print, to cast glass. In terms of expressive potential
and fabrication methods, the 3D printing process makes new forms possible which were
previously impossible. My work has successfully extended to include the use of 3D
printed moulds for glassblowing, with the efficiency of the printing process compared to
traditional plaster work, along with the opportunity for extended expressions with glass,
continuing to motivate my practice.

16

Course-Led Study: Engaging Students with CAD and Glasswork
Digital Making and Glass was offered as a course to students at Emily Carr in both the
Design and Visual Arts streams. My intention for the course was to give students
guidance in both digital and analogue learning spaces, and to discover the dialogues and
actions that occurred when the class occupied this space. Sixteen students took part in
the course, which consisted of seven classes in the hot glass studio at Terminal City
Glass Co-op in Vancouver, and seven in computer and prototyping labs at Emily Carr.
Moving back and forth between material explorations and digital design, students
physically and mentally occupied a mixed analogue and digital space. All of the students’
projects incorporated new digital manufacturing methods along with traditional glassforming studio work. Most students had little or no knowledge of working with digital
manufacturing or with glass. They were guided through the glass portion and the digital
portion by Phillip Robbins, prototyping lab technician at Emily Carr, and myself.
The design of this course, and its theoretical approach to production, was directed by
the definition of a contemporary creative practitioner as empowered by both localized/
tacit and explicit/distributed knowledge. Dormer (1997) describes two types of
knowledge, personal knowledge and distributed knowledge, with personal knowledge being
very similar to tacit knowledge - highly individual, and arising from personal experience.
Dormer’s conception of distributed knowledge relies on two core concepts: first, that in
our current age any object that is made requires many different knowledges to bring it
into being, and second, that many products combine and embody many other people’s
knowledge.
I designed the course in two modules, with each module focused on a unique aspect of
glassworking and a corresponding digital manufacturing technology. The modules were
sequenced to build both tacit skill and explicit knowledge in parallel as the course
progressed. Module one served as an introduction to working with hot glass, working in
a glass studio, using a prototyping lab and 3D printing, using Adobe Illustrator, and using a
CNC machine. Students designed a tool in Illustrator, and then used the CNC machine
to make the tool in brass. Students were introduced to glass in its molten state, and after
gaining some basic skills, challenged to experiment with their brass tool. In order to
encourage experimentation and ideation, and discourage infatuation and attachment to
any specific object, all work that students produced was in clear glass, which was later
recycled. We informed students at the beginning of the course that everything they
produced would be re-melted in the furnace, and that they would keep only the few
pieces needed for their final project.
This strategy enabled some students to go deeply into ideation through the material.
Others were more interested in producing what they had originally designed. The course
pushed students to enter into an experimental headspace of ideation through material –
to take the material as it was. Students gained tacit knowledge, learning how to react
physically to questions they had about the material. How does it move when it is a
liquid? Where does it fracture? How does it flow into a mould? Challenging the students
17

to enter this type of headspace was an important element of the course, so they could
experience the immediacy of the material, and then bring that same approach into a
digital space in the other component of the class.
The first module overlapped with a research project in which students chose a topic
related to either an aspect of traditional glassworking methods or innovative use of glass
and technology. At the completion of module one and the research project, students had
gained a level of understanding of both the physical material and aspects of its historic
and contemporary context, laying the foundation for the final project in module two.
Module two challenged the students, working in groups, to incorporate glassblowing, 3D
printing, Rhino (a CAD program), and traditional mould making to realize a series of
glass objects.
Working creatively in CAD is a challenge. Students were eager to learn, but were
challenged by the steep learning curve of CAD. When students were able to broaden
their scope, however, and conceive of the whole process from CAD, to 3D print output,
to glassblowing mould, they were better able to work creatively in digital space. By
linking CAD to material outputs, students were able to conceive of each step as an equal
opportunity for creativity. For example, if some found CAD to be creatively narrow, they
could view the 3D printed object or the mould making steps as better suited for
creative expression. When this broader approach was taken, the digital space became
less intimidating, and the conception of it less prescriptive.
The course placed students in a liminal space, challenging them to combine analogue and
digital processes. My practice-led study guided me in developing this course-led study,
giving me the experience and tools to design and sequence a learning experience for
students. While my own interest in the course was to better understand how material
and digital approaches might intersect, there were significant learning outcomes for
students: a first hand understanding of glass and its contemporary context, as well as
CAD and 3D printing knowledge. Robbins and I designed the course taking into
consideration how and when students undertook which activities and challenges. After
the course, it became apparent how this method might be refined, insights which are
useful in an educational sense, and may also extend more broadly to the craft
practitioner. Further consideration of these experiences, whether in the context of
course development or exploration of studio workflows, will be an avenue for future
study.

18

Insights
Conditions of production are rapidly shifting, due to broadening access to digital
manufacturing devices; inquiries into this area guide our approach and help us
understand the impact of this paradigm shift for our material culture. Both the practiceled and course-led studies presented in this paper illuminate a need for novel methods
with which to approach digital manufacturing. The emergent approach to digital
manufacturing described in this study considers the appropriate strengths of both digital
and analogue spaces, in the interest of identifying emerging opportunities in material
expression.
Emergent Production Paradigm
In my experience, I found the necessity of front-loading much of the creative decision
making when working with digital manufacturing to be at odds with a traditional material
approach of ideation through material interaction. I began to see this differentiation
manifest in the distinction between tacit/localized and explicit/distributed knowledge.
This observation was affirmed in the course-led study, where students engaged with
these two different approaches, gaining two different types of knowledge – a poetic,
personal ideation through material, and an understanding of digital tools and their
embodied distributed knowledge through their virtual work.
Both the practice-led and course-led studies demonstrated that access to digital
manufacturing has opened up a new creative space. This space is difficult to define, as it is
an emerging space. I have the sense that this creative space cannot be defined by a
practice, such as digital craft practitioner, or creative CAD designer. Rather, this emerging
creative space is more appropriately conceived of as a catalyst – a space that in and of
itself does not offer anything specific, but that encourages reactions to occur. In my view,
our emerging production paradigm, enabled by access to digital manufacturing, does not
need to be defined by a new practice or practitioner. Our best use of our new access to
digital manufacturing is to let it be the catalyst – a place where creatives work using the
approaches they deem appropriate, a place where different disciplines come into tension,
react, and ignite each other.
Emergent Method
Sustained efforts are needed for inquiries into the meanings, emerging modes of
expression, and visual language offered by digital manufacturing. In both the practice-led
and course-led studies, I noted that a challenge when working in this space is to identify
and navigate the pre-determined, linear, and potentially monotonous nature of working
with CAD and in virtual spaces. Furniture maker Baier (2011) comments that if
practitioners do not push and pervert digital technologies, their role of author or
composer is downgraded to performer; I observed this in the course-led study as a
distinction in the way that students approached creating in virtual space. Students tended
to conceive of virtual space as either a creative, personal, poetic ideation space, or as a
19

tool for executing their idea – the former group being composers, and the latter being
performers. When students moved towards the performer role, faculty interventions
encouraged them to move away from established systems of design and prescribed
results, and toward experiments that had the possibility of encouraging access to new
paradigms of production. When students moved towards the composer role in virtual
space, they became motivated by process, and a personal, deeper expression was made
possible in their work.
During and after the course-led study, I began to develop principles to guide approaches
to digital space. Without a conscious method of approach, creatives can find digital space
restrictive, and quickly downgrade their role from author to performer. The practice-led
and course-led studies both aimed to access elements of risk in a realm of certainty, to
explore the poetics and materiality of virtual space, and to promote a critique of the
digital/analogue dichotomy. Existing in this liminal space, this study begins to open the
door on an emerging method that connects material knowledge and digital
manufacturing.
Balancing a material approach and digital manufacturing, this emerging method contends
that the methodical steps of ideation, divergent and convergent thinking, and iterative
prototyping need to occur in both the material space and the digital space. The balance
of where and when these steps occur is determined by the affordances and restrictions
offered by the digital and analogue spaces that the creative is working within. The
analogue approach generates knowledge from which to design in the digital realm;
ideation through traditional materials, however, often requires more time and reflection
than digital ideation. Digital ideation can be quick and effective, but on the other hand, if
used uncritically, may lack the abstraction and potential poetics found in working directly
with materials. The benefits of digital design, such as its effectiveness at iterative
prototyping, can be put to good use, however, when combined with a material practice
that looks for happy accidents. These concepts may inform a method and approach to
combining digital and analogue production such that both offer a space for imaginative
creation. In essence, they offer a balance of tacit knowledge learned through craft
practices, and broadly sourced knowledge found in digital manufacturing devices.
Closing: Hybridizing our Creation Knowledge and Spaces
At a recent symposium, Tina Aufiero, education director at Pilchuck Glass School,
commented: “Pilchuck has been open-source since the 70s… although we haven't been
calling it that”. There are several significant suggestions in Aufiero’s comment. First, while
Pilchuck, and more broadly the material-based community, has not historically called
their open knowledge sharing open-source, they are now. That is, they are actively
engaging with the language of digital production, alongside digital processes, and are
acknowledging the connections being made. The comment also acknowledges the
importance of open information to Pilchuck, and by inference the material-based
community, which has developed based on the open sharing of information. This
information might include where to source materials, ideal temperatures for glass
20

melting, recipes for colour, and furnace designs. But there is often also a hidden layer of
information – references to canonical works, indications of traditional or experimental
processes or materials, cues that point to or expound on contemporary issues – that is
also shared. Works in traditional materials have a strong catalogue of this hidden
information, and endless precedent to refer to. What is the hidden information in an
object produced through digital methods, when a sketch becomes a scan, then a digital
render, and finally a digital output? As we celebrate the concept of open-source and the
inclusion of digital processes, creatives must work to develop rich layers of meaning in
these processes, or risk becoming performers of the digital process, making enchanting,
but vacant objects.
As we hybridize knowledge bases that creative practices are built on, we also somewhat
align this hidden information of objects. Over the course of this study, I saw the subtexts
of combined analogue and digital objects allow for a richer, sublime expression in the
things we make. One student project, for example, used abstracted satellite data to
generate a digital form, and glass as a material to express stratification. The form
generated from satellite data spoke to a new interpretation of our environment, while
the layered glass referenced the layering of information and an analogue history. The
students were able to abstract the objects and processes in both the analogue and digital
spaces, expanding the visual language of the objects they produced. This understanding of
the expressive potential of the abstracted digital object could not be similarly gained
were the steps in the making process segregated.
In our current era of broad access to digital tools, we are able for the first time to use
these tools in a creative way, to engage with digital processes from ideation to output.
We are afforded individual expression by using digital processes through our entire
production process, an expression that would not come about if the digital and analogue
processes were segregated. Using digital processes fully, we can allow our intuition to
develop and use these processes to find new meanings and expressions in how we relate
to the world through what we make. Seelig (2009) conceived of material such as glass,
ceramics, wood, and metals, as an active partner in production. In the spirit of Seelig,
digital processes may also become an active partner, as we re-imagine our relationship to
digital production.
At the close of this study are the beginnings of new inquiry. This new inquiry relates to
the ethos that we may adopt as we develop these new material pathways to making
objects. It questions notions of efficiency that are assumed inherent in digital production.
It considers that an efficient and customizable production process like 3D printing still
produces objects which may be discarded prematurely in our throw-away culture. This
new inquiry is centred on longevity in the things we make, and asks where the
affordances are in a mixed analogue/digital practice that support longevity in goods. It is
related to the ethos of the first Arts and Crafts movement, but prioritizes the ecological
impact of production. Its aim is to use our new tools and methods related to the
production of goods, some of which have been discussed in this paper, and mobilize them
to address issues relevant in this time and place.
21

References
Adamson, G. (2010). Opinion: What does drawing mean to you? Retrieved from http://
onviewonline.craftscouncil.org.uk/one-liner-opinion/
Alfoldy, S. (2012). The allied arts: Architecture and craft in postwar Canada. Montreal: McGillQueen's Press.
Anderson, C. (2012). Makers:The new Industrial Revolution. New York: Crown Business.
Anisef, J. (2010). Tracing emerging modes of practice: Crafts sector review. Retrieved from
Ontario Arts Council website: http://www.arts.on.ca/Asset7095.aspx?method=1
Auferio, T. (2016). Keynote Address, New Technologies in Practice. Symposium conducted at
the meeting of Robert M, Minkoff Foundation, New York.
Baier, F (n.d) Vision & Reality. Retrieved from http://www.fredbaier.com/words/by-fred/p/
vision-reality
Benkler,Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and
freedom. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Brett, D. (2005). Rethinking decoration: Pleasure and ideology in the visual arts. Cambridge
University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Design and order in everyday life. Design Issues, 8(1), 26-34.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511451
Dormer, P. (1997). The culture of craft: Status and future. Manchester, UK: Manchester
University Press.
Fariello, M. A. (2005). “Reading” the language of objects. In M. A. Fariello & P. Owen (Eds.),
Objects and meaning: New perspectives on art and craft. (pp. 148-PAGE#). CITY: Scarecrow
Press.
Kamath, A.V. (2009). Integrating digital design and fabrication and craft production (Doctoral
dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Retrieved from https://
dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/49541/437431679-MIT.pdf
Korn, P. (2015). Why we make things and why it matters:The education of a craftsman.
London: Square Peg.
Lunenfeld, P. (2000). Snap to grid: A user's guide to digital arts, media, and cultures.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
22

Malins, J.P., Press, M., McKillop, C. (2004). Craft connexity: Developing a sustainable model
for future craft education. In G. Burnett (Ed.), Challenging Craft: International Conference
8th-10th September 2004 (pp. 2-8). Aberdeen, Scotland: Gray’s School of Art, Aberdeen.
Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Morris, William. (1898). Art and the Beauty of the Earth. [Internet Archive version].
Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/artbeautyofearth00morrrich
Pearce, J. M. (2012).The case for open source appropriate technology. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 14(3), 425-431.
Postman, N. (1998). Five things we need to know about technological change. Retrieved
from http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/postman.pdf.
Pye, D. (1968). The nature and art of workmanship. Cambridge UP.
Ruskin, J. (1851). The Stones of Venice:The Foundations (Vol. 1). [Project Gutenberg version].
Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30754/30754-h/30754-h.htm
Schuette, L. & Singer, P. (2011, October 10). Direct digital manufacturing: The industrial
game-changer you’ve never heard of. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/
direct-digital-manufacturing-the-industrial-game-changer-youve-never-heard-of/
Seelig, W. (2009). Craft and the impulse to abstract. In V. Halper & D. Douglas (Eds.),
Choosing craft:The artist's viewpoint (pp. 54-56). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press. (Reprinted from Haystack Institute Monograph 3, pp. 11-16, 1992, Maine: Haystack
Institute)
Troxler, P. (2011). Libraries of The Peer Production Era. In B. van Abel, R. Klaassen, L.
Evers, & P. Troxler (Eds.), Open design now:Why design cannot remain exclusive (pp. 86-95).
Amsterdam: BIS.
Wark, M. (2013). A more lovingly made world. Cultural Studies Review, 19(1), 296-304.

23

Digital Making: 3D printing and artisanal glass production
Aaron Oussoren, Philip Robbins, Keith Doyle, Emily Carr University of Art + Design, Vancouver Canada

Abstract
Direct digital design and additive manufacturing are
enabling new pathways for the design, development and
distribution of material goods – radically redefining existing sites
for knowledge exchange and our core assumptions of what makes
a contemporary material practice. In the era of open source,
democratized production, the relationships between an object, how
it is made, what it is made of, where it is made, by whom and
when, are directed by the maker. For the last forty years, 3D
printing has been used as an ideation tool to model what could be.
The steady emergence of Direct Digital Manufacturing (Singer P.
et al. 2011) has enabled us to manipulate true-life materials to
directly achieve the final object. This paper will focus on emergent
modes of making using legacy materials, leveraging work done in
foundry and ceramics into glass, and how 3D printing provides
room for innovation not only with these materials, but also with the
requisite digital processes in terms of software, hardware, and
workflow opportunities. This design-led creative research looks at
opportunities for innovation in material practice and also seeks
out the affinities and opportunities, which arise when design
methodologies are implemented alongside an artisanal, craftbased approach to making.

Introduction

First steps: Recipe #1 was 100:10:10 Spectrum clear powdered
glass: Powdered sugar: Maltodextrin, hand mixed and sifted
through a 400 mesh, used in a ZCorp 510 powder printer with a
distilled water and isopropyl binder with a ratio of 10:1. Shell and
fill saturation levels were tested at both 100% and 33%, with the
latter giving greater detail and similar green strength. Recipe #2
was 100:8:8 Spectrum powdered glass: Powdered sugar:
Maltodextrin, and models were printed at 33% binder saturation
with no discernable difference. Model shrinkage post-firing was
between 20-30%, with no noticeable shrinkage difference between
the two recipes.
3D printed models were placed on a kiln shelf and fired without
any support material (2.5D firing), or were packed in silica sand or
alumina hydrate for support (3D firing). The firing schedule
included three stages: low temperature hold (Binder burn-off),
anneal temperature hold (soak), and ramp to melt temperature
(fuse). The soak hold served as a pre-fuse step to ensure all organic
materials had burned off, which usually happens in the range of
200-500°C (Johnston, 2005). For 2.5D firings, depending on
model size, low temperature hold was 30-60m at 150°C, soak was
30-60m at 590°C, and fuse was 25-50°C/hr ramp from 590C to
680-800C for 5-30m. No anneal cycle was used due to the scale of
the models.

This paper examines intersections between digital
technologies and glass production at a Canadian Art and Design
University. We will outline our current research and development
efforts driven by and related to small-scale, craft and artisanal
production. Open source communities may have enabled 3D
printing in a variety of materials, however glass remains an
emergent topic in additive manufacturing processes (Marchelli et
al., 2011). Our areas of inquiry are 3D printing directly in glass
and 3D printing kiln cast tooling for glass production.
Our work developing printing methods in glass builds on the
research initiated at the Solheim lab at the University of
Washington and the Open3DP resource, which has published
examples of binder/powder printing directly in glass. Our aim was
to carry forward this work born of engineering research to creative
research in art, design, and craft production.

Figure 1: Our typical firing program for 3DP glass

24

1

3DP Glass: Translucency + Detail
As the fusing reaches a temperature where the model begins
to take on the characteristics commonly associated with glass
(translucency, rigidity) the detail from the original model is
diminished. Figure 2 illustrates the issues with firing, mainly
shrinkage and loss of detail. The model has a Z-height of 5.75mm
and is shown in its both its green state and fired to 690°C for 10m
with a ramp from anneal temp of 50°C/hr. Figure 3 shows the same
model fired to 720°C for 10m with a ramp from anneal
temperature of 50°C/hr.

Figure 4: 3mm model shows translucent quality of 3DP glass

Figure 2: Left, unfired 3DP glass Right, fired to 690°C for 10m

Figure 5 shows a model built from a series of connected wedges
each gradating from 4mm to 1mm on a 2mm base for a total Z
height of 6mm, Y 220mm, X 150mm. The first attempt resulted in
a badly torn model after firing, due to the shrinkage of the material
at fuse over such a large model in combination with a drag on the
surface directly in contact with the kiln support shelf. The
complexity and issues of working with this recipe at larger scales
became apparent. Different kiln releases were tried to aid in the
movement at fusing stage: dry alumina hydrate, dry fine silica, and
a wet alumina hydate based kiln wash. While the models show
promise for patterning and controlling light, and hints of future
applications, the tearing issue was not resolved in full.

Figure 3: Loss of detail as transparency is achieved

Both fired models exhibit the rigidity of solid glass, however the
higher fired model is translucent while the lower fired one is
opaque. Two models were created to explore the optical qualities
of 3DP glass fired to a translucent state. A model was created with
a 2mm sheet base and a 1mm grid relief directly on top, for a total
Z height of 3mm. A firing program of full ramp from anneal
temperature to 715°C held for 40m resulted in a fully fused,
opaque and glossy model, which also retained about .5mm, or one
half, of the original 1mm relief. The same model with a fusing
step of 715C held for 1h resulted in a translucent model, the 1mm
relief fully fused into the base layer (Figure 4). The resulting
contrast in depth of fused material displayed an opportunity for
fusing 3DP glass into multi-layered sheet, and the next models
examined this opportunity for an accurate control of light through
the depth of printed material.

2

Figure 5: Larger 3DP sheet with gradated depth

Next steps: Two spheres were created to further explore the
possibilities of 3DP forms in glass, one closed and one open with
polygonal frames. Both models were placed in a dry fine silica
sand support and fired to 805°C for 1h. The fired models displayed
25% shrinkage, with an unfired diameter of 40mm and a fired
diameter of 30mm. An opaque surface was evident due to contact
with silica at melt temperature. An unexpected result of this firing
was that the closed sphere acquired a sealed surface at fuse
temperature, and as a result, the interior volume of air expanded
with heat and self-inflated the model.

25

This material research into 3DP glass has focused on new
opportunities in form, and control over optics in a zero waste
additive process. The combination of these technologies with
established glassforming techniques (blowing, casting, fusing) has
the potential to lead to innovative and sustainable smallscale/artisanal practice.

Figure 6: 3DP glass sphere fired in support material

Last: The final models created were a series of woven structures,
the largest with a Z height of 8mm, Y 240mm, X 240mm (Figure
7). The open nature of these models allowed for shrinkage to occur
with less tearing than the solid sheet model, and while the fired
models exhibited a reduction in scale, it was a uniform reduction
without significant variation from the green model. Figure 8 was
brought from anneal temperature to 680°C with a ramp of 25°C/hr
and held for 1h, encased in dry alumina hydrate for support. Figure
9 was brought from anneal temperature to 670°C with a ramp of
25°C/hr and held for 30m.

Figure 7: Unfired 3DP glass, open woven form

Figure 9: Fired, translucent 3DP glass

3DP Glass Casting Moulds
Concurrent with this powdered glass fusing research we have
been examining the capabilities of our low cost, open source, 3D
printing powder and its applicability to the glass casting process.
Building on research initiated at the Solheim Lab at the University
of Washington, we have developed an extremely low cost, 3d
printable powder that enables to output of 3D forms at a 20X
reduction in cost - in comparison to commercial 3D printable
consumables. This development has previously led to multiple
streams of inquiry based on bronze metal casting (figure 10) and
ceramic slip casting (Figure 11), and most recently, glass casting.
The refractory capabilities of our powder formulation are based on
its primary constituent, Hydroperm, a commercially available
plaster used in the fabrication of hand made refractory moulds for
metal casting. 3d printed moulds produced with this material have
the capacity to withstand the intense thermal shock of metal
casting (typically a moulds transitions from ambient temperature to
1000°C and back to ambient in less than 1 hour) however, glass
casting has a casting cycle of multiple 10’s of hours with the need
to hold high temperatures for multiple hours while the glass is
melting and annealing. Initially our explorations were conducted to
determine if a 3D printed mould could withstand a glass casting
cycle and what level of surface details would survive the process.

Figure 8: 3DP fired glass, open woven form

26
3

The moulds were then printed, de-powdered, cured with water (to
set the plaster), dried and bound together with wire in preparation
for casting. The typical glass casting procedure entails using
ceramic flowerpots to act as crucible for the glass, containing it
while a cool solid and a hot liquid, and directing the molten glass
into the aperture of the mould below. This was the procedure for
these digital moulds (Figure 13).

Figure 10: Printed mould and cast aluminum

Figure 12: Detail of mould surface

Figure 11: Printed mould and slip cast ceramic

This 3D printing moulds for glass kiln casting project is in
collaboration with Gayle Matthias, Senior Lecturer, Contemporary
Crafts and Tavs Jorgensen, Research Fellow in 3D Digital
Production, both of the Autonomatic Research Group at the
University of Falmouth. They are currently exploring parallel glass
casting capabilities in commercial materials in relation to the
medical industry, and their original mould file was our starting
point. This form had the desirable characteristics of a complex
surface, difficult to model and mould by hand via traditional
methods, but did not contain excessive surface details making it
difficult to de-powder (Figure 12). One characteristic of our
powder is that it exhibits a level of “stickiness” between the
printed object and the surrounding unprinted powder. Unprinted
powder wants to cling to the surface of a printed mould creating
the necessity of a mould’s surface needing to be cleaned manually.
As a mould’s surface need to be accessible for this process, we
split Falmouth’s digital model into two pieces along a relatively
simple, straight seamline.

The moulds were fired over a 25 hour casting cycle, being held for
4 hours at a peak temperature of 830°C while the glass was molten
allowing the glass to flow completely into the mould. At the
completion of the casting cycle the glass had melted successfully,
being deposited into the mould below by the flowerpot/crucibles
above (Figure 14). The mould on it’s exterior appeared to have
survived the casting process enough to contain the molten glass
and had re-calcined during the firing, becoming extremely fragile.

Figure 13: Glass casting setup, pre-firing

27
4

formal opportunities (geometric complexity, repeatability,
scalability). We are exploring issues within geometric complexity,
the digital versatility afforded by 3D modeling software, and how
the Maker remains is apparent in this digitally mediated process
(Figure 16). We are investigating parallel formulations of
printable materials to refine the depowdering process and refine
surface characteristics.

Figure 14: Detail of full glass cast

The mould, as a result of the re-calcination of the plaster, is
extremely easy to remove from the cast glass object. Additionally,
surface detail from the mould readily transferred to the glass;
however, the result is not a smooth surface (Figure 15). The cast
glass takes on the slightly “pebbly” surface of the mould; this
surface is a result of the mould water curing process. When the 3D
printed mould is first removed from the printer it is de-powdered
then the relatively delicate surface is misted with water to create a
much more durable shell. This misting process appears to slightly
dissolve the sugar within the printable powder leaving the texture
visible in Figure 12 and Figure 16. The success of this material in
the glass casting process has created multiple avenues for further
development.

Figure 16: Surface detail, form and seam flashing, post-casting

This research in design and making is placed within the current
paradigm of open source knowledge and horizontal manufacturing,
furthering research within the open source community and
enabling individual makers. Material production is actively being
redefined, warping our conventional thinking on how something is
made, what our relationships to objects are and how production is
defined. Within a craft and design context, we continue to research
opportunities for digital technologies to increase efficiencies and
expand the vocabulary of traditional materials. Research at this
intersection of traditional material practices and digital making
play an increasingly important role, acting as a catalyst for crossdisciplinary dialogue (Howes P. et al. 2012).

Figure 15: Glass casting setup, post-firing

Our current investigations are examining the multiple questions
raised by this hybridized digital/analogue process. There is a
particular efficiency in creating digital originals as they streamline
a traditional workflow (no physical original need be made,
undercuts are a greatly minimized issue, physical skill is not as
acutely required in the creation of moulds) and create multiple

28

5

References

Biography

[1] Singer, Peter W.; Direct Digital Manufacturing: The Industrial GameChanger You Never Heard of.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2011/10/10-digitalmanufacturing-singer Retrieved 2015-06-17

Aaron Oussoren is a 2016 MDES candidate at Emily Carr
University of Art + D0esign. He graduated from Sheridan’s Craft + Design
program (2004-2008), and was an artist-in-residence at Harbourfront
Centre glass studio (2008-2012). Aaron has shown his work extensively in
the Toronto area, and has shown in and traveled to the U.S, Belgium, and
Germany. He has taught courses in both glassblowing and 3d technology
for craft artists. Research funding from the Toronto Arts Council, Ontario
Arts Council and the Ontario Crafts Council have enabled Aaron to
develop work incorporating 3D scanning with glass, 3D printing with
glass, and CNC milling for glass moulds. He is currently involved in
material research at the intersection of contemporary craft practice and
design with the Material Matters group at Emily Carr in Vancouver, B.C.

[2] Marchelli, G., Prabhakar, R., Storti, D., & Ganter, M. (2011). The
guide to glass 3D printing: developments, methods, diagnostics and
results. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 17(3), 187-194.
[3] Johnston, S.R. (2005), “Initial stage sintering model of 316L stainless
steel with application to three dimensionally printed (3DPTM)
components”, Doctoral Dissertation, The Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
[4] Howes, P., & Laughlin, Z. (2012). Material matters: New materials in
design. London: Black Dog Publishing.

Keywords: 3DP, material practice, open source, contemporary
craft, ceramics, glass

Philip Robbins holds an M.A. from the Royal College of Art in
London, a B.A. from The Emily Carr University of Art and Design and a
B.ed from the University of British Columbia. Philip's is a founding
member of Material Matters a research center within Emily Carr
University’s, Intersections Digital Studios. Philip’s practice explores a
wide spectrum of materials, media and technology in a career that spans
props production for film and television, public artwork and education.
Since 2000 Philip has taught across a wide range of disciplines with an
emphasis on material practice, 3D software and digital output
technologies.
Keith Doyle is an Assistant Professor at Emily Carr University of
Art + Design. He is a Lead/co-lead Investigator on a few Emily Carr
research initiatives including, the DnA project, cloTHING(s) as
conversation, and a founding faculty member of Material Matters, a
pragmatic material research cluster within the Intersections Digital
Studios at Emily Carr University of Art + Design. Keith holds both a BFA
and an MFA in Sculpture. He maintains an active material practice and is
a recent Resident Artist at the ACME Studios International Artists
Residency Programme situated in London, UK, a Banff New Media
Institute alum, 2006-2007 as well as, a NYC Dance Theater Workshop
Artist’s Research Medialab fellow.

29
6