Generative Solid Modelling Employing Natural Language Understanding and 3D Data

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10783)


The paper describes an experimental system for generating 3D-printable models inspired by arbitrary textual input. Utilizing a transliteration pipeline, the system pivots on Natural Language Understanding technologies and 3D data available via online repositories to result in a bag of retrieved 3D models that are then concatenated in order to produce original designs. Such artefacts celebrate a post-digital kind of objecthood, as they are concretely physical while, at the same time, incorporate the cybernetic encodings of their own making. Twelve individuals were asked to reflect on some of the 3D-printed, physical artefacts. Their responses suggest that the created artefacts succeed in triggering imagination, and in accelerating moods and narratives of various sorts.


  1. 1.
    Willis, K.D., Xu, C., Wu, K.J., Levin, G., Gross, M.D.: Interactive fabrication: new interfaces for digital fabrication. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pp. 69–72. ACM, New York (2011).
  2. 2.
    Clune, J., Lipson, H.: Evolving three-dimensional objects with a generative encoding inspired by developmental biology. In: Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Life, pp. 141–148 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lehman, J., Risi, S., Clune, J.: Creative generation of 3D objects with deep learning and innovation engines. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computational Creativity (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reed, K.: Aesthetic measures for evolutionary vase design. In: Machado, P., McDermott, J., Carballal, A. (eds.) EvoMUSART 2013. LNCS, vol. 7834, pp. 59–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horn, B., Smith, G., Masri, R., Stone, J.: Visual information vases: towards a framework for transmedia creative inspiration. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity, pp. 182–188 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khot, R.A., Hjorth, L., Mueller, F.F.: Understanding physical activity through 3D printed material artifacts. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3835–3844. ACM, New York (2014).
  7. 7.
    Stusak, S., Tabard, A., Sauka, F., Khot, R.A., Butz, A.: Activity sculptures: exploring the impact of physical visualizations on running activity. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graphics 20(12), 2201–2210 (2014).
  8. 8.
    Jafarinaimi, N., Forlizzi, J., Hurst, A., Zimmerman, J.: Breakaway: an ambient display designed to change human behavior. In: Extended Abstracts of the 23rd SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1945–1948. ACM, New York (2005).
  9. 9.
    Jansen, Y., Dragicevic, P., Fekete, J.D.: Evaluating the efficiency of physical visualizations. In: Proceedings of the 31st SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2593–2602. ACM, New York (2013).
  10. 10.
    Séquin, C.H.: Rapid prototyping: a 3D visualization tool takes on sculpture and mathematical forms. Commun. ACM 48(6), 66–73 (2005).
  11. 11.
    Alexander, J., Jansen, Y., Hornbæk, K., Kildal, J., Karnik, A.: Exploring the challenges of making data physical. In: Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2417–2420. ACM, New York (2015).
  12. 12.
    Zhao, J., Moere, A.V.: Embodiment in data sculpture: a model of the physical visualization of information. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts, pp. 343–350. ACM, New York (2008).
  13. 13.
    Stone, J.: Systems and methods for transforming and/or generating a tangible physical structure based on user input information. US Patent App. 13/467,713, 23 May 2013Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, T.: New typographic experience in the post-digital age with 3D printing and ceramics. In: Chung, W., Shin, C.S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics on Affective and Pleasurable Design, pp. 161–170. Springer, New York (2018).
  15. 15.
    Blikstein, P., Krannich, D.: The makers’ movement and FabLabs in education: experiences, technologies, and research. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 613–616. ACM, New York (2013).
  16. 16.
    Posch, I., Ogawa, H., Lindinger, C., Haring, R., Hörtner, H.: Introducing the FabLab as interactive exhibition space. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 254–257. ACM, New York (2010).
  17. 17.
    Tanenbaum, J.G., Williams, A.M., Desjardins, A., Tanenbaum, K.: Democratizing technology: pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and maker practice. In: Proceedings of the 31st SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2603–2612. ACM, New York (2013).
  18. 18.
    Kuznetsov, S., Paulos, E.: Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 295–304. ACM, New York (2010).
  19. 19.
    Gershenfeld, N.: Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop-From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication. Basic Books, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dougherty, D.: The maker movement. Innovations 7(3), 11–14 (2012).
  21. 21.
    Toombs, A., Bardzell, S., Bardzell, J.: Becoming makers: hackerspace member habits, values, and identities. J. Peer Prod. 5, 1–8 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rayna, T., Striukova, L., Darlington, J.: Open innovation, co-creation and mass customisation: what role for 3D printing platforms? In: Brunoe, T.D., Nielsen, K., Joergensen, K.A., Taps, S.B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Mass Customization, Personalization, and Co-creation (MCPC 2014). LNPE, pp. 425–435. Springer, Cham (2014). Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Groenendyk, M.: Cataloging the 3D web: the availability of educational 3D models on the internet. Libr. Hi Tech 34(2), 239–258 (2016).
  24. 24.
    Bird, S., Klein, E., Loper, E.: Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Speer, R., Havasi, C.: ConceptNet 5: a large semantic network for relational knowledge. In: Gurevych, I., Kim, J. (eds.) The People’s Web Meets NLP: Collaboratively Constructed Language Resources, pp. 161–176. Springer, Berlin (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller, G.A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., Miller, K.J.: Introduction to WordNet: an on-line lexical database. Int. J. Lexicography 3(4), 235–244 (1990). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Azzam, S., Humphreys, K., Gaizauskas, R.: Using coreference chains for text summarization. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Coreference and Its Applications, pp. 77–84. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barzilay, R., Elhadad, M.: Using lexical chains for text summarization. In: Advances in Automatic Text Summarization, pp. 111–121 (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee, H., Peirsman, Y., Chang, A., Chambers, N., Surdeanu, M., Jurafsky, D.: Stanford’s multi-pass Sieve coreference resolution system at the CoNLL-2011 shared task. In: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 28–34. Association for Computational Linguistics (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morris, J., Hirst, G.: Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Comput. Linguist. 17(1), 21–48 (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bergler, S., Witte, R., Khalife, M., Li, Z., Rudzicz, F.: Using knowledge-poor coreference resolution for text summarization. In: Proceedings of 3rd Document Understanding Conference, vol. 3 (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brunn, M., Chali, Y., Pinchak, C.J.: Text summarization using lexical chains. In: Proceedings of 1st Document Understanding Conference (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Boden, M.: The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Routledge, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Paul, C.: From immateriality to neomateriality: art and the conditions of digital materiality. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Electronic Art (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Groys, B.: From image to image-file–and back: art in the age of digitalization. In: Groys, B. (ed.) Art Power, pp. 83–91. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Koutsomichalis, M.: From music to big music: listening in the age of big data. Leonardo Music J. 26, 24–27 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Philipsen, L.: Who’s afraid of the audience? Digital and post-digital perspectives on aesthetics. Peer-Reviewed J. About Post-Digital Res. 3(1) (2014).
  38. 38.
    Hielscher, S., Smith, A.G.: Community-based digital fabrication workshops: a review of the research literature. Technical report, SWPS 2014–08, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK (2014). Accessed 13 Jan 2018

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations