The difference between what it is and what it claims to be
"The work examines the issues that arise with the phenomenon of 3D printing and weapons
through the interplays between the discourses on firearms, freedom, accessibility, art and
the legal systems within the ruling ideologies of the West.
The video displays an ever-changing 3D object and is an ever-failing-ever-succeeding
experiment in defining the diviging lines between what it is and what it claims to be: between
a firearm and a non-firearm. The original 3D model/blueprint of a firearm was downloaded
from the internet and then reconfigured and deformed into an abstract, non-functional object.
The transformation process is directed by coordinates, that is, a numerical code retrieved
from the transcription of the word “firearm” into a series of numbers. The object’s own
definition is thus its own deforming factor as well. After a while, the object returns to its
original form and the process of metamorphosis begins again.
More specifically, the work deals with the issue of legality and accessibility of firearms that
comes with the capacities of 3D printers and consequently homemade untraceable guns.
What happens when the ideas of accessibility and freedom that permeate every
technological advance leak into the world of firearms and war? What happens to laws and
legal systems that are lagging behind when it comes to these types of weapons? Another
question is: What is considered a weapon? Is the definition of weapons changing with and
within this new sphere? How much do I need to disable the gun in order for it to be printed
legally? Is the object that I made a firearm, something that resembles it, a piece of art? What
will the future of this phenomenon look like? The present work moves precisely in this grey
area. Is an object in the video illegal one second and then a work of art throughout the rest
-Živa Brglez, MFRU