The object my group and I looked at was the corncob pipe.
Here is the Corncob pipe Omeka item. When modeling an object by hand or using software to put images together, smaller details become more apparent than merely viewing an object in an exhibition. Every detail, surface, and texture has a specific purpose in the object. When attempting to model an object, you want it to look as realistic as possible, which is accomplished through the addition of details. If you go about creating a model the way we did in class with software, you may not notice as many details but through ensuring all angles of the object are covered you likely would notice more details than if you were just viewing it in passing. I think you would notice more details by taking a bunch of pictures before having a software compile the images into a model than if you were to use an app that does it all for you.
I quite enjoyed the time we spent in the archives looking at the various objects in Carleton’s collection. Whenever I see an imperfection in an object, perhaps a scratch or chipped piece, I wonder what happened to the object such that that thing happened. The older an object, the more stories it has to tell, though it is likely impossible to know what truly happened or where the object has been. For instance there is a slight chip in the bowl of the corncob pipe that I did not notice until writing this blog and selecting an image. I am now left wondering what happened to it, whether it was accidental or purposeful. History is already somewhat subjective by nature, so when moving from observer to modeler I think it is important to remain as objective as possible to keep any potential bias away as it would reshape the way people view a part of history.
