class of 2028 HSC (general) (2 Viewers)

[Successful Entrepreneur]

no merewether

did someone top the state from ur school for bio?
damn. impressive

 

[linh_le38]

did someone top the state from ur school for bio?
damn. impressive

nah we just get the most band 6s each yr + some state ranks

 

[aaliya]

Lmao


I think I might have to carry this thread like I did initially for the 27 one

YEAYYAYAYY

 

[ChromeDragon26]

YEAYYAYAYY

I have not seen u on bos for so long

Any new gifs for me to steal?

 

[f7eeting]

I have not seen u on bos for so long

Any new gifs for me to steal?

hi

 

[ChromeDragon26]

hi

hihi

 

[Successful Entrepreneur]

hiiiiiiiii

 

[xyyvii]

Is anyone planning to continue visual arts in yr 11 and 12

 

[ChromeDragon26]

Is anyone planning to continue visual arts in yr 11 and 12

Its...... alright

 

[xyyvii]

Its...... alright

Can I ask what’s your major work abt and what medium youre using

 

[ChromeDragon26]

Can I ask what’s your major work abt and what medium youre using

My chosen medium is sculpture.

The basis of my BOW is about extinction but instead of doing a broad spectrum showing I instead chose to compare the extinction of species with de-extinction (the bringing back of animals (mostly their phenotypes (physical appearance)) through genetic technologies utilising CRISPR). De-Extinction is the process of artificially bringing back animals (right now it's been tested for phenotypes and been seen as a success if you've heard the news about the dire wolves; Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi back in late 24 I believe).

My BOW aims to not take a side but to question if this is the right thing to do. Obviously these projects have been to please investors and gain more funding so the future is not fully set but I intend to ask the question "Why would we be bringing back long lost species: Dire wolves, Dodos, Great Auks, Tasmanian Tigers and Wooly mammoths when this technology and/or funding can be better utilised to work on ways to possibly genetically modify current species to allow them to maybe be better adapted to the current conditions; conditions that are changing too fast that they outpace long-term adaptation. Even so if my first point is proven invalid many of the species that these companies are trying to 'revive' hold no ecological niche in todays ecosystems meaning that they must be held in captivity + if they are released either, they could dominate an ecosystem or die out.... We should be repairing the current habitats that exist now instead of introducing new factors and modifiers. (If you've done module 3&4 bio this will make 100000x more sense sorry)

So:
- This technology could be better utilised on animals that are currently going extinct, so it diverts funding and resources.
- Animals being bought back often do not have a place in current ecosystems meaning they could potentially out compete native populations or get out competed
- Many current habitats aren't suited for these animals, say wooly mammoths: they existed during the ice age and those conditions are near impossible to replicate (if we ever have the power to replicate these conditions why not use it for current species who are fading away due to habitat loss.....)
- There are also ethical concerns such as animals being experimented (high mortality rates often come with the use of these technologies) on as well as the fact that for many the correct conditions cannot be replicated. And as I've said before these species can provide ecological risks.
- There are a bunch more smaller mentions i could make but....... This is too much writing omdz

I may also state the other side of the argument about de-extinction being a useful process but idk...... my intention is to make this thought provoking and allow the viewers to decide which side of the argument to take without so i don't really want my bow to show an obvious opinion...... easier said than done

Now..... For what my bow actually is
So, I intend to do a comparative sculpture kind of thing. Basically, I'll make 2 sculptures per set and an undetermined number of sets (currently 3 in the works). The 2 sculptures ill include: one of an animals whose de-extinction is planned or in the works and an animal that exists today and is related by classification, the closer the better. Examples of this include:

Extinct -> Living Relative (some are kind of far-fetched but related nevertheless
Dire Wolf -> Grey Wolf (I did this for the design options and the fact that they have a more similar physical appearance as this was what i started with and didn't want to deviate from a standard design too much
Tasmanian Tiger -> Tasmanian Devil
Dodo -> Nicobar Pigeon (very surprising)
Great Auk -> Razorbill
Wooly Mammoth -> Asian Elephant (This would be iconic but it's still under consideration and planning)

So at the moment the 2 members of each set will face each other, I intend to contrast appearance wise and ofc me being me (a nerd about this stuff) I'll leave pieces of information everywhere (i wanted to draw out the classifications but some are so cooked). So the posing will probably show the de-extinct animal as more vital, and lively whilst for its living relative this will be the opposite showing the degradation of current species. Right now, i intend to make them both face each other because this shows side-on differences but its only arrangement and thus can change.

Material wise I'm still experimenting with stuff, but my main structure(armature) consists of wire, and this was really just to get a rough and study structure that somewhat resembles the animal. Next, I used and am still using papier mache to develop proper anatomically resemblant forms (I'm basing this stage off muscular structures mostly). The next stage I would be using found materials as the final layers. I'm thinking for the still existing animals to use more natural materials, leaves, bark, paper and carboard to a small degree (i's experimenting on preserving leaves in glycerin) as well as using a more natural colour pallet so ofc i want to stay away from stronger artificial looking colours. For the de-extinct animals, I intent to make them look more artificial, using plastics, metal and anything else interesting i can get my hands on but the end goal is that whatever i use must give off the demeanour of fur or feathers, nevertheless. This was one of the first choices that drove my plans.

Each individual animal (2 per set) will have a clay base that is resemblant of their environment (naturalistic for the current animals and artificial-like for the de-extinct ones). Also, another small detail is that I will make all of the animals heads out of clay because it allows for greater detail than wire and papier mache but that'll be hidden for the final product either way.

Now the next part is kind of an extension activity if i can spare the time, but it'll be to digitally draw up backgrounds for each set to contrast and compare environments. I haven't gotten into planning for this in depth but so far if you remember how i said i wanted both animals facing each other i want the environment to span between them (say about 45x20cm). So the current living animals will have their environment in a state of decay but in a gradient. Given my planned dimensions this will allow for a showcase of this. Far side (natural lush and esthetically pleasing (untouched by humans)) then moving toward the middle(more and more destruction and decay), passing the middle(merge into the habitat of the de-extinct species) and the other far side(an extremely artificial habitat of previously mentioned de-extinct animal (artificial meaning a lot more order, human structures(cameras fences and etc in the distance)).

Next ofc i need to overload the entire thing with information without being too confusing and wordy so that'll be good fun.
Annnnnd i'll hope for the best!!!
(va gets really annoying at times)

“While we chase the ghosts of vanished species, the living slip quietly into extinction.”
I really like that quote a lot

Dire Wolf (A little insight)

 

[Study to success]

I read "sculpture" as scripture and I was like huh

 

[f7eeting]

My chosen medium is sculpture.

The basis of my BOW is about extinction but instead of doing a broad spectrum showing I instead chose to compare the extinction of species with de-extinction (the bringing back of animals (mostly their phenotypes (physical appearance)) through genetic technologies utilising CRISPR). De-Extinction is the process of artificially bringing back animals (right now it's been tested for phenotypes and been seen as a success if you've heard the news about the dire wolves; Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi back in late 24 I believe).

My BOW aims to not take a side but to question if this is the right thing to do. Obviously these projects have been to please investors and gain more funding so the future is not fully set but I intend to ask the question "Why would we be bringing back long lost species: Dire wolves, Dodos, Great Auks, Tasmanian Tigers and Wooly mammoths when this technology and/or funding can be better utilised to work on ways to possibly genetically modify current species to allow them to maybe be better adapted to the current conditions; conditions that are changing too fast that they outpace long-term adaptation. Even so if my first point is proven invalid many of the species that these companies are trying to 'revive' hold no ecological niche in todays ecosystems meaning that they must be held in captivity + if they are released either, they could dominate an ecosystem or die out.... We should be repairing the current habitats that exist now instead of introducing new factors and modifiers. (If you've done module 3&4 bio this will make 100000x more sense sorry)

So:
- This technology could be better utilised on animals that are currently going extinct, so it diverts funding and resources.
- Animals being bought back often do not have a place in current ecosystems meaning they could potentially out compete native populations or get out competed
- Many current habitats aren't suited for these animals, say wooly mammoths: they existed during the ice age and those conditions are near impossible to replicate (if we ever have the power to replicate these conditions why not use it for current species who are fading away due to habitat loss.....)
- There are also ethical concerns such as animals being experimented (high mortality rates often come with the use of these technologies) on as well as the fact that for many the correct conditions cannot be replicated. And as I've said before these species can provide ecological risks.
- There are a bunch more smaller mentions i could make but....... This is too much writing omdz

I may also state the other side of the argument about de-extinction being a useful process but idk...... my intention is to make this thought provoking and allow the viewers to decide which side of the argument to take without so i don't really want my bow to show an obvious opinion...... easier said than done

Now..... For what my bow actually is
So, I intend to do a comparative sculpture kind of thing. Basically, I'll make 2 sculptures per set and an undetermined number of sets (currently 3 in the works). The 2 sculptures ill include: one of an animals whose de-extinction is planned or in the works and an animal that exists today and is related by classification, the closer the better. Examples of this include:

Extinct -> Living Relative (some are kind of far-fetched but related nevertheless
Dire Wolf -> Grey Wolf (I did this for the design options and the fact that they have a more similar physical appearance as this was what i started with and didn't want to deviate from a standard design too much
Tasmanian Tiger -> Tasmanian Devil
Dodo -> Nicobar Pigeon (very surprising)
Great Auk -> Razorbill
Wooly Mammoth -> Asian Elephant (This would be iconic but it's still under consideration and planning)

So at the moment the 2 members of each set will face each other, I intend to contrast appearance wise and ofc me being me (a nerd about this stuff) I'll leave pieces of information everywhere (i wanted to draw out the classifications but some are so cooked). So the posing will probably show the de-extinct animal as more vital, and lively whilst for its living relative this will be the opposite showing the degradation of current species. Right now, i intend to make them both face each other because this shows side-on differences but its only arrangement and thus can change.

Material wise I'm still experimenting with stuff, but my main structure(armature) consists of wire, and this was really just to get a rough and study structure that somewhat resembles the animal. Next, I used and am still using papier mache to develop proper anatomically resemblant forms (I'm basing this stage off muscular structures mostly). The next stage I would be using found materials as the final layers. I'm thinking for the still existing animals to use more natural materials, leaves, bark, paper and carboard to a small degree (i's experimenting on preserving leaves in glycerin) as well as using a more natural colour pallet so ofc i want to stay away from stronger artificial looking colours. For the de-extinct animals, I intent to make them look more artificial, using plastics, metal and anything else interesting i can get my hands on but the end goal is that whatever i use must give off the demeanour of fur or feathers, nevertheless. This was one of the first choices that drove my plans.

Each individual animal (2 per set) will have a clay base that is resemblant of their environment (naturalistic for the current animals and artificial-like for the de-extinct ones). Also, another small detail is that I will make all of the animals heads out of clay because it allows for greater detail than wire and papier mache but that'll be hidden for the final product either way.

Now the next part is kind of an extension activity if i can spare the time, but it'll be to digitally draw up backgrounds for each set to contrast and compare environments. I haven't gotten into planning for this in depth but so far if you remember how i said i wanted both animals facing each other i want the environment to span between them (say about 45x20cm). So the current living animals will have their environment in a state of decay but in a gradient. Given my planned dimensions this will allow for a showcase of this. Far side (natural lush and esthetically pleasing (untouched by humans)) then moving toward the middle(more and more destruction and decay), passing the middle(merge into the habitat of the de-extinct species) and the other far side(an extremely artificial habitat of previously mentioned de-extinct animal (artificial meaning a lot more order, human structures(cameras fences and etc in the distance)).

Next ofc i need to overload the entire thing with information without being too confusing and wordy so that'll be good fun.
Annnnnd i'll hope for the best!!!
(va gets really annoying at times)

“While we chase the ghosts of vanished species, the living slip quietly into extinction.”
I really like that quote a lot

Dire Wolf (A little insight)

yes i DID read all that
so honoured to be witnessing best body of work of all time being created

 

[ChromeDragon26]

yes i DID read all that
so honoured to be witnessing best body of work of all time being created

aww thanks, I hope to live up to those high expectations

 

[xyyvii]

My chosen medium is sculpture.

The basis of my BOW is about extinction but instead of doing a broad spectrum showing I instead chose to compare the extinction of species with de-extinction (the bringing back of animals (mostly their phenotypes (physical appearance)) through genetic technologies utilising CRISPR). De-Extinction is the process of artificially bringing back animals (right now it's been tested for phenotypes and been seen as a success if you've heard the news about the dire wolves; Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi back in late 24 I believe).

My BOW aims to not take a side but to question if this is the right thing to do. Obviously these projects have been to please investors and gain more funding so the future is not fully set but I intend to ask the question "Why would we be bringing back long lost species: Dire wolves, Dodos, Great Auks, Tasmanian Tigers and Wooly mammoths when this technology and/or funding can be better utilised to work on ways to possibly genetically modify current species to allow them to maybe be better adapted to the current conditions; conditions that are changing too fast that they outpace long-term adaptation. Even so if my first point is proven invalid many of the species that these companies are trying to 'revive' hold no ecological niche in todays ecosystems meaning that they must be held in captivity + if they are released either, they could dominate an ecosystem or die out.... We should be repairing the current habitats that exist now instead of introducing new factors and modifiers. (If you've done module 3&4 bio this will make 100000x more sense sorry)

So:
- This technology could be better utilised on animals that are currently going extinct, so it diverts funding and resources.
- Animals being bought back often do not have a place in current ecosystems meaning they could potentially out compete native populations or get out competed
- Many current habitats aren't suited for these animals, say wooly mammoths: they existed during the ice age and those conditions are near impossible to replicate (if we ever have the power to replicate these conditions why not use it for current species who are fading away due to habitat loss.....)
- There are also ethical concerns such as animals being experimented (high mortality rates often come with the use of these technologies) on as well as the fact that for many the correct conditions cannot be replicated. And as I've said before these species can provide ecological risks.
- There are a bunch more smaller mentions i could make but....... This is too much writing omdz

I may also state the other side of the argument about de-extinction being a useful process but idk...... my intention is to make this thought provoking and allow the viewers to decide which side of the argument to take without so i don't really want my bow to show an obvious opinion...... easier said than done

Now..... For what my bow actually is
So, I intend to do a comparative sculpture kind of thing. Basically, I'll make 2 sculptures per set and an undetermined number of sets (currently 3 in the works). The 2 sculptures ill include: one of an animals whose de-extinction is planned or in the works and an animal that exists today and is related by classification, the closer the better. Examples of this include:

Extinct -> Living Relative (some are kind of far-fetched but related nevertheless
Dire Wolf -> Grey Wolf (I did this for the design options and the fact that they have a more similar physical appearance as this was what i started with and didn't want to deviate from a standard design too much
Tasmanian Tiger -> Tasmanian Devil
Dodo -> Nicobar Pigeon (very surprising)
Great Auk -> Razorbill
Wooly Mammoth -> Asian Elephant (This would be iconic but it's still under consideration and planning)

So at the moment the 2 members of each set will face each other, I intend to contrast appearance wise and ofc me being me (a nerd about this stuff) I'll leave pieces of information everywhere (i wanted to draw out the classifications but some are so cooked). So the posing will probably show the de-extinct animal as more vital, and lively whilst for its living relative this will be the opposite showing the degradation of current species. Right now, i intend to make them both face each other because this shows side-on differences but its only arrangement and thus can change.

Material wise I'm still experimenting with stuff, but my main structure(armature) consists of wire, and this was really just to get a rough and study structure that somewhat resembles the animal. Next, I used and am still using papier mache to develop proper anatomically resemblant forms (I'm basing this stage off muscular structures mostly). The next stage I would be using found materials as the final layers. I'm thinking for the still existing animals to use more natural materials, leaves, bark, paper and carboard to a small degree (i's experimenting on preserving leaves in glycerin) as well as using a more natural colour pallet so ofc i want to stay away from stronger artificial looking colours. For the de-extinct animals, I intent to make them look more artificial, using plastics, metal and anything else interesting i can get my hands on but the end goal is that whatever i use must give off the demeanour of fur or feathers, nevertheless. This was one of the first choices that drove my plans.

Each individual animal (2 per set) will have a clay base that is resemblant of their environment (naturalistic for the current animals and artificial-like for the de-extinct ones). Also, another small detail is that I will make all of the animals heads out of clay because it allows for greater detail than wire and papier mache but that'll be hidden for the final product either way.

Now the next part is kind of an extension activity if i can spare the time, but it'll be to digitally draw up backgrounds for each set to contrast and compare environments. I haven't gotten into planning for this in depth but so far if you remember how i said i wanted both animals facing each other i want the environment to span between them (say about 45x20cm). So the current living animals will have their environment in a state of decay but in a gradient. Given my planned dimensions this will allow for a showcase of this. Far side (natural lush and esthetically pleasing (untouched by humans)) then moving toward the middle(more and more destruction and decay), passing the middle(merge into the habitat of the de-extinct species) and the other far side(an extremely artificial habitat of previously mentioned de-extinct animal (artificial meaning a lot more order, human structures(cameras fences and etc in the distance)).

Next ofc i need to overload the entire thing with information without being too confusing and wordy so that'll be good fun.
Annnnnd i'll hope for the best!!!
(va gets really annoying at times)

“While we chase the ghosts of vanished species, the living slip quietly into extinction.”
I really like that quote a lot

Dire Wolf (A little insight)

Too much to read but hope you make it into artexpress

 

[luminescence]

My chosen medium is sculpture.

The basis of my BOW is about extinction but instead of doing a broad spectrum showing I instead chose to compare the extinction of species with de-extinction (the bringing back of animals (mostly their phenotypes (physical appearance)) through genetic technologies utilising CRISPR). De-Extinction is the process of artificially bringing back animals (right now it's been tested for phenotypes and been seen as a success if you've heard the news about the dire wolves; Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi back in late 24 I believe).

My BOW aims to not take a side but to question if this is the right thing to do. Obviously these projects have been to please investors and gain more funding so the future is not fully set but I intend to ask the question "Why would we be bringing back long lost species: Dire wolves, Dodos, Great Auks, Tasmanian Tigers and Wooly mammoths when this technology and/or funding can be better utilised to work on ways to possibly genetically modify current species to allow them to maybe be better adapted to the current conditions; conditions that are changing too fast that they outpace long-term adaptation. Even so if my first point is proven invalid many of the species that these companies are trying to 'revive' hold no ecological niche in todays ecosystems meaning that they must be held in captivity + if they are released either, they could dominate an ecosystem or die out.... We should be repairing the current habitats that exist now instead of introducing new factors and modifiers. (If you've done module 3&4 bio this will make 100000x more sense sorry)

So:
- This technology could be better utilised on animals that are currently going extinct, so it diverts funding and resources.
- Animals being bought back often do not have a place in current ecosystems meaning they could potentially out compete native populations or get out competed
- Many current habitats aren't suited for these animals, say wooly mammoths: they existed during the ice age and those conditions are near impossible to replicate (if we ever have the power to replicate these conditions why not use it for current species who are fading away due to habitat loss.....)
- There are also ethical concerns such as animals being experimented (high mortality rates often come with the use of these technologies) on as well as the fact that for many the correct conditions cannot be replicated. And as I've said before these species can provide ecological risks.
- There are a bunch more smaller mentions i could make but....... This is too much writing omdz

I may also state the other side of the argument about de-extinction being a useful process but idk...... my intention is to make this thought provoking and allow the viewers to decide which side of the argument to take without so i don't really want my bow to show an obvious opinion...... easier said than done

Now..... For what my bow actually is
So, I intend to do a comparative sculpture kind of thing. Basically, I'll make 2 sculptures per set and an undetermined number of sets (currently 3 in the works). The 2 sculptures ill include: one of an animals whose de-extinction is planned or in the works and an animal that exists today and is related by classification, the closer the better. Examples of this include:

Extinct -> Living Relative (some are kind of far-fetched but related nevertheless
Dire Wolf -> Grey Wolf (I did this for the design options and the fact that they have a more similar physical appearance as this was what i started with and didn't want to deviate from a standard design too much
Tasmanian Tiger -> Tasmanian Devil
Dodo -> Nicobar Pigeon (very surprising)
Great Auk -> Razorbill
Wooly Mammoth -> Asian Elephant (This would be iconic but it's still under consideration and planning)

So at the moment the 2 members of each set will face each other, I intend to contrast appearance wise and ofc me being me (a nerd about this stuff) I'll leave pieces of information everywhere (i wanted to draw out the classifications but some are so cooked). So the posing will probably show the de-extinct animal as more vital, and lively whilst for its living relative this will be the opposite showing the degradation of current species. Right now, i intend to make them both face each other because this shows side-on differences but its only arrangement and thus can change.

Material wise I'm still experimenting with stuff, but my main structure(armature) consists of wire, and this was really just to get a rough and study structure that somewhat resembles the animal. Next, I used and am still using papier mache to develop proper anatomically resemblant forms (I'm basing this stage off muscular structures mostly). The next stage I would be using found materials as the final layers. I'm thinking for the still existing animals to use more natural materials, leaves, bark, paper and carboard to a small degree (i's experimenting on preserving leaves in glycerin) as well as using a more natural colour pallet so ofc i want to stay away from stronger artificial looking colours. For the de-extinct animals, I intent to make them look more artificial, using plastics, metal and anything else interesting i can get my hands on but the end goal is that whatever i use must give off the demeanour of fur or feathers, nevertheless. This was one of the first choices that drove my plans.

Each individual animal (2 per set) will have a clay base that is resemblant of their environment (naturalistic for the current animals and artificial-like for the de-extinct ones). Also, another small detail is that I will make all of the animals heads out of clay because it allows for greater detail than wire and papier mache but that'll be hidden for the final product either way.

Now the next part is kind of an extension activity if i can spare the time, but it'll be to digitally draw up backgrounds for each set to contrast and compare environments. I haven't gotten into planning for this in depth but so far if you remember how i said i wanted both animals facing each other i want the environment to span between them (say about 45x20cm). So the current living animals will have their environment in a state of decay but in a gradient. Given my planned dimensions this will allow for a showcase of this. Far side (natural lush and esthetically pleasing (untouched by humans)) then moving toward the middle(more and more destruction and decay), passing the middle(merge into the habitat of the de-extinct species) and the other far side(an extremely artificial habitat of previously mentioned de-extinct animal (artificial meaning a lot more order, human structures(cameras fences and etc in the distance)).

Next ofc i need to overload the entire thing with information without being too confusing and wordy so that'll be good fun.
Annnnnd i'll hope for the best!!!
(va gets really annoying at times)

“While we chase the ghosts of vanished species, the living slip quietly into extinction.”
I really like that quote a lot

woah... it sounds like it'll turn out to be very interesting! although i do not do va, i did used to do ceramics so it's pretty cool to see someone else work in sculpture. i hope it turns out exactly as you imagined and that you get into art express ٩(ˊᗜˋ )و