Home fixed to a Sight

by shivinteger Apr 12, 2017
Download All Files

Thing Apps Enabled

Please Login to Comment

Pure rubbish and a waste of space on Thingiverse.

I have a quick answer to the art claim:

This is not art because:

  • too easy (code some lines, random stuff comes out)
  • not interesting enough

Work harder.

For anyone who may have stumbled across this thing accidentally and have no idea what it is, why it is here, or what purpose it might conceivable serve:
I've done some digging, and ShivInteger is apparently the creation of Matthew Plummer-Fernandez and Julien Deswaef. They created a program that randomly mixes other people's work together and posts it to thingiverse. All the authors whose work has been forcibly integrated get an email saying that their work has been remixed, only to find that the result was something far less useful or artistic than the individual parts. It had been announced that ShivInteger was dead (in the sense that it was no longer posting such "things"), but apparently that is not the case.

Anyways, Matthew Plummer-Fernandez has a website: http://www.plummerfernandez.com/Contact, and Julien Deswaef has a website at http://p.xuv.be/about.

Both sites have contact information for the artists responsible for these "assemblages", should you wish to give them feedback. You may also contact Thingivers support if you feel that some action needs to be taken against this account.

Best Regards,


If you wish to read on, here are some more detailed comments that I have about ShivInteger's . . . things . . .

ShivInteger has an amazing ability to produce a pile of garbage out of a wide variety of interesting parts. Every now and again I get a remix notification, which is always exciting (Somebody thought my idea was interesting!) then when I look, I find that it was THIS bot, which has algorithmically piled some item that I spent my time and effort producing, into a middenish vortex of other once-useful objects.

The FAQ describing ShivInteger's mission of generating refuse is a remarkably educational exercise in self-deception.

It starts with "Is this Spam?" I invite whoever is the actual human behind this to run a survey and see how many thingiverse users disagree. My reply would be that spam is unsolicited and undesired, and is destined for the rubbish bin, despite being email. I'm not aware of a name for art which no one wants, no one asks for, but winds up in our alerts regardless. The term "spam" seems fairly appropriate, though I'd certainly be willing to consider any suggestions that someone might have. (This may well be a violation of Thingiverse's terms of service, but I'm not the final arbiter of that.)

"Is it printible?" Well, a professional printing service with a $250k machine could indeed print such detritus (though it may require that the printer's operator possess more money than sense), so I suppose it is, technically, printable. I'm pleased that the bot operator at least admits that most home printers would find such a print to be an exercise in frustration and wasted filament. So, just to be clear, if you are reading this on thingiverse, you probably can't print this on your printer.

"Does it belong on Thingiverse?" Randal Monroe answers this more succinctly than I can here: http://xkcd.com/1357/, but I'm going to try anyways. Clearly, you can post anything on Thingiverse, and I think that Shivinteger proves it. With any luck person responsible for this grafitti (also art, sometimes, mind you) will consider their point to have been made, and move on to other, more productive pursuits. Sir, Madam, whoever you are, I wish you the best of luck in other, less irritating pursuits. For me, I intend to post similar responses every time that you manage to remix one of my (actually useful, printable, and possibly artistic) items into another pointless bricolage and spam (I'm pretty sure this is the right term, actually) my activity feed with the results.

The question about "Why not make something more original" has a non-answer that even a politician would admit is a terrific example of word-salad and self-delusion. I'm sure that some introspection would result in a far more productive pursuit for the author.

ShivInteger does appear to have a moment of lucidity in the last question: "These objects have no utilitarian function . . . There is no rational thought process behind these works" In these statements, it does appear that some human being actually had a flash of insight about this and the 597 (at the time I am writing this) other concretements that this brainless algorithm has littered Thingiverse with. Most of your audience is interested in objects that have some rational thought behind it - even when the item in question is art.

My strongest reaction, though, is to the entry asking "What if I don’t like it?" In this entry, ShivInteger points out that "Someone may not like your contributions to Thingiverse either; can we still respect each other and share this platform? Please do not resort to insults. You may also learn to like it; the best art challenges your views."
I reply that, yes, we can be civil, but just as my attention is forcibly brought to your (bot's) work as an author whose work you have remixed, I also have a platform to state my views about your art and the incorporation of my work into it. I would point out that I look for art that demonstrates technical mastery of a form, thoughtfulness in execution and presentation, and a message about reality that resonates. In my opinion, your mindless amalgamations lack all of these things. Art that is indistinguishable from refuse is . . . refuse. Please feel free to try harder, but if you post your art in public places, I hope that you are able to accept (and learn from) criticisms such as mine.

Critically yours,


Is there a purpose to uploading this sort of thing? Like trying to push thingiverse to optimise searches/exposure or something?

not this shit again