I collected virtual food models from 3dsky. Although these models resemble real food, they exist as digital assets. I wanted to explore how they could be catalogued using a different system.

I selected all the food models on the last page of the Food & Drinks section on 3dsky, collecting 28 models in total.

Method 1 — Reclassification
Grouping 28 food models by sugar and fat content.

Method 2 — (Re)presenting
Reorganising models by colour labels.

Method 3 — Taxonomising
Exploring overlapping categories among 28 models.

Further Development
I chose to develop Method 1 further, exploring how the new classification could happen.

Why Reclassify?

The original website mainly organises food models by their names and types.

I would like to try a different approach: What would happen if we classify foods based on their compositional data, rather than their names?

Different classification criteria make certain relationships more apparent, while other relationships remain hidden.

For example, Banana and Sushi are originally different types of food, but in my system, they are grouped together into the same category.

This shows that classification isn’t just about organizing items; it also changes the relationships between those items that are visible.

How？

Since 3D models themselves do not contain any nutritional values, I found reference data for corresponding real foods for each model. Using the sugar and fat content per 100 grams, new classification rules were established.

I assigned reference values for sugar and fat content to each of the 28 food items, based on the actual nutritional data of those foods. Then, I divided these 28 models into four categories according to two thresholds.

I used 20g of sugar and 8.5g of fat per 100g as the dividing lines, creating four categories.

I turned each model into an individual archive record. Each card contains its image, identification number, reference values and new classification.

Why are cards necessary?

Charts primarily illustrate the relationships between data points, while archive cards enable each model to serve as a record that can be searched for, accessed, and rearranged independently.

What matters here is the transition from data visualization to actual cataloging operations – not how beautiful the cards are.

A New Retrieval System

I created a master index listing all 28 models by category, with their IDs and reference values. The index connects the classification system to the individual archive cards.

The master index allows users to locate a model by category and ID, then find its corresponding archive card.

Reflection

While organising the 28 models, I noticed that some classification results depended heavily on the chosen thresholds.

For example, Cookies contains 19.90g of reference sugar per 100g, placing it in the low-sugar category. An increase of just 0.10g would move it into a different category.

This made me question how much the classification depends on the rules I set, rather than the models themselves.

Even without changing the data, moving the dividing line could change which category a model belongs to.

How can small changes in data affect the way we classify things?

Draft 1: Changes Through Repetition

I chose Carmela Gross’s Carimbos / Stamps as my model for imitation. She takes stains, graffiti, brushstrokes and lines from other artists’ paintings, turns them into rubber stamps, and repeatedly stamps them onto paper in a systematic way. Through this process, she transforms the sensitive, manual gestures of painting into mechanical and repeatable actions. (Katzenstein and Gross, 2021)

I made my own stamps from clay and pressed them repeatedly onto paper, hoping to produce similar imprints. However, the results were different from what I expected. Because the clay had not fully dried, the stamps gradually changed shape under repeated pressure.

At first, I thought the experiment had failed. However, I noticed that the pressure changed both the prints and the clay stamps. As the stamp became deformed, each new print looked different from the previous one.

This led me to ask: When a form is repeated, what allows it to remain recognisable, and what causes it to change? I want to explore this by comparing the shapes, details and clarity of my prints, and observing how each impression differs from the one before it.

Reference

Katzenstein, I. and Gross, C. (2021) ‘Paradoxical Expression: A Conversation with Carmela Gross’, MoMA Magazine, 10 September. Available at: https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/620 (Accessed: 28 October 2026).

---

Draft 2 Repetition, Change, and the Loss of Original Features

When creating clay seals, I referred to Camilla Gross’s work “Seals/Markings”. She transformed various patterns into rubber seals and pressed them repeatedly onto paper in order to create new images. I tried a similar approach, but using clay instead of rubber. At first, I thought that by repeating the same process, similar patterns could be obtained.

However, the results were different from my expectations. The first pattern had clear details, but as I continued the process, the subsequent patterns became blurred. The edges became smoother, and the shapes became larger and more rounded. The once clear details became difficult to distinguish. I also noticed that after repeated pressing, the clay seals themselves changed as well.

At first, I saw this as an unsuccessful attempt to copy Gross’s method because I could not produce the similar prints I had expected. However, when I arranged the prints in the order they were made and created an accordion book, I noticed that the changes happened gradually. The first and second prints looked quite similar, but the difference between the first and last prints was much clearer. This made me realise that small changes could build up through repetition. More importantly, it was not only the prints that changed. The clay stamps also became deformed, meaning that each new print was made using a stamp that had already changed.

This made me reconsider the unexpected results of my experiment. In The Magic is in Handling, Barbara Bolt discusses how new understanding can emerge through working directly with tools and materials (Bolt, 2007). I had not planned for the prints to become blurred or for the stamps to change shape. However, these unexpected changes helped me understand that repeating the same action does not always produce the same result. The process itself can also affect what happens next.

To observe these changes more carefully, I extracted the patterns from the background and created static animations in the original order. Compared to the booklet, the animation allowed me to observe these changes more continuously. I noticed that some lines became thicker, certain details disappeared gradually, while the overall shape remained similar to the first pattern. This made me consider the difference between visual changes and the loss of original features. Although some details disappeared, the overall shape didn’t change completely.

This led me to a question: When does repeated change become a loss of original features?

Reference

Bolt, B. (2007) ‘The magic is in handling’, in Barrett, E. and Bolt, B. (eds.) Practice as research: Approaches to creative arts enquiry. London: I.B. Tauris.

Draft 3

Repetition, Pressure and Change

Part 1. Starting Point

Gross turned marks from drawings into stamps that could be used again and again. A mark that was first made by hand could now be repeated with a stamp. This changed the way the marks were made and used.

Repetition is important in this work because it is not only about showing the same shape many times. It also shows how an image can be made through a repeated action. This made me think about what happens when the same mark is used again and again, and whether the results are always the same.

I chose this work because I wanted to try the same method with a different material. I wanted to make my own stamps and use them on paper. Through this process, I hoped to understand how the material and the action of stamping affect the final image.

Part 2. Copying Process

I chose clay as my material. I shaped it by hand to make different marks. I tried to copy some of the lines, scribbles and brush-like shapes in Gross’s work. I then used these clay shapes as stamps.

After making the stamps, I pressed them onto paper and looked at the marks they left. I also repeated the stamping process and placed different marks on the same sheet of paper. In this way, I started to make my own experimental compositions.

I also noticed that repetition does not have to mean using a fixed layout. I could repeat the same stamp, or change the position and direction of different stamps. This made me think about two things: how repeated stamping changes the marks, and how different layouts change the image.

Part 3. What I Noticed

3.1 The shape can change during making

When I made the clay stamps, the final shapes were not always the same as I first planned. I had to adjust the clay by hand, and these actions could also change its shape.

This showed me that planning a shape and making it are not the same thing. The making process can also affect the final shape.

However, I do not yet know whether these changes mainly come from the clay or from the way I handle it.

3.2 The printed mark may not be the same as the stamp

When I pressed the clay stamps onto paper, the printed marks were not always exactly the same as the shapes of the stamps. The shape of the stamp, the pressure I used and the way it touched the paper could all affect the result.

This made me see a difference between the stamp and the mark it leaves. A stamp may not simply copy its shape onto paper. The act of stamping can also affect the final image.

But I need to test different levels of pressure and different ways of stamping to understand how each factor affects the result.

3.3 Repeating an action may not always give the same result

When I repeated the stamping action, I began to think about the small changes between the first and the last print. Even when I used the same stamp, the pressure of my hand might not be exactly the same each time. This could affect the depth, shape or clarity of the marks.

This made me ask whether repeating the same action always gives the same result. I may try to do the same thing each time, but my movements and the pressure I use can still change slightly. Repetition can help me notice these small differences.

1st 5st 9st

13st 18st 24st

After arranging the prints in order, I noticed a clear difference between the first and the last print. The first print was the clearest, with details that were easy to see. However, the last print was much larger, and its details were less clear.

This result made me question whether repeating the same action can produce the same image. Although I used the same clay stamp, the printed result changed over time. The difference was not only in the clarity of the marks, but also in their size.

3.4 Different layouts can create different images

I also noticed that using stamps repeatedly does not mean that every mark has to be arranged in a neat order. I can repeat the same stamp, or use different stamps in different positions and directions. Even when I use the same stamps, a different layout can create a different image.

3.5 What have I actually discovered?

My main discovery so far is that I first thought a stamp would repeat the same shape on paper. But in practice, the printed marks were not always exactly the same. The shape of the stamp, the pressure and the state of the clay may all affect the result.

I started to look not only at the printed image, but also at how it was made. I began to ask whether repetition always gives the same result, and how the material and my actions affect the image.

I do not have a final answer yet. These are the things I have noticed in my first experiments. I need to compare different pressures, material conditions and layouts to understand how they affect the results.

My main question is: when I repeat the same stamping action, what stays the same, and what changes?

Final Output

p8 video