Archive for the ‘animation – others’ Category
modification of a GIF posted by maxlabor
modification of a GIF found by blingscience
animated fragment found on dump.fm, vertically stretched
Hat tip Sucrete for the found science GIF chopped up by yrs truly to make the above puffy mandala. These amoebas or smoke rings assume laboratory conditions of idealized gravitational and atmospheric stability, making this GIF fall somewhere among art, science and sublime thought experiment.
More on the conventional wisdom especially rife among computer programmers that anyone can make a Mondrian. Hat tip Jeffrey Henderson for a link to Piet, an abstract art generating language from an Australian programmer, David Morgan-Mar.
Making a web-friendly "Mondrian," in my opinion, is one of the dumber, more cliched things you could ever want to do, but Morgan-Mar's example page of various geeks' efforts isn't all "Mondrians" -- there is some nice pixel art-y stuff (see example above). Using machines to make art isn't inherently bad but the process should perhaps develop its own way, not as recreations of beginner textbook Modernism.
Update: Jules Laplace emails: "Slight correction.. Piet is not really an 'abstract art generating language' so much as an esoteric, 2-dimensional programming language where color encodes signal flow. It no more generates abstract art than Befunge, a similar language, generates ASCII art -- although the author states his intent to produce an interpretable language which is also decorative."
My reply: I was paraphrasing the Piet author's sentence - "Piet is a programming language in which programs look like abstract paintings." The word "generate" is perhaps inappropriate if the code is itself the image. (But something gave birth to the image, right?) My rant was aimed more at the results of the code, or coding. A scientist I know hates it when artists use the word "experiment" and I hate it equally when someone accidentally stumbles on a pleasing pattern and says "hey! I'm kind of a good abstract artist!"
hat tips appleiphone, DIS magazine, karim rashid mousepad and whoever made the original arch GIF
A clip of a woman either auto-eroticizing or taken out of context to look like she was made the dump rounds a few days ago. I took a version by thengb and pasted it into my sketch_j4 GIF for a modern take on Frances Bacon, or something.
Addendum: GucciSoFlosy made the original ecstatic woman screenshot -- it came from YouTube -- a "Dutch girl band" that, quote, "gets orgasms while singing." 10,000,000+ views.
Pound's caption for the above is
The conversion to GIF is still a necessary step because (i) it makes the animation readable in any browser and (ii) for me at least, it adds a slight tinge of frame-lagged imperfection that I might not get from say, one of those sucky Google search page illustrations. Pound has posted his own pros & cons of drawing with code:
Less direct or intuitive
Slower than using a pencil
Bigger effort for a single drawing
No original art
Reuseable code parts
Many varied drawings from one source
Vector art scales to any size
Source code can be shared
Free code = free tools
Crop from a larger GIF posted by a Dump.fm user/troll. I took a section out of the middle of his GIF, which was about twice this size.
I like these GIFs that look like pixelated analog TV static, and prefer the above to similar ones of more self-consciously made or art nature, such as this elegant but rather stiff and claustrophobic specimen by Dylan Fisher or even these neo-psychedelic pixel art examples by Emilio Gomariz (to cite a couple from Art F City's "Gif of the Day" posts). Those have a very controlled, art-directed look in the sense of, "made by a professional illustrator." Whereas the one above looks like it just happened, or happened onstage when a punk band's amplifier blew during a two-note lead guitar solo and accidentally fried the Veejay's video display (if punk bands had Veejays). Or, think, early Steve Reich with tape recorders vs Music for 18 Musicians after Reich became polished and self-consciously classical.
The one above is 400 x 400 pixels, 221 KB, so rather modest in terms of trying to impress anyone with a "blow you away" art experience. It's relatively easy, however, to enlarge it for more walk-up impact: see this 800 x 798 pixel version at 572 KB.
Opening the GIF up, I noticed it had several 1 x 1 pixel frames. I removed them to see what would happen, and realized they were important in creating the jerky, random movement of the "strata" above. So they came back in. On the subject of randomness, one of the most appealing things here is the apparent directional movement of those strata, some fast, some slow, some going right, some going left, some bouncing up and down. A programmer could put all those variables in (maybe someone did here) but the trick would be to hide the methodology or obvious thought processes. Otherwise you have a "library music" version of punk.
I’ve never bought into the popular art world belief that an in between state is somehow implicitly good, but this GIF by Tom Moody and deaniebabie makes a good argument for the value of that state. It’s not that the morphing from ring to shrimp necessarily makes a greater statement, but as a viewer, you’re inclined to look a little harder as the identifiable shape disintegrates and reforms.
In this case, there’s a real beauty to the simplicity of movement and grace to the shifting of states, so the loop has the same kind of satisfaction as watching a metronome. It’s surprisingly mesmerizing.
I replied via Disqus:
Thanks for the post. The color version of this (as I recall from its momentary appearance on dump.fm, when deaniebabie posted it) had vaguely greenish colors and the "tween" frames were somewhat wispy. Converting it to this black and white dot rendering gave the whole more solidity and conviction. One reason it's so engaging is the way the ellipses twist in mid-morph. You would think the circular shape of the ring would follow the curve of the shrimp, but in just a few frames it becomes a kind of Moebius strip. In a way it convinces you that almost any two shapes can be morphed. The algorithm has powers of cleverness that seem greater than ours.
Both of us skirted an issue someone on dump.fm raised, the most basic content-level kind of question: what's the symbolic connection of the shrimp and the ring (suggestive of a diamond wedding ring)? You could ask the maker of the original morph (it may or may not be deaniebabie -- aka Dean Schneider -- I'm not finding that GIF on his site). You could say it's Dada/absurdist or computer/random connection with no inherent meaning. Or you could draw your own connection, such as "marriage and seafood both stink after the first three days." Have fun.