pandaman, please post properly and not just the URL.
Not to mention when the video is kinda good. This is from 2004, though. I can't verify that Gosling invented Motion Cubism or not, but Tim Hope was doing this technique years before this vid with vids like 1 Giant Leap "My Culture" and King Biscuit Time "I Walk the Earth."
..and why not post the movs?
Vogel's been doing this for years as well. In fact, this looks like his HP stuff.
No its not he same at all i'm using 12 cameras simultaneously and then comping them in 3-d space. using a virtual camera. completely different technique and true to the form of Cubism. Technology was not around in Popes time and Vogel's stuff is not at all the same technique.
PANDAMAN = Gosling.
And regardless of HOW you're capturing the work, it still ends up looking like a cheap vogel.
What you're saying is: No, my cubism is different because I'm using 12 spatulas instead of one. That doesn't make any sense...
I still think it's crazy to suggest that you "invented the technique". Especially considering how many times this has been used to varying degrees in the past.
And can I go a step further and say that technically, this isn't cubism at all.
12 spatulas more sounds like Dadaism to me.
sorry but your not making any real debate...
lets be grown up about this
justyfy your comments and lets see where this leads.
insults don't really progress the art or ourselves
1: You're saying you're the inventor of a technique you call "motion cubism". This is false because said technique has been utilized in the medium for almost ten years now, the most prevalent examples being the work of Tim Hope and Francois Vogel. I have zero problems with you approaching the medium in the same way they do, it just sounds funny to hear you claim invention.
2: You consider your technique different and 'truer to the form of cubism' because you use multiple cameras at the same time, capturing a simultaneous feed. I agree that such an approach seems to be the correct method of attaining a cubist work, but the end product resembles neither multiple angles nor cubism. Instead we see something that is stitched together in after effects as different layers on a particular axis, xyz respectively -- negating the need to even capture the piece with 12 cameras.
What we DO NOT SEE is the abstracted reassmebly of different viewpoints, an approach that is the core thrust of cubist work.
- I would love to call this work Multichannel...
...but cannot because again, the end result is clearly composed within a single frame. Which brings me to the conclusion for why I believe "motion cubism" is nearly impossible:
- If we look at some cubism.
Popova's Two figures:
Picasso's Three Musicians:
We see a kind of impossible image, one that is suggestive of 3 (or more!) dimensions. The images are rapid, dynamic bursts of perspectives that conflate into a kind of new form. To use your camera to claim ownership over this form seems false. Cause even though the artists above used a flat canvas to stage a viewing, the IDEA behind the cubist work is always the thing. The work is not the thing. The IDEA is.
An artist must realize this: He are two figures, seen from multiple perspectives. For the sake of the work (and the medium: in this case a canvas), we give you a glimpse of one of these perspectives, a kind of starting place. If another were to paint this picture, they would give you a different starting point. A different pause in time if you will.
Saying you're doing "motion cubism" suggests ownership of the images screened before us. Your camera moves and DIRECTS us as to where we should look. You control our gaze which to me seems the opposite of cubism. Your camera is the VIEWPOINT when clearly cubism is a movement of multiple viewpoints all seen at once.
If film as medium were able to suggest(!) cubism, I think it would do so via editorial technique. Each frame being a new perspective of a particular object time or place. But by doing so, we may fall into a trap of experimentation, the film itself becoming nothing more than a rapid montage.
I am unsure of what to call your technique. But it seems more aligned with something in the realm of after effects or Zspace and less so with picasso and those involved in the cubist movement.
Dude, you should re read what you have written.
its a good effort but in trying to be combative (Bitchy?) you have actually re-afirmed the general theory of motion cubism and its relation to traditional cubism ( albeit somewhat simply)
Also, I might humbly suggest that you get some more experince with special FX and basic compositing . your arguments/comments in this area show your lack of understanding and its not fair to throw around that sort of expertise so casually..
Still thanks for the hard work in your rersponse. It's a great debate and I value your opinion. ( would value it more if I kne who or what you were since your identity is cloaked)
Anyway I would welcome some other points of view from others on this fantastic website!.
From what I understand the basis of Popes and Vogels work do not follow the general theory of cubism . There are 5 types of cubism en.wikipedia.org and if you take the time to become familiar with its theory you will see why. If you know of any other work that is similiar please send me a link.
Dude, I reread it. Not trying to be bitchy at all. Don't see how it reaffirms your work.
As for compositing, c'mon, what are doing, attaching each layer to a null in zspace and doing camera moves? This is a very common after effects trick and hence I refered to it as so above.
Or is this projection mapped onto 3D geometry?
My guess would be the former.
Also! The stills you posted above, only display such multiplanes WHEN THE CAMERA MOVES. Rewatch your video. It's not cubist. It's just various footage put on cards and the camera swung around those cards. We see the seams interacting, but this is clearly because of a camera moving around a 2D object (footage) put in a 3 dimensional space.
I seriously couldn't give a shit what you want to call the outcome of the technique used, all I know is that I really enjoyed watching the video. Well done Stuart, great stuff.
Lusk go read about Cubism
Look what I have just invented!
if this was a star trek fan site, we'd be arguing over the size of Captain Kirk's dick right about now...
Cubism was avant garde. This isn't.
The video's good. Just a shame about the bullshit marketing spin.
to add to the drama...even tho i think lusk was being kind of a dick, he's right. as cool as the technique looks it's definitely not revolutionary or on the cutting edge of some huge movement (as suggested). i saw it w/o reading any of the tags and figured, "oh cool, faux 3D in AE" altho a little bit more refined and collage. with that said if this resembles anything, it's more hockney's collage photos but from different angles.
consider the panda: so is it just moot at this point to note the man-panda in the video? and the band thanking it?
re: the cubism debate: it's mostly semantics and whether's it's "true" cubism or not has next-to-nothing to do with whether it works or not. we should briefly note that an art critic coined the term, which braque and picasso initially rejected.
Im not dissing this video, i really like it, but...
to me the number one thing its lacking is some kind of painterly effect / look, otherwise, I cannot really see a link between this and cubism art on a canvas.
This effect has also been used as a transitional technique in a video for Common 'Go'
Painterly Effect? Cubism is not just limited to painting(drawing on canvas) have read about Cubism. also.. RE: Common Go www.youtube.com
this is not the same technique at all
hey, um, kandinsky was not a cubist.
Further rain on t'invention claims parade coz heres The Darling Downs dir: Tony Mahoney.
Oh wait theres more!
Farting at work dir: ?