Sweet stop-motion video of paintings on public spaces


Debcha sez, "This is an incredibly arresting stop-motion video, both in technique and content. Entirely composed of paintings on public walls, sidewalks, and other spaces, it follows a creature as it undergoes a mindbending series of transformations - mating, mutating, and mitosing through multiarmed monsters, scuttling spiders, a herd of teeth, and more. Considerable visual wit is in evidence, as the paintings interact with their substrates - a trompe d'oeil brick falls out of a wall, pieces of paper are snatched with a froglike tongue, and hiding places are found in the corners of crumbling walls. Watching and re-watching it consumed way too much of my time today. (and it's CC-licensed - share and enjoy!)" Link (Thanks, Debcha!)

22

  1. Blu is pretty awesome. You should check out his frame-by-frame animations done with charcoal on the walls of abandoned rooms (search Youtube).

  2. DUHHHH. I should have watched the video before commenting. Good rule of thumb.. Part of that has previously been released…

  3. The video says that no “commercial websites” are allowed to post the video. Doesn’t boingboing count as a “commercial website” since they have ads and sponsors?

    (just wondering)

  4. As far as I know, commercial sites are those that charge for access, not sites that use sponsors or gain revenue from ads. No money is being made from the sharing of this video, as clicking on an ad is not mandatory.

  5. It is really hard to get paint out of red bricks.

    It isn’t paint, it is art! Why are you trying to stifle the artist’s creativity?!?

  6. I find it comical this person essentially wants copyright protection for the photography of his vandalization of private/public property.

    That said, it is an absolutely amazing video.

  7. POHJIE writes: “As far as I know, commercial sites are those that charge for access, not sites that use sponsors or gain revenue from ads. No money is being made from the sharing of this video, as clicking on an ad is not mandatory.”

    BULLSHIT. Boingboing generates money through ads which comes from visitors to this site which come to see the content that is on boing boing – I really think the hypocrisy on this blog about bloaking how great creative commons is and then show full work of art (not a citation) is just mind-boggling. Boingboing is about as commercial as it gets for a blog and still there are so many cc violations. I wonder how Cory would feel if I post a copy “Little Brother” in full on a special blog that has adverts in between the text put a small link at the very end to corys blog… Or better yet I distribute a printed copy in an ad supported dead tree version of aforementioned blog with full little brother in it.

    I really think the boingboing staff needs to get a grip on where they stand – either make money but then leave CC “non commercial” stuff out or kill the ads – you can´t have it both ways and remain credible…

    Now the work of art is great (and a link to the artist website and a pic of the video would have done the artist more of a favor).

  8. wow – i saw a drawing of his on a wall in shoreditch (london) last night with a friend. we were totally blown away by it (it was a lovely huge one of a a guy sucking a dogs brains through a straw and the dog sucking a guys brains etc etc)

  9. Falk, you need to look up the difference between embedding and copying. But of course, that would mean you’d have to discuss the facts, rather than grinding your personal vendetta axe.

  10. Cory first of all – I have nothing against you or your site or whatever – I like it thats why I am coming here. Still I am a video artist and if I publish a piece under CC I do not want – even an embed – to be used to make other people rich.
    I am sure you will explain to me the difference (its bits and bytes and doesn´t matter where they come from)… Its content from someone else inside your container – how about I embed the rss feed of boing boing into a an add supported “cool website” together with say some others make some editorial adjustments to it (say kill some less convincing stories) but otherwise do nothing else… I really do not see a problem with distributing content but when it says “not for commercial reuse” it means it and in add supported blog is commercial no way you turn it.

    I am highly aware that this is one of the great controversies of CC and it has not been vetted in court but I see this as a problem – especially since you not even link to the guys webpage or make it a story in any way about him – you just plainly putting up his stuff on your website that generates money – embed or copy. He gains nothing. I would even say you didn´t attribute to him as your whole post does not mention his name once. Even so the begging of the movie asks very nicely about attribution and non commercialism.

    I think its more an ethic thing then something that has to do with law. I am not against you embedding this piece per se but frame it accordingly make sure that the guy gets some attention that is more then this video (he has well deserved it) you know just things that you preach every day on this blog. This post is perceived by me (as a video artist sometimes publishing CC movies) as a rip-off – and perception sometimes forms opinions – yours may differ but I can´t see from your answer that it is well informed or thought about.

    I was trying to stir up an informed debate and not a flame war and was actually wanting to get an opinion where your staff stands on this issue rather then getting a dog bark back personal offensive things. Maybe it was to harsh (and I know that I am too honest and forward speaking my mind without making it political correct) still some stand other then “its an embed stupid” (like I am commenting on creative commons and don´t know what an embed is or have not thought about embeds) would have been great and furthered the debate as I see this as an issue and its even more an issue with video then it is with text imnsho. there is a lot more too it but I am sure this comment is lost in time anyway – if you want to further a debate about it I invite you to do so – you say how and where ;)

    I deeply believe this needs a debate rather sooner then later – I am reconsidering the use of CC (and I have been a supported since year one) because I do not want other people make money of my stuff and I know for fact other artists think the same (not even to mention that exactly this topic comes up when I speak to artists about how they should use CC in the first place – like “but people are just going to copy my stuff on their blogs and I don´t even get clicks or anything out of it – and they might even make money with their ads from my content” – I am not making this up I can name you three artists around here that have exactly responded the same and I couldn´t even defuse them as I am unsure where this leads as well)

  11. What’s the etiquette on painting over other people’s pieces?
    Does the quality of the work factor in? The vanity?
    Does the etiquette vary by region?

  12. I find Falk’s contention interesting. I’m not sure if Cory’s response is accurate. Speaking directly to the restrictions:

    “You are free to copy, display, distribute this work for non-commercial purposes only.”

    puts BoingBoing in violation. The ads on this site are paid on a CPM (cost per thousand impressions) basis. These impressions are contracted on a total-buy basis, meaning that an advertiser books a set number of impressions. Therefore, anyone viewing this page uses contracted impressions, fulfilling the advertiser’s contract with BoingBoing, and getting BoingBoing (or, to be precise, Federated Media) one step closer to being able to invoice the advertiser.

    In that sense, this is absolutely a commercial website and puts this video in violation of the expressed terms.

    Now let’s take the second clause:

    No commercial websites or televisions are allowed to display this film without the author’s permission.

    We don’t know enough information to address this. The author’s authorization almost certainly trumps the first clause of the license. Therefore, if the author gave expressed permission to use this film on this site, BoingBoing has done nothing wrong.

    Perhaps Cory can tell us if they contacted the author.

  13. for all you stumbling on this I might point out that cory has responded on my blog (thanks again for taking the time) and the discussion goes on over there (sorry for a totally slow comment system (I get too much spam) that needs hand approval).

    (I hope it is ok if I post a link to there here if not just delete this comment)

    http://prototypen.com/blog/falk

Comments are closed.