Discuss this post in our forums

105 Responses to “Human bodies mercilessly jiggled by gravity at 2000fps [NSFW]”

  1. Talia says:

    Would you mind fixing that video so that the screen shot that shows up on the main page isn’t NSFW? or perhaps linking the video after the jump instead?


    • paddle2paddle says:


    • phillsmiff says:

      You acknowledge that the image is not safe for work but you display it at the top of your homepage. Great.

      • marilove says:

        BoingBoing has never been “SFW”.

        • Henry Pootel says:

          Well, but at the same time they are moving into the arena of appealing to families and kids with the “Family” link up top and “Family” tagged posts.  I’ve found it to be kind of an odd mix, unless the intent is for parents to be the only readers of the site and to have them pass any finds on to their kids.

          • Gilbert Wham says:

             ‘not Safe For Work’, fine, cos companies can become ensnared in all sorts of nonsense (and not-nonsense, depending on content and context), but ‘think of the cheeeeldren’? Puh-lease. It’s a piece of video art, not a five minute clip of bloody gonzo porn.

    • Guys, don’t be such prudes. What shows up on the front page is a small picture of a woman which you can see countless other places. It looks like an art photo, no kind of p*** involved or implied.

      • Some people work at places which, during downtime, allow surfing on the Internet, as long as it’s not questionable content.  “Questionable” is subjective.

        Though personally I learned years ago that BoingBoing should be considered NSFW. 

        • marilove says:

          Hey! Everyone!

          Maybe BoingBoing isn’t appropriate for work?  There is a huge internet out there.

          • Some of the images I work on at work have nudes in them. I wonder if my work is safe for work?

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            If my bosses thought that I wasn’t ogling cocks in between comments, they’d probably suggest a visit to the doctor to see what’s wrong.

      • decoy131 says:

        I think it’s more akin to when people post *SPOILER ALERT* then immediately proceed to ruin it for you on the next line.
        It’s a courtesy to your audience if you know they’re not all of the same mind. Boing boing posts on a wide range of topics. I’m sure there’s people who only come here to see activist posts, or science posts, or maybe just to see bananas.

  2. Gary Melancon says:

    at least make it so the display image is SFW?

  3. akbar56 says:

     IIRC, that image is set by the uploader of the video at youtube. Nothing they could do to change it (other than putting it behind a cut which I find to be a childish response to a subject matter that deserves to be seen on the front page)

    • cmuwriter says:

      Tell that to my boss when he walks in on me looking at a SFW website with an overweight naked woman on top of the front page.

      • akbar56 says:

         So your boss is ok with you wasting company time and resources looking at random stuff on the web but if a naked person is displayed you are going to be in trouble?

        • cmuwriter says:

          Yeah, he is alright with me surfing the internet at work during down time, which is what I have right now on a Friday during the middle of winter. I don’t think he would be alright with me checking out a woman’s tits, however.

          It’s not terribly uncommon for people to surf the internet at work with permission. I just think it’s shitty to log onto boingboing.net and see that kind of thing on the front page. Make a hyperlink to the video or something, but don’t display it on the front page. I don’t find it offensive I just don’t want to get in trouble at work, and it’s not unreasonable to think that others want the same thing.

          • akbar56 says:

            When has boingboing ever been 100% sfw though?

          • cmuwriter says:

            No one is saying it is, buy why post a video featuring a naked woman and then put NSFW in the headline? If it’s not safe for work, you don’t put the NSFW image right directly under the headline, you put it in a hyperlink.

            It’s just rude in my opinion to set it up like that.

          • akbar56 says:

             Well, some people do view the site in an rss reader or such so all they are going to see at first glance is the headline so sure, adding NSFW there is logical. Allows then the user to choose to click on it. But on the main page? Cuts should only be used on the main page if the post is too long.

          • Marc45 says:

            Totally.  I thought BBs mission statement included something like “stirring the pot…”

          • bakerboy says:

            “Well, some people do view the site in an rss reader or such so all they are going to see at first glance is the headline so sure, adding NSFW there is logical”

            Actually the image shows up in RSS as well (at least in Google Reader).

            Edit: Never mind, I see now that the NSFW tag is visible before opening the article in RSS.

        • Roose_Bolton says:

          Jesus christ, here we go with this again.

        • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

           Welcome to reality

      • marilove says:

        So if it was a THIN naked woman, your boss would be totally okay with it?

      • Robert Drop says:

        “he walks in on me looking at a SFW website”
        Ah, I see where you went wrong there…

      • Send me his email address and I’ll be happy to explain.

    • glatt1 says:

       It’s not childish to want to avoid being fired.

      • akbar56 says:

         If you don’t want to get fired for looking at an art installation on the internet, don’t waste company time being on the internet.

        • And if you work someplace that has occasional downtime, and allows Web surfing during that downtime, but the boss is a prude…meh, we should just advocate that people not visit BoingBoing, I’m sure they don’t want the ad revenue, you’re right.

          •  For my own blog my opninion is that people who take offense at that kind of images should look away and zap on, if I decide to post images in that style.

          • PhasmaFelis says:

            Could you please stop pretending that this is about readers taking offense, as opposed to readers’ bosses? You know, the “W” in “NSFW”. This has been explained to you already in this very thread, so I can only assume you’re trolling now.

            Ditto for “you shouldn’t be surfing at work then LOLOL,” since I assume someone’s planning to deploy that one again as we speak.

    • Brainspore says:

      Which brings up the question: does the video fit YouTube’s criteria? I thought they had a thing against nudity. (Haven’t watched this one in particular yet but plan to after work.)

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        They seem to have exceptions for videos of prostate exams and whatnot, but I’m surprised that they would allow this.

        • Eric Rucker says:

          From YouTube’s community guidelines:

          Most nudity is not allowed, particularly if it is in a sexual context. Generally if a video is intended to be sexually provocative, it is less likely to be acceptable for YouTube. There are exceptions for some educational, documentary, scientific, and artistic content, but only if that is the sole purpose of the video and it is not gratuitously graphic. For example, a documentary on breast cancer would be appropriate, but posting clips out of context from the documentary might not be.

          So, this falls under the “artistic content” exception.

  4. A Wolter says:

    I agree- it would be nice to have a film with this content to have a different screen displayed.

  5. ando bobando says:

    It was indeed fascinating, although I wish I could have seen more. It appears to only show them being jiggled up or down, once, and you don’t get to see them go the other direction. The clips are all so short and in some of them I struggle to even see the changes. It’s more artistic and less demonstrative, which is fine, although personally I want to see the latter.

    • millie fink says:

      Same here. Just as I was getting used to an image, it was all over. 

      I suppose in the gallery, though, a viewer can spend as long as she likes with each image, and hopefully, they go up and down and then up again, and so on.

    • naam says:

      I think it is on purpose: begin in weightlessness, then show how this body comes under the effect of full gravity. The artist might not want to loop it, just show that effect. That is what I took from it at least.

  6. I’m not seeing the dramatic change caused by gravity.

  7. E T says:

    1. Why make the clips of women more revealing than those of men?
    2. Bodies do not “rejoicing in it’s expression and flawless skin texture”. People in LA may care about skin texture. The rest of us have lives.

    • Yup, I was expecting to see a scrot’ jiggling just as much as breasts.

    • Kyle Sarrasin says:

       Re revealing shots of the women – I was going to ask the same thing. I guess, with the child of indeterminate age, you toe a fine line in showing them fully nude. The second male was, insofar as I could tell, completely nude, but it’s not as if it made a difference. I don’t know, still seems a bit odd to me – what’s wrong with a nude penis? Especially for something like this – it would show off the effects of gravity rather well, I would think.

    • In most countries exposed genitalia is a step above exposed boobs.  Ladies have already got this covered… literally.

  8. Depends on if you work for Puritans or not…

  9. Mantari Damacy says:

    Well, at least I’ll know what the single post was that got BoingBoing permanently banned at work. It wasn’t really worth it to me, but maybe it was for Cory. :(

  10. ffabian says:

    Expected more jiggling but powerful pictures nonetheless – especially the man with the boy in his arms. Somehow reminds me of Michelangelos Pieta


  11. franko says:

    “sores” = “soars”

  12. Terry Border says:

    Get back to work you bums! 

    edit- just Benny Hillified it. Too bad the video “speeding up” thing is broken, but the music still helps this.

    • My first thought was “I wonder how tonally different this video would be with a completely different soundtrack”.

      Unfortunately the video on that link played with no sound for me, but I can imagine the effect.

  13. sharkzombie says:

    There’s another artist, can’t remember the name, who has been doing this super slow-mo type video installation work for years. Usually with dancers, occasionally with actors- there was a clip of Alan Rickman knocking over tea or something that went viral. He had a big installation at the Met awhile back.

    I must say I find the whole thing a little bit vapid and unremarkable. It’s slow, yes. What else does it show me?  Simply appropriating the style of realistic painting and/or fine art photography and adding motion without context is essentially the fine art version of the animated GIF. GIFs are great sure, but their quality is fundamentally dependent on the action represented, IMO.

    It’s really simply the fact that these slowmo cameras are widely available now, so they’re being used a ton for a “hey, that’s cool” effect.

    • orangedesperado says:

      I agree. The music is very pretentious as is the artist’ statement. I also found the statements regarding the women’s bodies to be problematic, and there was a different tone/content regarding the male models. The male models are doing things ie pulling a gun, holding a child, whereas the women are what – bouncing (their action is never explained), and as gravity takes hold their bodies are described as old, a young woman looking like she is is from the noir classic “Sunset Boulevard”, the comparison between the red lingerie in the model’s hand and the withering of her body. I think Mr.Artist needs to do some thinking , and maybe, uh, talk to some women to understand they are more than bodies used as his raw canvas.

      • blueelm says:

        Well the thin woman is holding her panties. So apparently she’s stripping for us.

        Yeah, this is one of those things graduating from art school ruined for me. 

        What’s challenging about this, other than whether or not you’re allowed to look at naked people while you work? 

        • orangedesperado says:

          The challenge is the ability to overlook these obvious issues, and to accept the artist’s statement without rolling your eyes and slowly shaking your head…

          • orangedesperado says:

            And try to imagine how our perceptions of the piece might change if it was a woman firing the gun, a woman holding a man’s(not child’s) body, and a man standing there with red lingerie in his hand. Plus a soundtrack from the 1910 Fruitgum Company (aka the Archies).


        • voiceinthedistance says:

          Yes, I’m happy to see that discussing the video itself and not the NSFW-ness of it is not off topic.

          I enjoyed the video.  The pretentious art speak descriptions . . . not so much.

    • chaopoiesis says:

      LA video artist Bill Viola is the original here – this is basically a knock-off sans clothing.

    • daemonsquire says:

      The other artist @boingboing-72aed01b5716b53dcd4db1b89fd1d41d:disqus is thinking of, is David Michalek. I only just saw his Alan Rickman video for the first time this week, as the “long short” at the most recent Seminar About Long-term Thinking. I came in late, and only caught the artist’s name in the end credits, so I looked it up when I got home, and was surprised to find that it was silent: at the seminar, it had a soundtrack, which works really well with it (and which also turns out to be a meme I was heretofore unaware of).

    • Gilbert Wham says:

      Yeah, as I said to someone above, it’s art, not porn, for fuck’s sake, but as to whether it’s good art, well…

  14. SomeGuyNamedMark says:

    The downward jolt is like seeing them in old age.  Creepy.

  15. Damien says:

    This explains Iggy Pop.

  16. AviSolomon says:

    The gravity of the situation is irresistible!

  17. alesloan says:

    Two things came to my mind as I watched the video:

    1) There really isn’t that much jiggling involved. With the power of 2000FPS camera, one would hope to see significant acceleration.

    2) If you slow down anything down to this level, all I can think of is science. Look at that wave propagation!

  18. duncano says:

    I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that the video falls well short of the hype in the description? I often find this with art projects, and I think it’s something that turns people off. There’s simply not much going on, although I do believe it’s possible to show more movement. Maybe by inducing more oscillation and then dealing the frames to find the ‘sweet spot’ in terms of fps. Also a few short edits between wider shots and close ups. Sort of an examination of wave propagation in human flesh . . . It’s a great concept – but the resultant effect is pretty subtle.

  19. I love artist statements. They have no idea how to describe anything using words, so they default to hopeful selfaggrandizement. 

    • blueelm says:

      It’s particularly frustrating when they talk and talk and never say why that should be relevant or interesting to ANYBODY.

      “The lighting and color palette is created by a strong heavenly top light, used by Renaissance masters, which dramatically exposes the flesh as if it were moving brush strokes and reemphasizes the relation with the heavens, gravity and sheer weight of the world”

      Weird to reference the Renaissance, where smoothness, amazingly wrought muscles, and transcendent perfection were the ideals. They also used a lot of color. It’s not their fault stuff tends to get a layer of yellow sludge on it over time.

      And if a contrast between those was intentional, why not say so? It’s way more interesting than “exposes the flesh” because why on earth would you light something that is all about boobs and tummy jiggle from the front so the flesh doesn’t show. You’d use short lighting or overhead because… duh… shadows.

      • hypnosifl says:

        Weird to reference the Renaissance, where smoothness, amazingly wrought muscles, and transcendent perfection were the ideals.

        Maybe the artist was lumping the Baroque in with the Renaissance–the lighting is reminiscent of Rembrandt, and Rembrandt wasn’t so concerned with smoothness/perfection.

  20.  Looks safe to me. Just a little nudity.

  21. Great video, very poignant.

    Sidenote: As a boss, all the prudes above me need to either lighten up or stop reading BB on their lunch breaks. What a bunch of assholes.

    • Cunning says:

      Being sensitive to liability issues does not necessarily make one an asshole.

        • Cunning says:

          Most companies aren’t prudish, they just want to avoid sexual harassment lawsuits.

          • I’m not sure what the relevance is. Is looking at artistic nudes sexual harassment?

            If you’re that worried you should close your browser and step away from the internet, ’cause there’s boobs everywhere.

          • Cunning says:

            Ahh yes, the old “there’s boobs everywhere” defense.  I see you’re ready for court Attorney Hornby.

            Look, I don’t necessarily agree with the precedence, but displaying pictures of nudes or viewing nudes on a computer screen (artful or otherwise)  can contribute to a hostile work environment in the eyes of the law.  That’s just the reality in some states.

          • That’s Barrister Hornby to you!

            Although I’d question the mental stability of anyone offended by the naked human form, I do appreciate that some find it a bit naughty. Because of this I wouldn’t nudge my employees, turn my monitor, and play this video at them. That would be wrong. Equally I’d do what I could to avoid printing out a still from the video and stapling it to their chair.
            However if a co-worker happens to glance over at the exact moment that some artistic nudity happens to be on my screen and find that they’ve been in some way violated, then I would do the honourable thing and tell them to stop being a nosey parker.

            Anyway, more importantly if I were in court I’d point out that glancing at a video preview by accident removes so much liability from the situation that it’s farcical. And if I were the prosecutor, I’d question why all these people shocked and awed by NSFW content are commenting on a page labelled as NSFW.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            I’m not sure what the relevance is. Is looking at artistic nudes sexual harassment?

            Google is your friend. There have been well-publicized lawsuits on this issue.

    • raken says:

       Thanks Nathan, next time you have a few minutes to devote to art in between projects at work, check out other artists featured by MOH Online. We have a slew of excellent work, both artistic and documentary, coming this Spring. http://www.moholyground.org/

  22. Cunning says:

    Watching the blonde woman age as gravity took hold was worth the price of admission for me, but I’ve got to agree with some of the other commenters:  needs more weiners.

  23. JimEJim says:

    If it helps, I’m pretty sure the plump redhead is the porn star April Flores. 

    I thought this was cool though and don’t really care about the cover image.  

  24. fight4paece says:

    I was listening to Horizons by Puscifer while that played with the sound muted. Absolutely Amazing!

  25. noah django says:

    meh.  not as cool as the description sounded, and OY!  that music (*・_・)ノ⌒*

    [movie preview voiceover]
    “in a world gone topsy-turvy
    unbound by time and gravity
    two men
    two women
    have become…

    jeez, can you tell this is from LA?

  26. Sekino says:

    Interesting visuals, but I thought the ‘blonde woman’ description sounded rather mean-spirited, especially next to the other more ‘ethereal’ statements. To me, it translated as “Ah, yes; the blonde bimbo. You know she thought she was soooo hot and she was a total whore with her red panties and jewellery… Well now she’s getting old and it’s going to totally ruin her. HA!!” And there is no way she looks ’40 years older’ in the second shot. Seems to me the other descriptions were a tad less judgemental.

    I’m probably reading too much into it, but then again isn’t it the very point of artist’s statements?

    • raken says:

       Hi, I’m the editor of MOH Online where this work is featured: http://www.moholyground.org/feature.htm#haussman.

      At first I was also unnerved by the gender stereotypes. But then I thought about those two years I spent in LA, and the sad fact that there is something transcendental about the banal emotional experience of beauty, and beauty lost, that is utterly integral to that unforgiving place called “the West Side.” I think Haussman gets close to the brutality and moral vacuity of the culture of vanity.

      Anyways, thanks for engaging with the work. Cheers!

      • Sekino says:

        Hi! I really appreciate your response and putting it more in context. Thank you. I am indeed remote from that particular environment so my interpretation- and expectations- of the work didn’t account for that. I saw the image first and my impression of the person and her body was quite different from what I read thereafter.

        From the initial images, I was expecting the kind of installation that portrays the human form as at once fascinating, odd and mesmerizing, for its own sake. So the social/sexual subtext was jarring to me.

        Not sure why I felt so immediately defensive on behalf of the subject, but that’s exactly what it was: I felt this human body was in an utmost vulnerable, exposed situation (in both its nudity and ‘stressed’ position) so the additional judgement or baggage implied in the caption was disturbing to me. I can’t really express anything beyond that, I guess; an instant desire for compassion in front of vulnerability.

  27. Frank Stensønes Olsen says:

    Haha, christ. Enough of this moralistic shit, (americans?). This is horrible, but looking at a news channel displaying severed limbs and shit is SFW? If you´re mistaking this for porn, you´re just wrong. Cool vid!

  28. edumendozaa says:

    I enjoy the video!, drama, subtlety, beauty, stillness, restlessness wtf!

  29. emo hex says:

    BINGO !

  30. raken says:

    I’m the editor of the site where this work is currently featured. To read a more in depth explanation from the artist, and to see haunting stills from the videos, go here: http://www.moholyground.org/feature.htm#haussman

  31. Halloween_Jack says:

    Frankly, the thing that was most interesting to me was the large guy with the gun. What was going on with his belly? Is that a bariatric surgery scar? 

  32. lasermike026 says:

    Michelangelo’s David would be considered not safe for work if it was made today.  We live in a dark age.

  33. Marios P. says:

    So how was it made? People jumping up and then free falling?
    The blonde was an execellent demonstration, and what is wrong with that guy’s bellybutton?

    • raken says:

      Hello, you can read about the artists intentions and technical use of 2000 fps in HD here:
      http://www.moholyground.org/feature.htm#haussman (scroll down for section titled “the technique”)

      • Marios P. says:


        edit: the expression “sad relic” seems kinda harsh.
        I wonder how would it seem on the rotating G force machines the astronauts train.
        Also would be quite interesting to know the real age of the people shown, just for reference

        • raken says:

          Hi Marlos, I’ll let the artist know that boingboing readers found the language he chose for the blonde model rather extreme. I have a feeling, however, that this theatricality is intentional. Spend a day walking around Sunset Blvd and you’ll see how cruel that micro-world is, and how cruel its inhabitants often are to themselves. Personally, I see the blonde as a pomo Hollywood tragedy.

          Ha, yes. That would be a great art piece – GRAVITY II: G-Force Machine. !

          Rachel Kennedy