Comments on: MUTO

MUTO

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:28:05 -0800

MUTO - Seven minutes of wall-painted animated joy by blu (previously)

By: not_on_display

not_on_display — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:33:19 -0800

This is all kinds of awesome, even much better and more interactive with the 'canvas' than blu's stuff I'd previously seen and liked. (and I'm only 2 minutes in.) Thanks!

By: echo target

echo target — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:38:48 -0800

This is wonderful. He's getting better and better with time. This one took a serious investment - that was a hell of a lot of paint.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:45:42 -0800

I can't help but feel like this is important work. Has something like this been done before? I don't mean, has blu done work like this before. I've seen other stuff of his on youtube. I mean have other artists created these sort of fleeting animations in real space before?

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:52:11 -0800

This is incredibly good. And I cannot imagine the amount of work that went into it.

By: Jofus

Jofus — Tue, 13 May 2008 10:05:15 -0800

Amazing. Great find.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 13 May 2008 10:11:53 -0800

Holy crap, that tall wall must have taken forever. Climbing up and down, moving the ladder for each frame. Yikes. In an awesome way. I wish the camera would hold still, though. And I hope that isn't really paint he's leaving all over everything.

By: not_on_display

not_on_display — Tue, 13 May 2008 10:15:55 -0800

^DU: And I hope that isn't really paint he's leaving all over everything. What, over the graffiti that was there before?

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 13 May 2008 10:18:25 -0800

Fantastic. This guy gets better and better.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 13 May 2008 10:29:16 -0800

What, over the graffiti that was there before? In some cases. Plus the plants and ground. I mean, the result is definitely worth quite a bit of cleanup cost, so I'm not begruding it. Just expressing a hope that he used something non-toxic. Also, at the end I realized he used a long stick and not a ladder. Still hell of painstaking.

By: The Light Fantastic

The Light Fantastic — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:02:50 -0800

Awesome!

By: Dave Faris

Dave Faris — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:03:53 -0800

As I was watching it, I tried to detect the break between each day's work and into the next. It was pretty clear that the relatively brief but huge tall wall segment took a whole day, while the faster moving, but smaller wall paintings were able to chew up a lot more film.

By: Arnolfini

Arnolfini — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:11:10 -0800

What lovely weather they get in Buenos Aires. Sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun... An amazing piece, the mind boggles at how much work (and white paint) it took. Thanks for (re) posting.

By: hecho de la basura

hecho de la basura — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:17:09 -0800

I am blown away. Just blown away. Thank you for posting this.

By: autodidact

autodidact — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:39:34 -0800

T R I P O D That is all I have to say.

By: sir_rubixalot

sir_rubixalot — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:51:53 -0800

lol autodidact. Once I got over the stop motion queasiness, that was awesome! I love the paint trails the animation process leaves behind, something very satisfying about that.

By: ornate insect

ornate insect — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:24:02 -0800

If you liked that, I highly recommend this as well.

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:27:40 -0800

That was pretty spectacular.

By: numinous

numinous — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:41:43 -0800

What an ambitious undertaking. This was phenomenal!

By: Jpfed

Jpfed — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:44:32 -0800

On a technical level that was pretty cool (and must've been a great deal of work), but enough with the nested dolls/ recursion already! When the guy removed his butterfly wings, I thought "alright, now you're going to eat them, and that will cause something strange to happen inside of you." And I was disappointed that this turned out to be the case. This is a serious question, because I am uneducated in these matters: Is there some sort of genre that this is adhering to or something? Much of what happened was strangely predictable. Or was the whole point to create a world that nonsensical things happen in that is repetitive enough that by the end, we know what "should happen" in that world?

By: tachikaze

tachikaze — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:25:20 -0800

Art isn't supposed to do that. . .

By: ElmerFishpaw

ElmerFishpaw — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:32:17 -0800

T R I P O D That is all I have to say. Seriously. I wish he had made the film half as long and spent the paint-money on a freaking tripod to make it twice as good. This very neat, tho.

By: nosila

nosila — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:36:50 -0800

Jpfed: I've noticed that a lot lately, too. For some reason (I'm sure this is not the cause), all of the nesting-people that crawl out of their own skin take on a sort of backward relation to that Radiohead line "the big fish eat the little ones" from the song Optimistic on Kid A (2000), which I always connected to the underwater flight sequence in Star Wars: A Phantom Menace (1999). In that scene, Qui-Gon is saved about a bajillion times when some huge fish is about to eat him and a huger fish eats it first. (No one is better at hammering a mildly interesting philosophical point into the ground than George Lucas. Respect to Star Wars and all, but come on...) It doesn't really bug me, exactly, though I know what you mean about being sad that you can predict what's going on. I'm always kind of intrigued when something keeps popping up in art all over the world. (Though it doesn't have the same oomph as it probably once did, since everyone pretty much has access to all art now.) Blah blah.

By: damn dirty ape

damn dirty ape — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:04:17 -0800

WTF, all that work and no tripod? I cant watch more than 20 seconds. Shame. Sloppy.

By: Robin Kestrel

Robin Kestrel — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:30:50 -0800

I dunno...in my opinion, the lack of a tripod adds something to the impact, as do the changing light patterns and the people caught walking by. It really drives home that you are viewing motion through time, something that is happening in our world but at the pace of a different, alien place that maybe only we can see. Very cool stuff.

By: subgear

subgear — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:50:59 -0800

Yes. Thanks for posting this.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:38:51 -0800

Fuck the tripod. That was fucking awesome. I'm so glad I checked in on the blue today.

By: dobbs

dobbs — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:48:46 -0800

Has something like this been done before? Yes, I linked to I Woz Ere in 2004.

By: msaleem

msaleem — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:50:14 -0800

On a somewhat similar note: Bruce Lee speed painting.

By: Sitegeist

Sitegeist — Wed, 14 May 2008 02:45:26 -0800

From what ppl are saying above they seem to be ascribing value to the work partly (mostly?) because of the amount of work that went into it. I disagree with this kind of thinking. I found little artistic merit in the piece. I quickly got bored. That's only my point of view of course. But really for those who like it - Are you actually enjoying the piece or just amazed at the novelty and dedication shown? All power to the guy of course. He can do what he likes and I appreciate that he put it up under a Creative Commons License. Just doesn't do it for me.

By: Drexen

Drexen — Wed, 14 May 2008 04:41:48 -0800

But really for those who like it - Are you actually enjoying the piece or just amazed at the novelty and dedication shown? Firstly, even if it is on novelty value alone I don't think that would mean people were "not actually" enjoying it. If the content itself was unremarkable and it was just a technical excercise, it would still be a valid and impressive piece of work. But secondly, why would a novel technique preclude interesting content? I think that creating a sort of half-real 'object' that's moving around and interacting with it's environment, but that only exists as a series of paintings getting smeared across public spaces, is really effective at exaggerating how creepy and 'other' these odd creatures/people are - it's like they're some new form of ghost or ghoul. That's something that relies on this specific technique; it isn't done for it's own sake. Personally I really enjoyed the animation itself as well, but that's a matter of taste. If you like it you may also like stuff by Christy Karacas: Barfight, Space War, Superjail.

By: tomble

tomble — Wed, 14 May 2008 04:46:21 -0800

I was impressed by it from a technical viewpoint, but I'd be a little pissed if I walked down the street and saw a huge swathe of white paint over brick walls, footpaths etc.

By: Arnolfini

Arnolfini — Wed, 14 May 2008 04:48:45 -0800

T R I P O D ? You really don't understand what is happening here do you? The guy is painting these big images and progressively animating large areas and buildings running hundreds of yards over a period of months, probably making a few frames per day, probably on his own, in a public place, using a stills camera over rugged ground with obstacles in different weather and light, and all you can manage is... T R I P O D You must get out more, stop with the Hollywood production values and perhaps try making things yourself. Then you might understand some of the complexities involved. This is an amazingly complex achievement by a consummate animator and inventive illustrator.

By: Sitegeist

Sitegeist — Wed, 14 May 2008 06:45:37 -0800

If the content itself was unremarkable and it was just a technical excercise, it would still be a valid and impressive piece of work. I never claimed it was not valid. And I can see that it's impressive as a technical exercise. (So is building a scale model of the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks.) But very little interest for me as artistic expression. Yes, in my opinion the content itself is unremarkable.

By: autodidact

autodidact — Wed, 14 May 2008 07:18:07 -0800

You really don't understand what is happening here do you? Actually I'm an animator and an illustrator myself. Sometimes I do stop-motion and I understand EXACTLY what is going on here. Maybe you don't fucking understand it, because a tripod would DEFINITELY have created a better result. A tripod would keep the camera on the same depth to the subject as the previous frame, while still allowing for pans, tilts, and zooms.

By: Drexen

Drexen — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:13:25 -0800

A tripod would keep the camera on the same depth to the subject as the previous frame, while still allowing for pans, tilts, and zooms. I don't know, if he'd done that I think it would have looked more like it was just CGI or projection or superimposition or something. The fact that each shot is done manually makes it clearer how the motion/animation is arising out of a long and repeated public act, which gets integrated into the piece itself. I like that myself, but it's true that it does strain the suspension of disbelief somewhat.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:26:50 -0800

Actually I'm an animator and an illustrator myself. [...] Maybe you don't fucking understand it, because a tripod would DEFINITELY have created a better result. Wow, dude, I'm sure it must be frustrating to be all-knowing when everyone else is a complete retard, but that's really no excuse for being such a dick. I can't help but feel like this is important work. Yes. This is an amazingly complex achievement by a consummate animator and inventive illustrator. Yes. Fuck the tripod. That was fucking awesome. YES.

By: autodidact

autodidact — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:10:24 -0800

Oh okay I guess I'm wrong then. This is a perfect, completely original artistic gem and there is no room for improvement. Yeah right. Get a tripod!

By: tachikaze

tachikaze — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:28:57 -0800

no, ad, you don't understand it; it's like you telling Van Gogh to mix his paints thinner, or something. Why don't YOU create one of these with a fucking tripod so we can compare the results head-to-head.

By: Arnolfini

Arnolfini — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:29:53 -0800

I was taught to use tripods at college too. All I was saying was that this is not a studio situation and a tripod is not a feasible solution for the job. Unless that is, you keep the tripod still and move the walls! Ha!

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:41:48 -0800

any time the artist would have wanted to dolly or pan the camera during the animation it would have made a marked difference from those times when the camera was still if the camera was on a tripod. each increment that involved moving the tripod in some way would been approximately as jerky as the standing photographs were, but the the parts where the camera did not move would have been perfectly smooth. the end result would have been smooth animation perforated by jerky dollies and pans. it would have been MORE jarring. this is not to say that there couldn't be a way to compromise between the two or accomodate for one or the other. But rather, I think blu opted to intentionally work within a sort of "lo-fi" framework, which complimented the graffiti aspect of the work and the dilapidated nature of the scenery excellently. The end result depends on this aspect of its presentation to properly sell itself to the audience, and I think (in this instance) that it's better for it. In High Art, there is less of a requirement for commercial production quality at all times. Often the very hands on nature of the art is part of its value. You don't have to agree with me, but I at least hope you guys can stop calling each other names.

By: autodidact

autodidact — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:41:52 -0800

I didn't go to art school. I'm self taught, and I am not being pedantic. Why would a tripod not be a feasible solution? You move the tripod incrementally, frame-by-frame, along whatever camera paths and axis tilts you require.. the only thing that'll change is the image won't be so jerky and headache-inducing. Leave the tripod sitting in the middle of the sidewalk for days, people will walk around it.. If you need to move the POV across some uneven ground, tripod legs are adjustable and some of mine even have spiky feet for gripping dirt, rocks, etc.. If you guys really want to insist that animation with a herky-jerky camera that moves in random ways is better, then go ahead and believe it. However, I would like to make a little wager with anyone who'd care to take it. If this artist continues to make these videos, he will eventually start to use a tripod or some other mechanism\practice to steady out his camera paths. If I'm wrong, I will do something very humiliating like post a video of myself admitting I'm wrong or something.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 14 May 2008 10:07:20 -0800

Essentially, autodidact, your complaint is on par with, "Schindler's List? One word: C O L O U R ." Filmmakers make decisions. Maybe you don't agree with them. That doesn't mean their work is no good. Leave the tripod sitting in the middle of the sidewalk for days, people will walk around it.. Really?

By: autodidact

autodidact — Wed, 14 May 2008 10:20:19 -0800

First I didn't say this was no good. I like it. I just sincerely, emphatically stated that I think the piece would be improved if the camera work was not so jerky and random. It's, like, constructive criticism. Half the reason I think so is because I can see how great the concept is, and how much back breaking dedication was required to create the animation. Why undercut the animation with what to me looks more like laziness than an artistic decision with thorough rationale. And as for my complaint being equivalent to saying Schindler's List needs colour.. I'd say it's closer to saying Schindler's List needs a relatively stable camera so that random camera motion doesn't ruin the experience for most of the audience.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 14 May 2008 11:31:29 -0800

needs a relatively stable camera so that random camera motion doesn't ruin the experience for most of the audience I think you may have inadvertently counted yourself half a million times.

By: Arnolfini

Arnolfini — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:55:23 -0800

"I didn't go to art school. I'm self taught, " Perhaps you should consider it?

By: autodidact

autodidact — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:02:02 -0800

Perhaps you should consider it? So, because I think this piece could be improved in some way, I am somehow a failure as someone who can perceive art? I should proceed through some institution so that my perception of something as subjective as art will fall in line with those who for some reason have aligned themselves with the idea that this 7-minute clip is some kind of artistic perfection beyond reproach? No thanks. What a pitiful mentality.

By: autodidact

autodidact — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:55:51 -0800

Please forgive the misuse of the word "reproach." Thinking back I realized it's to be used for people. Substitute "criticism."

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:28:33 -0800

However, I would like to make a little wager with anyone who'd care to take it. If this artist continues to make these videos, he will eventually start to use a tripod or some other mechanism\practice to steady out his camera paths. If I'm wrong, I will do something very humiliating like post a video of myself admitting I'm wrong or something. It's not a good bet if you have little or no stake in the outcome.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:30:10 -0800

Which is to say, with or without a tripod, I'd hope he continues making animation. The wager seems, perhaps, irrelevant to that end.

By: kyleg

kyleg — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:15:44 -0800

That was fucking awesome.