What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
64 Comments
- SalmonGod, on 07/03/2009, -1/+24This stuff just begs to be turned into desktop wallpaper.
- THX8612, on 07/04/2009, -0/+21I don't want to sound like a party pooper but this just a rediscovery. This similar to the method used by many film makers to create rolling clouds, nebula and other practical sfx. I'm not saying it isn't still beautiful. Just nothing "New." Oops "defaultusername" beat me to it.
Yeah, what he said! - defaultusername, on 07/04/2009, -1/+16This is how they did a lot of the effects in The Fountain, in the nebula scenes. The photographer used macrophotography and mixtures of chemicals and bacteria. "You feel like you're looking at infinity. That's because the same forces at work in the water—gravitational effects, settlement, refractive indices—are happening in outer space." Cool stuff.
- bceastburn, on 07/04/2009, -0/+11This is not a new art form. It is called photography.
It is still very cool though. - BenRoth, on 07/04/2009, -1/+11New Art Form.... anyone who has painted a house has probably come across this "art form" in a bucket of water.
- gutistg, on 07/04/2009, -0/+7You don't know what illusion means.
- SpikeX, on 07/04/2009, -1/+8Very cool. I'm starting to see a lot more art based on water physics and droplets, recently, and I think it's an awesome medium for artists.
- effstops, on 07/04/2009, -0/+6Looks cool, but this is nothing new. Cloud tank effects have been used in film for decades, and it's done in exactly the same way. I recall seeing an atomic bomb explosion done with this technique, flipped upside down and lit from within. My favorite example of cloud tank stuff is the crazy growing clouds in Close Encounters.
- mathyu21, on 07/04/2009, -1/+7While this is beautiful and all, I would hesitate to call it art. Its comparable to watching colored smoke rise. Its just randomness and it requires absolutely no talent. Its just a cool effect, like a fun experiment in a chemistry lab.
- voze, on 07/04/2009, -3/+8Big deal, this has been done for years and far better than this guy, how do you think they got the Nebula back in the old Star Trek movies?
Edit: Wow, I should really read the comments before I post something that's already been pointed out twice.
Here are the rest of them: http://www.behance.net/Gallery/Aqueous/46946
And here are some which are far better: http://www.behance.net/Gallery/Form-minus-Function ... - iamcitiz3n, on 07/04/2009, -0/+5I think Stanley Kubrick may have been the first to do this. He used this technique to create the nebulae near the end of the stargate sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
- skipvt, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4Not only a new art form, but a new LIFE form!
- zakaos, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4and another guy gets payed from dropping paint into water... and i work my bones off in jobs i dont want to be able to afford paint, way ta go.
- deylux, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4Haha, funny I already made one for myself Salmongod... I'll upload it for ya. It's 1080 ready, 1920x1080. If you have any digiart skills you can resize yourself with various programs. There might be an online resizer too....
http://yfrog.com/0cwally3dpaintwaterj There ya go, uploaded, I didn't do the purple one because it required more editting, while the other 3 were copy and paste basically! enjoi ! - glinsvad, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4Exactly. We have hundreds of photos like these, most of them hanging around the hallways of our physics department. There's just something aesthetically pleasing about the chaotic patterns in fluid dynamics.
- alpha88, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4This isn't actually very new, but it's cool nonetheless.
- alexthekidd, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4modern art... 'nuf said
- mokshjuneja, on 07/04/2009, -0/+3i always wanted to know, why this Jellyfish like thing called Man O' war???
- Da7e, on 07/04/2009, -0/+3Check James and The Giant Peach and Ghostbusters, this is far from "new." Still cool, but misstated.
- projektidiot, on 07/04/2009, -0/+3I'm too immature to look at the white ones without giggling.
- cryptomystic, on 07/04/2009, -1/+4It's damn cool and very beautiful but it's really not art.
Soon all you'll have to do to create "art" is to take a dump in your toilet and have video camera capture it and add some effects with Photoshop.
What ever happened to the Leonardo Da Vinci's, the Picasso's, the Salvador Dahli's...etc..etc...
Now that was art, this is just some dude dropping paint in water.
An autistic 5 year old with a iPhone can accomplish this. - inactive, on 07/04/2009, -0/+3Way cool. This just goes to show you the simplest ideas are often the most effective.
- nixpix66, on 07/04/2009, -3/+5Space Semen.
- LiquidIse, on 07/04/2009, -3/+5This is a fine gem in the swirling cesspool that is most contemporary "art"
- joker2459, on 07/04/2009, -1/+3Looks kind of like what happens when I'm smokin green
- LiquidIse, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2I'll bite.
For starters, I'm 23. If that makes me old, suddenly your comment makes perfect sense.
The cesspool I refer to is this inane concept that anything people create which provokes emotion is somehow art. It drops the standard so low it is insulting to real artists.
The reason I am referring to this as art is because it is rather visually impressive. It is certainly not a standard practice, but I would no have problem matting one of those pictures and hanging it on my wall. In fact, I would very much like to. That to me is a sign of good art. - WYendrys, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2I did this over a year ago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wyendrys/2606064006/
although, mine isn't nearly as good as the ones posted. - Perleeeze, on 07/04/2009, -1/+3For the love of all that is good and holy, please stop digging articles form the Daily Mail and its group of papers.
The Mail is a) a reactionary sensationalist rag, b) the font of all bigoted thought in the UK, c) invariably years behind in reporting anything new or interesting.
In future, please digg down anything that has dailymail or mailonsunday in the URL - for all our sakes.
Digg deserves better than this octagenarian-baiting drivel. - genyoda, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2Not a new art form. People have been doing this for many years. How do you think they made the cloud for star trek the motion picture back in the late 70s? How do you think they made the bubbling clouds in both of the Ghostbusters movies?
Just a cheesy way to get hits... - DonAlfred, on 07/04/2009, -1/+3That's not art you idiots. That's just paint in water.
It's only art if a real artist did it. Like Picasso or something. - ginetteginette, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2i think the artistry here lies within the photography.
- FLarsen, on 07/04/2009, -1/+3Omg, an art snob, kill it with fire!
Also, I'd rather look at this than Mondrian's colored squares. - ginetteginette, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1i can't tell if you meant for that to be hilarious or not - either way you got me going.
- macmcraeart, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1wasn't every art "modern" at some time?
- ginetteginette, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1surprisingly to me actually, Disney used these same techniques a whole decade before Kubrick in their 'mars and beyond' animation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d76fiWRobU4 (it's at the very end of the clip)
- burningrobot, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Because you don't know art, but you know what you like, right?
- JinxCrow, on 07/04/2009, -1/+2*****. Always thought about doing that and how it would look, damn my never doing anything about it.
- AmazingSteve, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Any decent effects house has been doing cloud tanks for like 40 years.
- Klowner, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1IIRC, they chose it over computer generated effects since it was considerably more cost effective, and the results were amazing.
- seeanimal, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1OK, so they're not Mondrian, Malevich, Kandinsky, Kupka or Klee. Not 'real' abstract art. But they look cool, and obviously took some skill to produce. Where's the harm? The headline narked me a bit too "New Art Form"? Hardly, but visually gripping. It's all gravy. Don't bust a bollock.
- ginetteginette, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1everyone can make 'art'. i think what you're trying to argue is something entirely different and a long the lines of 'is this good art?', 'does this take talent?' and so on.
- seeanimal, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1I lol'd because when I saw the Picasso light graffiti (time.com? last wk? mebbez) I was totally awestruck simply because it's PICASSO man! If it turned out that Pollock did this decades ago I would totally have the same reaction.
- appleofdischord, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Brownian motion FTW.
- Apokalyps2547, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1If it's art then LiquidIse is a critic, and people have the right to be critical of art. Now you can either call him names or grow up.
- macmcraeart, on 07/04/2009, -1/+2can lead to "space herpes".
- FLarsen, on 07/05/2009, -0/+1@burningrobot: I know what I like and I know why I like it. If that's not "knowing" art then tell me what is.
@gutistg: How so? I'd like to know what me not liking Mondrian's art says about me.
To the concept of 'real' abstract art, I'll just say "no true scotsman." - gutistg, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1I suppose you prefer stagnation. That's cool, I guess.
See, we (humans) create lots of *****, but every once in a while we come up with some ***** that is a little bit less ***** than the other ***** we come up with. We usually take that ***** and hold it up for everyone else to admire.
Over time, the ***** that is worth admiring is remembered, and the ***** that isn't gets forgotten. So, when we look back at the previous periods in visual art, we see only that ***** that is worth looking at. Without that filter (time) the amount of ***** ***** can seem overwhelming, and make it impossible to sift through the ***** to find some worthwhile *****.
The cesspool isn't anything new, silly. It's always been there and will always be there. You just have to learn to fish for better turds, *****.
Edit: Apparently you're too stupid to realize that being called an old fart isn't always supposed to be taken literally. He's insulting you, not characterizing you, idiot.
I guess I'll have to revise my statement (please ignore the previous): You're an idiot, close your eyes and never open them again. You don't deserve to look at the same things that those of us who have learned to appreciate things get to look at. - gutistg, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Says a lot about you, FLarsen. Not that what it says is a bad thing, it's just a very telling statement.
- gutistg, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Am I being dugg down for being correct? I don't get it. The word abstraction, by its definition, simply does not apply to these images.
- Perleeeze, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1You obviously don't understand much about anything then if you think this is really art.
What swirling cesspool are you refering to? The only ***** in contemporary art these days is in Chris Ofili's elephant poo paintings.
Go back to your Vermeer's you old fart. -
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is