What is Digg?104 Comments
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44Once the Apes take over and discover this picture I'm sure they'll find it fascinating.
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38Right, except that time averaging might have gone a bit too far over 100 years. I expect all he'll have is a uniformly brown (or gray) image.
Of course, since he's a conceptual artist, I'm sure he'd find some profound meaning in that as well. - capn_caveman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41I think it may be overexposed... :)
- subscriber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Crap! All right, one more try ... this time take the lens cap off!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24the reason why he wants to take a 100 year photo as opposed to a month long or year long photo has to do with his concept. he wants to show the passage of time within a photograph... the scale of a 100 year photograph is larger than most humans will ever live. by doing this he kind of transcends the notion that the people occupying these rooms (and possibly the furniture as well) will even show up in the photograph. the experience that a piece like this would create could be similar to standing in front of a mural by Rivera or some equally large piece, as opposed to a postcard showing the same piece. not to say that bigger is better, just often times creating effective conceptual art is all about the scope, and in this case, the scale.
- alphamerik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18@dan4prez:
Yah, this guy has a lot of crackhead concepts.
"I’ve also tried to pass a law of logic, that every entity shall be identical to itself (i.e., A=A), in the city of Berkeley. That law still hasn’t passed, and I’m currently looking for another city enlightened enough to put it on the books."
WTF? Pure mental masturbation. - equusdc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17...but the photograph isn't really the "effect" in question. As he said about creating a 1000-year photo at the research station in Antarctica:
"Apparently my research was deemed unserious — as if it were serious work making snow angels, or whatever it is they do."
He couldn't care less about the photo any more than he cares about what is actually done by scientists in Antarctica. The effect he is after is validation. He needs these mental masturbations to be recognized as serious inquiry to feed his ego and the sense of unjustified "enlightenment" that generally comes from the borderline sociopath. - Bwah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15actually it would work...but why 100 years..a month or even a year would be long enough to create the same effect
- zachg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11If you read the article you would have seen that he is not using film, he is using black paper. If you know anything about dark things exposed to light for long periods of time then you know that colors fade. So, if he is using a black sheet of paper and exposing minuscule amounts (pinhole) of light to it, then 100 years sounds about right.
My only contestation is why only one camera, and why only one format? Why not use many cameras and many formats (just in case)? - stuffhappens, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20Some pretentious artist has too much time on his hands.
What next, stick an apple in a jar and watch it decay - yep - the glitter-arty will go for that - what do you say - about $20K?
"It started out with quote from St. Augustine:" - riiiight - he lost me about there.
Ho hum - back to real life... - OropheR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I think he should first try do it for a year, and see the result, before attempting to do a 100 years pix.
- dan4prez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I dont know about this guy:
"All my conceptual art tends to be pretty long-term. Last year, I attempted to genetically engineer God in a petri dish"
God in a petri dish??
Good luck - 2gunnZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Well if I read things properly he isnt using film, he is using black paper that will slowly fade as the light hits it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10unless a bug crawls into the pinhole and dies there.
- morganie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"All my conceptual art tends to be pretty long-term. Last year, I attempted to genetically engineer God in a petri dish, with some preliminary success. (I got a lot of help from the genetics laboratory at UC Berkeley, as well as researchers at UC San Francisco and the Smithsonian Institution.)"
PLEASE tell me my tax dollars are not funding this man in ANY way! - wadelindsey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The paper's already black - it will only react to the *light* in the room, so I'm sure he would have taken this in to account when making his exposure calculations.... otherwise, here's to another 100 years!
- Rounin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I wonder if he took earthquakes into consideration.
- gothamcityprjct, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yeah, it won't be overexposed. Ever see a magazine that has sat outside for a few months in the sun? It fades. He's just using black-paper. The light will slowly fade away parts of it over the course of 100-years, creating a image. It's solid. Everone mentioning it'll be overexposed, you're thinking of chemically-coated photo paper and such. When they pop that baby open in 100 years, they'll have the print in their hands, no chemical processing necessary.
If anything, this trips me out because it is created non-chemical analog photography... - pdrap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The commentors who are worried about reciprocity failure and exposure and so on are missing the point. The "film" in this camera is black paper. Not photographic film. The image will be made by the light entering the pinhole fading the paper over time.
I would be he would get some kind of image from this, as the fading could occur all the way from black to white, which would take a very very long time. - hazard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Or the chances of the Hotel still standing/operating in 100 years.
- stuffhappens, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"All my conceptual art tends to be pretty long-term. Last year, I attempted to genetically engineer God in a petri dish, with some preliminary success."
This guy is a class-1 artistic nutter. The annoying bit is his patrons probably pay him well for this kind of bollocks. - subscriber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6He wants to make a picture of "time" itself. This will be useful if you don't have a watch.
- CoffeeCup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Some person will stay there, have too much fun in san fransisco, be sloshed drunk and knock that thing over or mess with it or something. What if a rock band stays there and throws it out the window along with the couch and TV? Someone is so gonna screw with that. Its just too tempting.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This will be about as exciting as Geraldo opening Al Capone's vault when they develop it.
- thydzik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5hmmm, could be interesting. but he should have done some test shots first.
how does he know that 100 years won't over expose (fade all the color) on the black paper.
what about things like moisture, mold, smoke. any thing could happen in 100 years. why not try 10 years first which is still a relatively long time. - Tiphys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5At first I thought he was trying a sort of super-long exposure to capture the passing of time...that made sense, was kinda kooky, but made sense. After reading the entire thing, I realize that's not what he's trying to do. He's trying to take a photograph of time *itself*. Not the passing of time.
"Of course, we don’t ordinarily see time on film, but that may simply be a signal-to-noise issue."
This guy is a nut. Check out his other projects. He's off his rocker. - flamingmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"What next, stick an apple in a jar and watch it decay"
Actually i saw exactly that in the tate modern museum in london - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5some ass is going to shine a laser into it or something within the next 100 years just to mess it up
- Lindquist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As if my grand children didn't already have enough to look forward to. Flying cars, robots, starships, and now this! Those lucky little bastards.
- two570, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4the difference is in the technique. Wesely did his long exposures in the traditional way, with a film camera. A 100 year exposure would never be possible with a regular camera because no film exists that exposes that slowly. that stuff Wesely did is DAMN cool though.
- Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think it would be much more interesting to have a camera take one snapshot per month for 100 years, then animate it into a movie. I would want to see THAT for sure.
- Schmitty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The guy's an ignorant, pompous *****! He wanted to set up a 1000 year exposure camera at the US lab in Antartica. Not only is he surprised that it is rejected, but goes and blasts their current research, I quote: "...as if it were serious work making snow angels, or whatever it is they do." While his 100 year camera is an interesting idea, that doesn't mean his research is any better than what others are striving to achieve. This guy needs a heavy dose of humility, in the shape of a comically oversized wooden mallet.
- thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'll go with option 4... both of them
lol - zachg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And for those who champion film/video cameras: it is an entirely different concept in which our focus on the image--and not on light and time--is still exactly that, an interpretation of familiar symbols, and sights; "Look at your face in that picture!". However, with a single image that is exposed over 100 years we cannot see people and beds in the room, we have no clue what we will see because the focus will be on time and light, and we clearly do not know what time and light do over such long periods of time because the human cognitive mind organizes according to much smaller increments--like minutes, or hours.
Buckminster Fuller would probably be a proponent of this because it occupies the same fringes as precession. - xmpcray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4San Francisco...yeah, he should think about the quakes...
- anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4"Last year, I attempted to genetically engineer God in a petri dish, with some preliminary success."
IMO that line takes away credibility to the "artist/scientist". - ravage386, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think a geosynchronous satellite with a 100 year exposure (of pretty much any area) would be much cooler than a hotel lobby.
- markho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5would it actually work? it's not like he can bracket exposures. how did he work out the exposure for such a length of time, when (presumably) it's never been done before? has he thought of reciprocity failure?
i think it almost certain it'll turn out to be a black piece of paper. and no one will care. come to think of it, why am i even commenting on this!? - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@equusdc - I could not have said it better myself.
- nickurfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is a photographer that has been doing this for a long time already. I mentioned earlier that this is not new. Do a google image search for Michael Wesely. In you are in NYC then go to MOMA and check out his work.
- tablatronix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So im assuming this thing is only sensitive to ultraviolet light ? since its just a piece of paper ?
I imagine it will only show some overlapping lines where the sun angles hit it seasonally etc.
I think a metalic photo reactive plate would be kewl too. Then youd wind up with time captured with 3 dimensional depth. - Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oops, sorry...lol
Just consider the second 4 as a result of lack of coffee this morning. Dammit is there caffeine in this thing?? - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3zachg - what controls the focus on time again?
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the floor.
no really, if you think about it.. in 100 years, furniture (i.e. the couch) and stuff will be moved around, but the floor will always be right there.. and if you do the math, you'll see that even if the floor is used 5% of the time, it is 5% no matter where the couch is.. but the couch, which could be, say 30-40%, will move get moved around. every time it gets moved, it divides up the 30-40% into all the locations of the couch, while the floor stays a solid 5% the whole time - Tiphys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@nickurfe: Except film is coated with special chemicals to make it react to light in a certain way. This is a black piece of paper. They are both black and flat, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.
- majordanger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is the perfect gadget to document that 639 year long organ performance.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20060102/longsong_hum.html
I'm gonna have to double down on my anti-oxidants to be around to appreciate all this glacial art. - Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Pick one:
1)He has way too much time on his hands
2)Inherited a LOT of money from his family to spend all his time on his "work"
3)Incredibly insecure and looking for some sort of validation in his life because he can't find it elsewhere
4)...Or EXTREMELY egotistical (How could you compare yourself to Galileo?)
4)He's a crackpot
5)All of the above - decorker2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The key to this article that many are missing is that he is using "archivally-stable black paper" instead of typical film and a pinhole camera. This black paper is probably just something related to 100% cotton rag paper that is known to last and won't deteriorate over the 100 year span. Once light enters from the tiny pin-prick on the pinhole camera, the image will eventually appear on the black paper, simply by the light fading the black away (think of a picture frame on a wall that has had sunlight and has been left there for years - once removed, the rest of the wall would have faded due to light exposure, but the area with the picture frame will still be the original paint color). Due to the exposure being made indoors in an assumedly low-lit hotel room (I don't know of many hotel rooms that are lit like a movie set), the 100-year exposure time will produce an image, not just a gray blob. Granted, the chance of seeing a person is very slim, but being able to see the different positions of the furniture will effectively tell the span of time.
This lengthy site gives all the info you would want to know about the camera obscura:
http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/CAMERA_OBSCURA.html
And no, I'm not voiding out the fact that he is a crackpot. He seems like one to me, too. - schmuckle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I've always wondered what a person with no job and way too much time on his hands does. Now I know.
"All my conceptual art tends to be pretty long-term. Last year, I attempted to genetically engineer God in a petri dish, with some preliminary success. (I got a lot of help from the genetics laboratory at UC Berkeley, as well as researchers at UC San Francisco and the Smithsonian Institution.) That project is ongoing, through an organization I founded, called the International Association for Divine Taxonomy.
Previously, I've also tried to pass a law of logic, that every entity shall be identical to itself (i.e., A=A), in the city of Berkeley. That law still hasn't passed, and I'm currently looking for another city enlightened enough to put it on the books. " - TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Some pretentious artist has too much time on his hands."
Yeah, one hundred years, apparently. ;-) -
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is