This would make the best 'still life' painting ever.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^swedishfriend:
Life could exist in every solar system in every galaxy. We don't know that it doesn't.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^swedishfriend:
And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.


No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.
But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.


You're right, it could. And it would probably be clinging to existence in nooks and crannies just like on Earth, like I said in the first place.
As NDT is fond of saying, 99% of all known species are extinct. That is an observation that is simply not compatible with the idea of a universe that "encourages" life.


you seem to be quantifying "life" in terms of your own perceptions of space and time.
just saying.

>> ^swedishfriend:

Life could exist in every solar system in every galaxy. We don't know that it doesn't.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^swedishfriend:
And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.


No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.
But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.



You're right, it could. And it would probably be clinging to existence in nooks and crannies just like on Earth, like I said in the first place.

As NDT is fond of saying, 99% of all known species are extinct. That is an observation that is simply not compatible with the idea of a universe that "encourages" life.

Life could exist in every solar system in every galaxy. We don't know that it doesn't.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^swedishfriend:
And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.


No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.
But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.

>> ^swedishfriend:

And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.



No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.

But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.

>> ^dag:

The revolution will be sifted.

There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of Quantum Mushroom being
run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
There will be no slow motion or still life of dystopianfuturetoday
strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
For just the proper occasion.

The Daily Show, David after the dentist, and Ron Paul
will no longer be so damned relevant, and
women will not care if blankfist finally gets down with
bareboards2 on Search for Tomorrow because everybody
will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
The revolution will not be sifted.

There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock
news and no pictures of hairy armed women
liberationists and IssyKitty blowing her nose.
The theme song will not be written by Dag,
hphq, nor sung by Zifnab, Ant, Netrunner, gwiz665, or Keyboard cat.
The revolution will not be sifted.

Absolutely wonderful film. Lots of really interesting things about it: one in particular is that Stanley retrofitted special NASA developed cameras so that he could film night-scenes with nothing but natural light, which for the 1700s is candles, moon, and other very very low-light sources.

Some people think the movie is slow-moving, but you really have to watch it in the context of Kubrick's style as well as the fact that it was the 70s and movies could have more artsy "still life" montages than they do now.

But yeah, if you are a Kubrick fan, go watch it now!

Yeah, it's definitely not a trick. This is a famous illusion in still-life, and there is no bizarre rendering required. However, it is indeed a 'trick', and that trick is your assumption of what shades each of the tiles are. You look at the board, and immediately believe that this is a standard checkered board with exactly 2 different shades of tile. This assumption, and therefor your perception of the color of the tile, is false.

SamaelSmith had it right; there is a deception in how much shadow is actually being cast by the podium sitting in front of the metal floodlight. Consider the MASSIVE light shining above the stage, and consider the smaller floodlight in the back, and reconsider how much shadow you would actually expect there to be on the checkerboard. There would be only a faint shadow, not the dramatic shadow that they have cast across it. The tiles are colored to make it appear that there is a strong shadow, when there should only be a weak one.

Thus, it is your normally adaptive assumption that there is a strong shadow cast by the podium that causes you to believe that the dark tile looks white in contrast to the very dark tiles surrounding it.

>> ^entr0py:

That was a well done video. Though, I've always thought that illusion is not actually an illusion, but just a trick. It always relies on ignoring the fact that one tile is in shadow and the other is in light when you go to compare them. If you physically did move the tile as animated above, it would suddenly appear much lighter when it moves into sunlight, because that is how light works. They must have gone to some work to render it in 3D, and then not have that one tile be effected by the scene lighting.

pushin for the big D..need a vote plz=)
http://videosift.com/video/BT-dreaming-movement-in-still-life-lucid-12-club-mix

less of an art form? you mean like still life, pastoral landscape, expressionistic, abstract, figure, pointillist, or impressionism? cuz i see those friggin everywhere which makes them totally lame and cliche

did i lay it on thick enough? =P

dont hate, blankfist. no one judges you because you still struggle with Colouring By Numbers

I didn't gloss over anything you said, or state for you or anyone else what they are thinking for them. I simply find it interesting where our cultural norms towards the human body are
>>> ^Shepppard:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/geo321" title="member since December 3rd, 2008" class="profilelink">geo321
No, you didn't mention anything about strippers, I was using them as a comparison.
However, you seemed to gloss over the part where I said "You seem to think that those of us opposed to it are against nudity, which, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not." It's not the fact there's tits. I went on to link two videos about naked art, one inlcuding 5000 naked people.
It's the fact that it's a behind the scenes video of a pornography set, with a piece of music slapped over it. The music starts, she smokes, and then proceeds to strip and fondle herself. It's not her posing for someone to paint a picture, or take a single still life shot. She's sitting there getting a series of pictures taken, for the sole reason of people to look at and masturbate to.
The last big "Controversy" about the bunch of older women sitting in a big circle had a few arguments to it, one in particular being "It can't be porn without intent".. this only HAS one intention.

I didn't gloss over anything you said, or state for you or anyone else what they are thinking for them. I simply find it interesting where our cultural norms towards the human body are.>> ^Shepppard:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/geo321" title="member since December 3rd, 2008" class="profilelink">geo321
No, you didn't mention anything about strippers, I was using them as a comparison.
However, you seemed to gloss over the part where I said "You seem to think that those of us opposed to it are against nudity, which, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not." It's not the fact there's tits. I went on to link two videos about naked art, one inlcuding 5000 naked people.
It's the fact that it's a behind the scenes video of a pornography set, with a piece of music slapped over it. The music starts, she smokes, and then proceeds to strip and fondle herself. It's not her posing for someone to paint a picture, or take a single still life shot. She's sitting there getting a series of pictures taken, for the sole reason of people to look at and masturbate to.
The last big "Controversy" about the bunch of older women sitting in a big circle had a few arguments to it, one in particular being "It can't be porn without intent".. this only HAS one intention.

@geo321

No, you didn't mention anything about strippers, I was using them as a comparison.

However, you seemed to gloss over the part where I said "You seem to think that those of us opposed to it are against nudity, which, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not." It's not the fact there's tits. I went on to link two videos about naked art, one inlcuding 5000 naked people.

It's the fact that it's a behind the scenes video of a pornography set, with a piece of music slapped over it. The music starts, she smokes, and then proceeds to strip and fondle herself. It's not her posing for someone to paint a picture, or take a single still life shot. She's sitting there getting a series of pictures taken, for the sole reason of people to look at and masturbate to.

The last big "Controversy" about the bunch of older women sitting in a big circle had a few arguments to it, one in particular being "It can't be porn without intent".. this only HAS one intention.

I think the Sift definition of Snuff is a little off. Here is what the dictionary states.

"snuff film
–noun
1. Slang. a pornographic film that shows an actual murder of one of the performers, as at the end of a sadistic act."

another source

"snuff film
n. Slang
A movie in a purported genre of explicit pornography culminating in the actual violent death of a participant in a sex act."


Not sure why this is snuff, either way, this is big news, front page stills from this video are all over the newspapers up here. This Video has also been playing on the news, it's quite a big story. CBC, the Telegraph, CTV and more news outlets are all posting this video. It's a very important piece of evidence in a very important debate about Taser guns.

Personally I don't care to watch clips that involve people dying, but there is not shortage of death scenes on the sift. The difference with this death and "cinematic death" is that there is an actual victim in this case, there is a story behind this video.

Gorgonheap says...
"So I request from Mr. Fox that it be discarded out of respect for people who are no longer alive to see their death displayed as entertainment to millions."

I hope you did not find this video entertaining. But If I was tasered to death by cops, the sift has full permission to spread the video far and wide, more eyes need to see this abuse of power and understand it.

To assume without any further info that this artist doesn't sketch any of his own artwork or that he/she isn't capable of doing so, considering the level of realistic translation and the hours upon hours it would take of random doodling/practice to even get to that level, would be a little hasty at best. Accurately translating the physical world with all it's subtle complexities onto paper requires more skill/thought/knowledge of the processes behind the visuals than most people realize. I agree though that the subject here is rather mundane but who says art can't be so? This knowledge of artistic method (while not wholly necessary) can form the foundation of which to then apply true creative energy to; giving the artist far more range and options to pursue confidently without wondering how the hell to translate that crystal clear picture of an idea in their head and make it a reality. Even abstract art benefits from rudimentary composition skills. This is more of a semantics issue I think. Still life is art any way you slice it, doesn't have to be interesting to qualify.