Invisibilia

January 13, 2005 10:42 AM

A World of Invisibilia. "The pictures are simple enough: the people in the photos have been digitally removed and replaced with drawings. Yeah, I know... anyone can trace a drawing. But so what? I am doing it, and you're not. You're sitting at home doing nothing." I like the effect, and I'm sure it's been done before but I can't place it.
posted by gsb (34 comments total)

It is nice to see that cartoons and people can live along peacefully.
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:47 AM on January 13, 2005

This is cool.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:48 AM on January 13, 2005

It reminds me of A-Ha's video for "Take On Me." Without the 80's teen angst.
posted by hamfisted at 10:48 AM on January 13, 2005

Oh noes! Now people are ripping off crappy cartoons!
posted by rachsumat at 10:48 AM on January 13, 2005

Can I hear the distant rumble of thunder?
posted by Cancergiggles at 10:50 AM on January 13, 2005

The works are kinda nice, but what an obnoxious intro, "You're sitting ay home doing nothing"?, kiss my ***.
posted by garethspor at 10:50 AM on January 13, 2005

This is really cool; goodlink.
posted by chunking express at 10:52 AM on January 13, 2005

that's actually kind of cool.
posted by signal at 10:53 AM on January 13, 2005

I like how the preamble completely pre-empts the usual debate we have on this sort of thing.

Nice.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:57 AM on January 13, 2005

Tom Goes to the Mayor is an ok show, hardly crappy. This is a good link, although that 4th image is yucky. And the last one? What the hell?
posted by puke & cry at 10:58 AM on January 13, 2005

The pictures are good, but I like his attitude even more.
posted by driveler at 11:04 AM on January 13, 2005

"Take On Me" is a good guess for what this reminds me of, hamfisted. I was going to go with Waking Life, which also has a similar effect, though in color, and in the movie the background is cartoonified too.
posted by BackwardsCity at 11:05 AM on January 13, 2005

did a mefite make this?
posted by 31d1 at 11:09 AM on January 13, 2005

why am I freakishly turned on by gargantuan cartoon boobs?
posted by skrike at 11:17 AM on January 13, 2005

Like it! Something similar to this, (perhaps one person drawn in colour on a black and white photo) would make an excellent book cover. I wouldn't be surprised if I started seeing book covers or ads like this soon.
posted by Termite at 11:20 AM on January 13, 2005

Single frame rotoscoping.
posted by billysumday at 11:26 AM on January 13, 2005

Some of the images are pretty neat and some are kind of tacky, as puke & cry points out.

But its a neat effect. I'd like to see a pic with this effect and the iPod silhouettes too, let them battle it out for hipness!

And agreed, the snotty intro is stupid.
posted by fenriq at 11:27 AM on January 13, 2005

"It's ok. A novelty. Or a gimmick. But maybe it's more. Maybe it illustrates the idea that we all want to remove ourselves from life, and replace ourselves with fictional, self-created versions of ourself. We want to fictionalise our own existence, and impose order and narrative where there is none. Perhaps that's art. Or perhaps it's a mediocre art-school project. It's up to you to decide."

Hmm. Wouldn't it be better without this apologia? What's annoying about it is that it's trying to say both "I know this is silly and not so great" and also "...but if you do happen to think it's great, here's why I don't think what I do is so great."

Best, I think, is the kissing on the beach and the grumpy old man two below that. The first one's also striking, I think because of its shadow.

Roger Rabbit?
posted by nobody at 11:31 AM on January 13, 2005

I also wish he weren't so strangely defensive. I say if it looks cool, and it took time and effort, well done. I really like his choice of photographs, and in some cases, his decision of which person to take out and trace.
posted by ORthey at 11:34 AM on January 13, 2005

It reminds me of an artist who took stills from porn movies and removed the actors, leaving only empty impressions on beds, etc. Very cool and creepy looking. Damned if I can remember the artist's name though, and as soon as you type "porn" into Google....

There's also this artist, who made the whole world into Sims cartoons.
posted by showmethecalvino at 11:45 AM on January 13, 2005

showmethecalvino, I had an artist friend who got drunk once and made a whole bunch of porn silhouette magnets along those lines. They were well done and really funny, shame she didn't want to get rich and sell them.

By the way, calvino? As in Italo Calvino?
posted by fenriq at 11:50 AM on January 13, 2005

And the last one? What the hell?

I think the last one makes the whole project worth it. I don't know if the photo was staged for this purpose, but it seems a lot more evocative than most of 'em.
posted by soyjoy at 11:59 AM on January 13, 2005

Is there any other Calvino?
posted by 31d1 at 12:03 PM on January 13, 2005

Yup, Italo.

There can be only one.
posted by showmethecalvino at 12:09 PM on January 13, 2005

It's Naomi Uman, showmethecalvino, and her video "Removed." There's a link to the video itself - or perhaps a clip thereof - on the video page of illegal-art.org.
posted by ubersturm at 12:30 PM on January 13, 2005

Maybe coulda been a NSFW, depends where you work I guess.

And yeah, the last seems to be the only one saying anything, not sure what that is though.
posted by scheptech at 12:50 PM on January 13, 2005

It reminds me of an artist who took stills from porn movies and removed the actors, leaving only empty impressions on beds, etc.

Funny enough, calvino, that artist is Jon Haddock ("Internet Sex Photos"), he of the Sims-like "Screenshots" series you linked to. It's funny how difficult it can be, to find pictures of things that are missing.
posted by cloudscratcher at 12:51 PM on January 13, 2005

Interesting that he has a picture warning about misogyny-inducing pornography, while a great deal of his pic-replacements are of naked women. Perhaps the key is that the women not in overtly sexual poses.
posted by eclectist at 12:57 PM on January 13, 2005

Ha, right you are, cloudscratcher! Thanks for that. Weird.

Cool video, ubersturm. Who knew there were so many people making art porn? (Link maybe NSFW, depending.)
posted by showmethecalvino at 1:04 PM on January 13, 2005

I'd like "invisible_mann" best were the drawing just a bit better and more integrated, similar to the one in "invisible_phone". As it is, I think I prefer the latter. But the framing of the former works better with the technique and subject.

It's revealing that the artist names "invisible_fat" as he does. The model doesn't appear to be heavy so much as extremely large-breasted. I'm not sure why someone would think the image is "yucky", though.

The nudity in that image and in "invisible_smoke" is not necessarily gratuitous. "Smoke", especially, could have been very good and interesting if it were executed better than it was.

I disagree with any positive judgments of "invisible_smother". If it is saying anything, it's saying something approximately as novel and interesting as, say, a blue neon "anus" sign. Some of this strikes me as being honest. But this one seems smug, calling into question every other image on the page.

On preview: "Interesting that he has a picture warning about misogyny-inducing pornography...". I assume you refer to "smother". I can't see any such potential message in any of the other images; "smother" is the only one that seems that it might be overtly political in the manner you are asserting. But your assumed message isn't there. It's a woman smothering a prostrate man. How's that warning about misogyny-inducing porn?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:22 PM on January 13, 2005

"The pictures are simple enough: the people in the photos are having the life slowly strangled out of them by my bare hands. Yeah, I know... anyone can kill somebody. But so what? I am doing it, and you're not. You're sitting at home doing nothing."

Just because you're doing something doesn't automatically make it worthwhile.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:47 PM on January 13, 2005

Take posting to Metafilter, for example...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:10 PM on January 13, 2005

What I'm curious about is how true-to-life these really are.

The one that got me curious was the seated smoking naked girl — it appears to be in a restaurant, and you can see people walking around in the background. Was she really naked for the shot, or did he strip her while drawing?

And if that's the case, perhaps there are other alterations to the rest of the set.

(It also makes me want to give it a shot myself…the drawing, not the naked, though that's okay too…)
posted by djwudi at 6:51 PM on January 13, 2005

Nothing...from nothing...
posted by gorgor_balabala at 7:20 PM on January 13, 2005