53 Years of Nuclear Testing in 14 Minutes: A Time Lapse Film by Japanese Artist Isao Hashimoto

It’s strange what can make an impact. Some­times a mes­sage needs to be loud and over-the-top to come across, like punk rock or the films of Oliv­er Stone. In oth­er cas­es, cool and qui­et works much bet­ter.

Take the new time lapse map cre­at­ed by Japan­ese artist Isao Hashimo­to. It is beau­ti­ful in a sim­ple way and eerie as it doc­u­ments the 2,053 nuclear explo­sions that took place between 1945 and 1998.

It looks like a war room map of the world, black land­mass­es sur­round­ed by deep blue ocean. It starts out slow, in July of 1945, with a blue blip and an explo­sion sound in the Amer­i­can southwest—the Man­hat­tan Project’s “Trin­i­ty” test near Los Alam­os. Just one month lat­er come the explo­sions at Hiroshi­ma and Nagasa­ki.

From there the months click by—condensed down to seconds—on a dig­i­tal clock. Each nation that has explod­ed a nuclear bomb gets a blip and a flash­ing dot when they det­o­nate a weapon, with a run­ning tal­ly kept on the screen.

Eeri­est of all is that each nation gets its own elec­tron­ic sound pitch: low tones for the Unit­ed States, high­er for the Sovi­et Union—beeping to the metronome of the months tick­ing by.

What starts out slow picks up by 1960 or so, when all the cold neu­tral beeps and flash­es become over­whelm­ing.

If you’re like me, you had no idea just how many det­o­na­tions the Unit­ed States is respon­si­ble for (1,032—more than the rest of the coun­tries put togeth­er). The sequence ends with the Pak­istani nuclear tests of May 1998.

Hashimo­to worked for many years as a for­eign exchange deal­er but is now an art cura­tor. He says the piece express­es “the fear and fol­ly of nuclear weapons.”

Kate Rix is an Oak­land-based free­lance writer. See more of her work at .

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

63 Haunt­ing Videos of U.S. Nuclear Tests Now Declas­si­fied and Put Online

Kurt Von­negut Gives a Ser­mon on the Fool­ish­ness of Nuclear Arms: It’s Time­ly Again (Cathe­dral of St. John the Divine, 1982)

Haunt­ing Unedit­ed Footage of the Bomb­ing of Nagasa­ki (1945)

How a Clean, Tidy Home Can Help You Sur­vive the Atom­ic Bomb: A Cold War Film from 1954

Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol Demystify Their Pop Art in Vintage 1966 Film

By the mid-six­ties, Roy Licht­en­stein and Andy Warhol had come to define a cer­tain cur­rent of process-inten­sive, only super­fi­cial­ly sim­ple Amer­i­can visu­al art. Licht­en­stein cre­at­ed his work using process­es and mate­ri­als devel­oped for tra­di­tion­al com­mer­cial pro­duc­tion; Warhol devel­oped meth­ods for pro­duc­ing his work as if they were tra­di­tion­al com­mer­cial prod­ucts. This half-hour doc­u­men­tary cap­tures both artists in 1966, dis­cussing their meth­ods in inter­views and exe­cut­ing them in their stu­dios. Licht­en­stein speaks clear­ly and in great detail about how he finds the Amer­i­can land­scape “made up of the desire to sell prod­ucts,” how he decid­ed to por­tray in his paint­ings “an anti-sen­si­bil­i­ty that per­vades the soci­ety” with­in a “struc­ture of half-tone dots and flat print­ed areas,” and his dri­ving notion that “what­ev­er approach one uses, he ought to go as far as he can with it, in order to make as much impact as pos­si­ble.”

Warhol, though, as jour­nal­ists who encoun­tered him will winc­ing­ly remem­ber, was­n’t much for inter­views. Or rather, he grant­ed inter­views, but respond­ed most­ly in ways that rein­forced his per­sona of unknowa­bil­i­ty — indeed, of con­tain­ing noth­ing to be known. “Andy Warhol’s ret­i­cence about him­self masks a unique sen­si­bil­i­ty,” reads the nar­ra­tor. That’s one way of putting it. Here he tells his inter­view­er, who main­tains an admirable equa­nim­i­ty through­out, how nice it would be if he could just be told what sen­tences to answer with, and then repeat them. Yet behind his opaque-look­ing sun­glass­es and inter­cut with footage of his var­i­ous projects, Warhol reveals things, and inter­est­ing ones, about the whats, hows, and whys of his grand enter­prise. He even revealed a detail about his imme­di­ate plans to which audi­ences of 1966 would’ve done par­tic­u­lar­ly well to pay atten­tion: “We’re spon­sor­ing a new band. It’s called the Vel­vet Under­ground.”

Andy Warhol and Roy Licht­en­stein will be added to our col­lec­tion, 4,000+ Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns, Doc­u­men­taries & More.

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

William S. Burroughs Shows You How to Make “Shotgun Art”

It’s no secret that William S. Bur­roughs liked guns. He’s shot both Shake­speare and him­self in effi­gy, and in a bizarre and trag­ic acci­dent, he shot and killed his wife. In addi­tion to shoot­ing at peo­ple, he also shot at spray paint cans to cre­ate abstract paint­ings, known as “shot­gun art.” His paint­ings have appeared in gal­leries and one of them, once owned by Tim­o­thy Leary, was auc­tioned off a few years ago on Ebay. In the film above (date unknown), watch Bur­roughs in action with a rifle. He described the process in an inter­view with Gre­go­ry Ego:

There is no exact process. If you want to do shot­gun art, you take a piece of ply­wood, put a can of spray paint in front of it, and shoot it with a shot­gun or high pow­ered rifle. The paint’s under high pres­sure so it explodes! Throws the can 300 feet. The paint sprays in explod­ing col­or across your sur­face. You can have as many col­ors as you want. Turn it around, do it side­ways, and have one col­or com­ing in from this side and this side. Of course, they hit. Mix in all kinds of unpre­dictable pat­terns. This is relat­ed to Pol­lack­’s drip can­vas­es, although this is a rather more basi­cal­ly ran­dom process, there’s no pos­si­bil­i­ty of pre­dict­ing what pat­terns you’re going to get.

This is, admit­ted­ly, a very lo-fi film. It appears to have been shot on super‑8, and about two thirds of the way through, the cam­era flips upside down, then seems to have been tossed into a car. The sound goes out, and the last minute cap­tures a cloud-strewn Kansans sky speed­ing by in silence. It’s a strange and cap­ti­vat­ing piece of found art that, like Bur­roughs’ work, con­tains casu­al vio­lence, odd per­spec­tives, herky-jerky edit­ing, sud­den con­fu­sion and upheaval, and rare moments of beau­ty.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

When William S. Bur­roughs Appeared on Sat­ur­day Night Live: His First TV Appear­ance (1981)

William S. Bur­roughs Teach­es a Free Course on Cre­ative Read­ing and Writ­ing (1979)

William S. Bur­roughs Sends Anti-Fan Let­ter to In Cold Blood Author Tru­man Capote: “You Have Sold Out Your Tal­ent”

William S. Bur­roughs Explains What Artists & Cre­ative Thinkers Do for Human­i­ty: From Galileo to Cézanne and James Joyce

Josh Jones is a doc­tor­al can­di­date in Eng­lish at Ford­ham Uni­ver­si­ty and a co-founder and for­mer man­ag­ing edi­tor of Guer­ni­ca / A Mag­a­zine of Arts and Pol­i­tics.

Pi in the Sky: The World’s Largest Ephemeral Art Installation over Beautiful San Francisco

Yes­ter­day, on my way to lunch, I looked up and saw it — the world’s largest ephemer­al art instal­la­tion called “Pi in the Sky.” The instal­la­tion fea­tured planes fly­ing through the San Fran­cis­co Bay Area skies, using dot matrix print­er tech­nol­o­gy to write out the first 1,000 dig­its of the num­ber Pi. Pre­sent­ed as part of the 2012 ZERO1 Bien­ni­al, a fes­ti­val cel­e­brat­ing art and tech­nol­o­gy in Sil­i­con Val­ley, the Pi project was the brain­child of ISHKY, an eclec­tic col­lab­o­ra­tion of artists, pro­gram­mers and sci­en­tists look­ing to explore “the bound­aries of scale, pub­lic space, imper­ma­nence, and the rela­tion­ship between Earth and the phys­i­cal uni­verse.” You can learn more about the ini­tia­tive by watch­ing a video (below) from ISHKY’s Kick­starter cam­paign:

And here you can watch the art instal­la­tion in real­time, as we saw it yes­ter­day:

via Giz­mo­do

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

Empire State of Pen: Patrick Vale’s Epic Freehand Drawing of the Manhattan Skyline

Give UK artist Patrick Vale 80 sec­onds, and he’ll show you his free­hand draw­ing of New York City unfold in rapid-fire motion. Vale plant­ed him­self on the 102nd floor of the Empire State Build­ing, looked out­side his win­dow, and began draw­ing, with his iPhone duct taped to a ros­trum and record­ing the action. From start to fin­ish, the draw­ing took, he says in a Huff­Po inter­view, four to five days. He calls the draw­ing of the Man­hat­tan sky­line “Empire State of Pen.” The great Charles Min­gus pro­vides the sound­track.

via Metafil­ter

Fol­low us on Face­bookTwit­ter and now Google Plus and share intel­li­gent media with your friends. You won’t be sor­ry!

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Artists Paint Paris, Berlin and London with High-Tech Video Graffiti

Ear­li­er this year, Blake Shaw and Bruno Levy, two artists who form the mul­ti­me­dia per­for­mance col­lab­o­ra­tion Sweat­shoppe, head­ed to Euro­pean cities (Berlin, Bris­tol, Bel­grade, Lon­don and Paris) and past­ed videos on build­ings, some famous, some not. They call their art “Video Paint­ing,” and it’s all done with cus­tom soft­ware that “tracks the posi­tion of paint rollers and projects video wher­ev­er [the artists] choose to paint.” Every­thing that you see above was shot live, using no actu­al paint or post pro­duc­tion. You can check out more of Sweat­shoppe’s mul­ti­me­dia work here.

via The Atlantic

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Prague Mon­u­ment Dou­bles as Artist’s Can­vas

3D Light Show from Ukraine to Your Liv­ing Room

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Kids Record Audio Tours of NY’s Museum of Modern Art (with Some Silly Results)

In an ear­ly, abortive flir­ta­tion with art school, I learned the tech­nique of saun­ter­ing around a gallery, look­ing alter­nate­ly bored and engrossed in what­ev­er hap­pened to be on the walls, the floor, the ceil­ing, nev­er com­mit­ting to any emo­tion, espe­cial­ly one that might betray my absolute befud­dle­ment with a good bit of mod­ern art. I’m hap­py to look back on that younger self and call him a pre­ten­tious dilet­tante, and hap­pi­er now that I’m old enough not to care if some­one knows that I’m con­fused, irri­tat­ed, or gen­uine­ly bored with some exper­i­men­tal piece that defies my lim­it­ed aes­thet­ic cat­e­gories. One of the things I antic­i­pate most as the father to an already wry and curi­ous one-year-old is hear­ing her unschooled reac­tions to some art­work I once fetishized but nev­er real­ly “got,” since there can often be no bet­ter means of deflat­ing the pompous auras sur­round­ing high cul­ture than let­ting kids have an irrev­er­ent, uncen­sored go at it.

Per­haps this is why Audio Tour Hack decid­ed to har­ness the unvar­nished truths con­tained in “darn­d­est things” with their unau­tho­rized gallery tour enti­tled MOMA Unadul­ter­at­ed (short pre­view above). The “hack,” a clever update on often staid and monot­o­ne gallery audio tours, fea­tures “experts” from kinder­garten to fifth grade pass­ing judg­ment on the work of mod­ern art stars like Andy Warhol, Cy Twombly, and Roy Licht­en­stein. Unadul­ter­at­ed by faux sophis­ti­ca­tion and oner­ous over-edu­cat­ed ref­er­en­tial­i­ty? Yes. A tad bid too cutesy? Per­haps. But even so, still a fun idea, with lots of silli­ness (and if it gets kids inter­est­ed in art, all the bet­ter). At times, the kid crit­ics even drop a bit of adult know­ing­ness into their “any­one could have done this” assess­ment of, say, Jack­son Pol­lack (whom one kid accus­es of “just want­i­ng a lot of mon­ey”). MOMA Unadul­ter­at­ed refers to a per­ma­nent exhib­it and instal­la­tion of paint­ing and sculp­ture on the New York Muse­um of Mod­ern Art’s fourth floor. The tour takes in thir­ty pieces of art, each accom­pa­nied by audio com­men­tary from the kid crit­ics. Vis­it the Audio Tour Hack web­site to lis­ten to the com­men­tary online and see some delight­ful pic­tures of the “unadul­ter­at­ed” com­men­ta­tors.

Cor­rec­tion 9/18/12: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post stat­ed that MOMA Unadul­ter­at­ed was cre­at­ed by the Muse­um of Mod­ern Art. It was not, nor is Audio Tour Hack affil­i­at­ed with MoMA in any way. You can find links to MoMA’s own audio tours (includ­ing tours for kids) here.

via Kot­tke

Relat­ed Con­tent:

MoMA Puts Pol­lock, Rothko & de Koon­ing on Your iPad

Free: The Guggen­heim Puts 65 Mod­ern Art Books Online

Google “Art Project” Brings Great Paint­ings & Muse­ums to You

Jack­son Pol­lock: Lights, Cam­era, Paint! (1951)

Josh Jones is a doc­tor­al can­di­date in Eng­lish at Ford­ham Uni­ver­si­ty and a co-founder and for­mer man­ag­ing edi­tor of Guer­ni­ca / A Mag­a­zine of Arts and Pol­i­tics.

Le Ballet Mécanique: The Historic Cinematic Collaboration Between Fernand Legér and George Antheil

Film is by nature a col­lab­o­ra­tive medi­um, and cer­tain­ly one of the strangest and most inter­est­ing cin­e­mat­ic col­lab­o­ra­tions of all time has to be the 1924 avant-garde film Bal­let Mécanique, which brought togeth­er the mod­ernist lumi­nar­ies Fer­nand Léger, Ezra Pound, Man Ray and George Antheil.

The glue that actu­al­ly held the whole project togeth­er was an unknown young Amer­i­can film­mak­er named Dud­ley Mur­phy, who was liv­ing in Paris and saw Man Ray’s exper­i­men­tal film Le Retour à la Rai­son when it came out in 1923. Mur­phy was so impressed that he sought Man Ray out and sug­gest­ed they work togeth­er on a project. Mur­phy was a tech­ni­cal­ly skilled and well-equipped cin­e­matog­ra­ph­er with sev­er­al films under his belt, so the offer intrigued Man Ray. He said he would do it as long as Mur­phy agreed to work by the Dadaist prin­ci­ple of spon­ta­neous, irra­tional exper­i­men­ta­tion. Mur­phy agreed, and the two men began film­ing scenes togeth­er

Mur­phy also sought help from the poet Ezra Pound. As Susan B. Del­son doc­u­ments in her book, Dud­ley Mur­phy, Hol­ly­wood Wild Card, Pound wrote a let­ter to his father in 1923, say­ing, “Dud­ley Mur­phy, whom I met in Venice in 1908, he being then eleven, turned up a few days ago. His dad is a painter, he is try­ing to make cin­e­ma into art.” Pound was famous­ly gen­er­ous when it came to help­ing oth­er artists, and he agreed to help Mur­phy and Man Ray. “I knew him as a kind­heart­ed man, always ready to help oth­ers,” Man Ray lat­er said of Pound, yet “dom­i­nat­ing­ly arro­gant where lit­er­a­ture was con­cerned.”

The extent of Pound’s direct involve­ment in the mak­ing of Bal­let Mécanique is an open ques­tion, but it’s gen­er­al­ly believed that he exert­ed some aes­thet­ic influ­ence, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the pris­mat­ic mul­ti­ple image shots that call to mind some of the ear­li­er exper­i­ments of Vor­ti­cism, a move­ment Pound was close­ly con­nect­ed with. “The vor­tex,” Pound once wrote, “is the point of max­i­mum ener­gy. It rep­re­sents, in mechan­ics, the great­est effi­cien­cy. We use the words ‘great­est effi­cien­cy’ in the pre­cise sense–as they would be used in a text book of Mechan­ics.” The title of the film was actu­al­ly tak­en from a 1917 piece by Man Ray’s friend, the Dadaist painter Fran­cis Picabia.

In the fall of 1923 Mur­phy began edit­ing the scenes he had shot with Man Ray, but by then they were run­ning out of mon­ey. Pound sug­gest­ed that his friend the cubist painter Fer­nand Léger might agree to see the project through to com­ple­tion. Man Ray knew of Léger’s dom­i­neer­ing per­son­al­i­ty and want­ed no part of it. He left the project and asked Mur­phy (with whom he was still on friend­ly terms) to make sure his name was left out of the cred­its. Pound also arranged for the wealthy Amer­i­can writer and art patron Natal­ie Bar­ney to com­mis­sion a musi­cal score to accom­pa­ny the film. Pound chose a young Amer­i­can com­pos­er he had met ear­li­er in the year named George Antheil, who lived above Sylvia Beach’s Shake­speare and Com­pa­ny book­store.

Antheil accept­ed the com­mis­sion but went his own way, show­ing no inter­est in even see­ing the film while he was work­ing on the music. “From the out­set,” writes Del­son in her biog­ra­phy of Mur­phy, “the film and the score led remark­ably sep­a­rate lives. In his let­ters to Pound dur­ing this peri­od, Antheil made lit­tle or no men­tion of the film.” Not sur­pris­ing­ly, the film and music did not match. The music was twice as long as the com­plet­ed film. In fact the film would even­tu­al­ly be released with­out the music, and the two have only rarely been exhib­it­ed togeth­er.

Although Antheil even­tu­al­ly com­posed sev­er­al vari­a­tions of his score, the ver­sion he fin­ished in 1924 calls for a bizarre group of mech­a­nis­tic or indus­tri­al-sound­ing instru­ments, includ­ing 16 play­er pianos, sev­en elec­tric bells, three air­plane pro­pellers of vary­ing sizes, and a siren. In his man­i­festo “My Bal­let Mécanique: What it Means,” Antheil describes his accom­plish­ment in words that are per­haps more bizarre than the air­plane pro­pellers and siren:

My Bal­let Mécanique is a new FOURTH DIMENSION of music. My Bal­let Mécanique is the first piece of music that has been com­posed OUT OF and FOR machines, ON EARTH. My Bal­let Mécanique is the first piece of music that has found the best forms and mate­ri­als lying inert in a medi­um that AS A MEDIUM is math­e­mat­i­cal­ly cer­tain of becom­ing the great­est mov­ing fac­tor of the music of future gen­er­a­tions.

Math­e­mat­i­cal­ly cer­tain or not, Antheil’s score did go on to exert con­sid­er­able influ­ence. “The tex­tures and effects in this work are,” accord­ing to musi­cian and schol­ar Mark Fend­er­son, “direct pre­de­ces­sors to those used in the music of John Cage, Ter­ry Riley, Philip Glass and John Adams.” Although the music for Bal­let Mécanique would always remain Antheil’s most famous accom­plish­ment, the film itself was some­thing of a foot­note to Fer­nand Léger’s career.

The film begins and ends with Léger’s play­ful image of a cubist Char­lie Chap­lin, along with shots of Mur­phy’s wife Kather­ine relax­ing in a bucol­ic set­ting.  In between it moves fran­ti­cal­ly from image to image, with indus­tri­al engines, man­nequin parts, kitchen­ware, clock pen­du­lums and shapes of pure abstrac­tion appear­ing and reap­pear­ing with machine-like reg­u­lar­i­ty. In one sequence a wash­er­woman climbs a steep stair­way only to keep reap­pear­ing again, like Sisy­phus, at the bot­tom.

The close-ups of a wom­an’s eyes and lips are of Man Ray’s lover and mod­el, Kiki of Mont­par­nasse. In the orig­i­nal ver­sion of the film, Mur­phy had report­ed­ly includ­ed some erot­ic nude images of Man Ray and Kiki embrac­ing, but Léger had them edit­ed out. As a mat­ter of fact, when the film was released the auto­crat­ic Léger arranged to have Mur­phy edit­ed out of the cred­its, despite the fact that Mur­phy was the one who basi­cal­ly made the film–much of it before Léger was even involved. All sur­viv­ing ver­sions of the film, includ­ing the one above, say sim­ply “un film de Fer­nand Léger.”

The sto­ry behind the mak­ing of Bal­let Mécanique reveals a great deal about the per­son­al­i­ties involved: about Pound’s gen­eros­i­ty, Léger’s ruth­less­ness, Man Ray’s wari­ness, Mur­phy’s naiveté, Antheil’s ego­ma­nia. The film itself, accord­ing to the Cir­cu­lat­ing Film Library Cat­a­logue at the Muse­um of Mod­ern Art, “remains one of the most influ­en­tial exper­i­men­tal works in the his­to­ry of cin­e­ma.”

Le Bal­let Mécanique has been added to our meta col­lec­tion of 500 Free Movies Online. You can find it in the sec­tion that includes Silent films.

Relat­ed con­tent:

Anémic Ciné­ma: Mar­cel Ducham­p’s Whirling Avante-Garde Film

Man Ray and the Ciné­ma Pur: Four Sur­re­al­ist Films from the 1920s

 

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast