Cinemagraphs (aka Hair GIFs): The lowest form of GIF. I’ve explained why I don’t like them in the past, so I won’t go in to it again today. Mostly, I’m posting this as a reminder to myself that some GIFs really are terrible.
Previous post: The Unsparing Vision of Alice Neel
{ 8 comments }
Indeed.
“The lowest form of GIF”… haha!! Contemporary art is so cute!
cinemagraph are lowest form, which are highest form? i argue it is also the cinemagraph, tehy exist simulatanously at both ends of spectrum with regard to, beauty ,concept aesthetic and ,technique. you post gif of day every day. usually from girl artists. i skim through you essay Hair GiFS Make Headlines. no real criticism other than you hate it. comments from girls. low brow jokes from boys. these exhemplify the true nature of cinemagraph. u hate it because u feel above the developers intellect. they are trolling u. it is a big joke. do u like them more now? u have been owned by cinemagraphs. you have sucum to the power and magic of high brow animation. look at the girl in top cinemagraph. good hair, pretty curls. you hate woman now pady? it is art by women for woman. stop being such a hater. you celebrate this kind of stuff, Why even bring up Cinemagraphs other than some sort of unusual power complex you must have to trash someone slses hard work. I hate cinemagraphs
1. The reason these things are called cinemagraphs is to give them currency as mini-films. They don’t need that currency. GIFs as GIFs are fine.
2. Mimcry of another medium reads as false and inauthentic. If you want to make a short video, make a short video. If you want to make a gif, why not work with its giffiness?
3. These are cheesy fashion photos. I don’t have a problem with that—it’s dressing these things up as something else that I don’t like. I do not like work that postures.
people like cinemagaphs, who cares what theyre called? sorry you’re still cheesed about something you read in the DAILY MAIL three years ago. well guess what? DEMOCRACY wins. cinemagraphs arent just good gifs, they’re good art… this feels like an occasion of the PUBLIC celebrating a newly-identified-but-alreadymade artifact. (Like, identifying/reifying the iPad as an intermediate mobile device between the computer, e-reader and smartphone, when the tablet had existed for years already). Cinemagraphs are really gifs. Cinemagraphs are really gifs. Vive la cinemagraph
Why do you think this is good art?
lol look at how this dudes cinemagraph blog has been hijacked and now has some injected Viagra spam on it. http://www.cfcinemagraph.com/carlos-filipe-flores-contact/ you better make sure your wordpress has the latest updtes paddy or else pto cinemagraph hackers will try all the usual tricks on this blog too .
but in all seriousness i think a conversation about the ‘jiffyness of a gif’ might have been relevant 10 years ago but nowadays idk if theres anything more to say. cinemagraphs do a fine job of exploiting 256 colors to appear 16-bit-color-like. that alone is an interesting exploration and moreover exploitation of ‘giffyness’ .. if you want to suggest there evn such is a thing but as jenifer chan puts it, a gif is a gif. but both of yal are off base i mean did you ever really take the time to inspect the filetype of the original cinemagraphs? theyre APNGs. they have a .gif extension but the browser processes them as an animated PNG. see for yourself im not even joking. its like beyond next level conceptual troll art that has everyone in on it and not in on it at the same time.
I’m not exactly sure what the grievance is and wonder why experienced giffers are so resistant. It sort of goes to show how conservative we’ve become despite free distribution and open participation. If Takeshi Murata can data mosh and so can I, why can’t Bjork use it?
and tumblr is somewhat of a “mass” technology anyway… they are owned by yahoo (a 41 billion dollar company) for cryin out loud!!!
Net artists complain that net aesthetics are marginal but when something like this is rearticulatedin pop/high culture it becomes less “cool” and subversive I guess?
Comments on this entry are closed.