Wow, great piece, the sound was also amazing.
The answer to the question would be literal : budget.

i love

Very impressive. I think there’s also tension coming from the general feeling that the models might jump out at you at any moment. They’re mostly solid-feeling, but not to the point of trying to force the impression of solidity — there’s a simultaneous touch of instability that is in line with the fact that CG models can do anything at any speed. I think they use the different speeds of motion to generate tension. Also, the sounds really immerse you more fully in the piece.

This makes me think about my guts, pores and arteries uncomfortably. I love it!

That is the finest mission statement put forth in the past eleven years.

I don’t get it.

The “making of” video didn’t show any making of, really. It just showed a bunch of staccato frames of objects - modeled? physically constructed? I can’t tell.

The mission statement is odd, too: we use computer graphics when it’s cheaper and/or more effective.

I can’t tell what’s CG, I can’t tell what’s physical (if anything). I can’t tell what 95% of the forms are supposed to represent or even inspired by. It doesn’t make me think of my pores, I don’t think the models might jump at me at any point, and I certainly don’t have the reaction of some of the people on Motionographer - “religious experience”, “orgasm” - really?

Can someone tell me what I’m missing?

In my opinion, it’s a poorly phrased question in the mission statement.

Many of the folks reading this blog know dozens of reasons why you would use computer graphics. It’s not simply “budget” -although that could be one factor.

There is a generation of artists who prefer digital tools, who make better work with computer graphics than they do with practical materials.

Once a technique, and the purveyors of that technique, become a fetish it’s a short line to kitsch and ultimately creative irrelevance.

Fortunately for us the work in this piece is stronger than the mission statement -a rareity in the art world.

Somewhat pretty but ultimately boring.

When anything is possible, nothing is impossible. Without the potential for conflict, there can be no development.

I don’t think I know exactly why I like this video. Something about the tension they achieve with the “contained chaos” of the elements they utilize, that produces a very visceral, surreal and mesmerizing experience.

Looking at their blog, it seems Kanye West liked the video too. I’m already excited at the prospect of the Zeitguised group making a music video for him :)

PS: And the “exploding heart” sequence they made for MTV is pretty sweet too. Sugarly sweet in fact ;-)

Beautiful. It’s proof that CG (and animation of any kind) can be entertaining when it’s not slave to explicit narrative. I’d rather watch this than HORTON…

Once a technique, and the purveyors of that technique, become a fetish it’s a short line to kitsch and ultimately creative irrelevance.

“Fetish?” What nonsense. The same could be said about why 90% of CG cartoons today are unimaginative junk.

There is a generation of artists who prefer practical tools, who make better work with cameras and paper than they do with simulated materials.

People line up at the great museums on earth to look at and be moved by great works done over centuries with paper, pencil and paint. Not quite irrelevant, to this or any generation.

genius stuff.

Wonderful stuff.

“There is a generation of artists who prefer practical tools, who make better work with cameras and paper than they do with simulated materials.”

The key word here is “practical”. Obviously creating imagery such as this is much more practical in CG; just as there are things that are much more practical in traditional techniques. No need to attempt brain surgery with a chainsaw, or plough a field with a toothpick. The more tools we have, the wider the possibilities, the less constraints (just need to apply them right) - I fail to see how that can be a bad thing.

How droll, Mr. Drage.

The description states that it is “an experimental CG short,” but the mission statement asks “If it can be shot in camera … why use computer graphics?” Apparently the explicit intention is to blur the distinctions between the two (which I find to be a lightweight objective, but whatever), so is it so surprising that someone might not clearly be able to identify each and every element’s origin?

Why not make yourself and your spectacularly superior visual acuity useful and provide a complete inventory of which is which?

(As an aside, comprehension fail? The “can you tell me what I’m missing” is a challenge to the meaning of this piece that appears to elicit such superlatives. What did YOU get out of it?)

JG - my thoughts exactly!

I hope you all have better animation skills than reading comprehension.

Why not make yourself and your spectacularly superior visual acuity useful and provide a complete inventory of which is which?
OK here’s an itemised list for ya.
1. This CGI short: CGI.

What appeals to me most about this piece is best summed up in the mission statement of Zeitguised: “If it can be shot in camera or animated using manual techniques, why use computer graphics?”

Guys, it was Amit, not Zeitguised, who applied this statement to this particular film. Not really sure why he thought this ‘best summed up’ a 100% CG short but there you go.

ok just ‘me’ was supposed to be bolded above, sorry.