Comments on: art or porn or hoax?

art or porn or hoax?

crunchland — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:31:07 -0800

kama3d ~ Made by an anonymous French artist, this series of sculptures of kama sutra positions was supposedly exhibited at the Chambéry Modern Art Museum (Musée d'Art et d'Histoire) recently. Now you can virtually walk around them. Reminscent of that sculpture of Britney giving birth on a bearskin. But are they real? *NSFW* (Note: FLASH)

By: crunchland

crunchland — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:34:25 -0800

I have my doubts about whether these are really the marble statues they claim to be. First, the hair on the guy looks more like a wig -- too brittle to be real marble. Second, marble is heavy. Remember that weird support jutting out of Britney's belly? There are no weird supports here. But I'm not much of an expert. Nevertheless, it's an interesting site to visit.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:36:01 -0800

They're obviously renders. Look at this one, there are polygons that don't line up on the guy's butt. The rendering is really good, but the scene itself is pretty cheesy and doesn't look like very much like any real museum. The whole thing is very lazily done.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:45:10 -0800

You forgot to mention that for every sculpture, you can submit information on your demographics, and your own personal experience with the position...

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 04:04:14 -0800

Yeah, also it would have cost a fortune to film these 360° shots if they were physical objects.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 04:08:18 -0800

Add that the url for the site is part of the platforms on each sculptures. I think it's interesting that the guy (and I'm sure it's a guy) who made these felt he had to legitimize them by concocting this story about them. I mean, I dig the smooth scrolling of the flash, and the 3-dimensional effect of moving around the sculptures. I don't think I'd appreciate them less if he just came out and said he rendered them.

By: Orb

Orb — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 04:32:46 -0800

Poser, and not even especially well done Poser (the broken polygons all over the place). At first glance, I considered they might have been created from 3d model files with a rapid prototype machine (I've seen that done), but the room they are in? Totally unnatural ... and rendered. Aside from other things, notice how the base appears to float on the floor. I don't care how good your lighting set-up is for a photo shoot, you will end up with a few more light variations and shadows than what I see here. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 04:55:33 -0800

for the artist's sake I hope it's poser. these things have a comic book understanding of anatomy.

By: If I Had An Anus

If I Had An Anus — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:12:20 -0800

art and porn is hoax.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:14:33 -0800

pfft, what a pathetic back story, nobody will fall for that. agreeing with crunchland.

By: dowcrag

dowcrag — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:25:46 -0800

Check the bloke's hair - you get floating polygons all over the place, and that level of thin-ness would be impossible in marble, I reckon. I wonder if he ought to get out more...

By: DenOfSizer

DenOfSizer — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:27:07 -0800

To their credit, these "sculptures" are actually more educational and illustrative than the Britney/Bearskin sculpture, which, if I remember correctly, was supposed to have been some bizarre anti-choice statement. At least with these you get a pretty clear sense of the mechanices of the poses. (Assanas? Whatever.)

By: Orb

Orb — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:59:21 -0800

Had they presented it as "look at these renders of Kama Sutra poses I put together", I would have thought "how cool." Trying to pass it off as marble sculptures that have been shown in a real room somewhere just sort of puts me off. They are cool, but as renders, they could have been improved with just a little post-render work. More careful attention to detail, and it might have been harder to say they weren't real. And yeah, I've done a little work with marble (very little), and that hair? Not so sure that would be possible at all in that medium.

By: eustacescrubb

eustacescrubb — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:24:11 -0800

Hey, I've had sex in all those positions, and I never read any Kama Sutra.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:44:55 -0800

Funny how the 3D presentation heightens the impression that you're looking at pornography rather than art.

By: sindark

sindark — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:46:08 -0800

delmoi, "Yeah, also it would have cost a fortune to film these 360° shots if they were physical objects." One tripod, one digital camera, one minimum wage lackey to move it around. How much could that cost?

By: Wolfdog

Wolfdog — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:05:22 -0800

The pricey bit is paying for a mover who can cart each of those statues in and out of the room through that small hole in the wall so they can be photographed in the present pine-boards-and-oddly-featureless-walls setting. Also, probably establishing a "Chambery Modern Art Museum" was a nontrivial enterprise.

By: cardoso

cardoso — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:11:05 -0800

Great site, great idea, lame excuse. Really, we don't need fabulous backstories to think something is cool.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:16:37 -0800

Well, for what it's worth, there is a "Musée d'Art et d'Histoire" Chambéry.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:27:29 -0800

But you're right, Wolfdog. Based on the size of that tiny doorway, these sculptures would easily be double life-sized. The text says the artist was born in 1963, making him 43 years old. Considering the scale, and the time it would take to carve each of these out of marble, and add that there are no stylistic changes between any of them, I can't see how it'd be remotely possible. Complete bunk.

By: jacquilynne

jacquilynne — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:35:33 -0800

I find the most fascinating artistic statement on this page to be the default choices in the drop down menus for reporting your experiences.

By: F Mackenzie

F Mackenzie — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:38:33 -0800

I thought is was nice of the sculpturer to carve the website name in marble.

By: adamrice

adamrice — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:38:46 -0800

Regardless of whether the sculptures are fake, the chick's tits definitely are.

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:01:49 -0800

MetaFilter: The whole thing is very lazily done.

By: elgilito

elgilito — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:50:52 -0800

Yes, it's definitely Poserish. Just for the fun, here's a quick and dirty attempt to replicate the setup (QTVR, 7Mb, some polygonal nudity) in Cinema 4D with some big area lights and low quality global illumination (hence the artefacts). Took 30 mn to render. I don't have finalRender near at hand right now otherwise it would have been better. Interestingly, it's the second time in a row that I see someone trying to pass off a rendering as a photograph.

By: Samizdata

Samizdata — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:00:42 -0800

Not only that, but, if my reading memory serves me right, there was no "The 69" per se in the Kama Sutra...

By: eustacescrubb

eustacescrubb — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:20:00 -0800

Samizdata, That was my point in my post above.

By: JWright

JWright — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:36:10 -0800

Those are absolutely not physical sculptures. They're nicely done, but they're 100% digital.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:47:03 -0800

The dead give-away for me, is the name of the web site "carved" into the base of each statue (in relief no less). Just as a visual antidote, how about some Rodin perhaps his Cupid and Psyche, or even la Danaide which strikes me as disturbing and erotic in its emotional charge. These don't even strike me as pornographic because even pornography is grounded in the illusion that someone is having fun. These have all the clinical emotive content of medical photos.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:47:04 -0800

I see that everyone has beaten me to the Poser, as it were. Not that Poser stuff, in itself, is bad, but this particular set isn't very good. The poses were probably purchased, and applied without any knowledge of how to modify them or textures. The background is pathetic, the lighting is abysmal, the clipping and broken polygons make the baby jesus cry. But, good poser can be done. Horus, Pieta, and Venus, for example.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:51:38 -0800

crunchland writes "The text says the artist was born in 1963, making him 43 years old. Considering the scale, and the time it would take to carve each of these out of marble, and add that there are no stylistic changes between any of them, I can't see how it'd be remotely possible." How long would it take to carve a life sized statue of two people entwined out of marble? Within the limits of the craft, no impossible hair etc.?

By: crunchland

crunchland — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:07:56 -0800

I'm certainly no expert, but I'd guess it would take months to make just one.

By: Orb

Orb — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:35:20 -0800

Here's an article about a stunning marble piece first sculpted in clay and plaster and then carved from the marble by a milling machine. It took the machine three months, and then they had to finish it by hand doing the undercuts and smoothing/polishing (they don't mention how long that took -- from start to finish she mentions 2 1/2 years, though that may have been from conception not beginning the work). The guessimate to do what the machine had done by hand was a year ... which would have still left all the hand finishing to do.

By: schroedinger

schroedinger — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:09:51 -0800

Does anyone else find their facial expressions creepy? The juxtaposition of the girl's enjoyment with the man's impassivity is distressing.

By: spacewaitress

spacewaitress — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:40:36 -0800

Three thoughts: 1. I don't care that it's fake. I liked it. 2. This would be a stunning way to reproduce famous sculpture for online viewing. Part of enjoying sculptures in an art museum is the kinetic aspect, viewing the pieces from all sides, observing how they seem to "move" as you interact with them. Imagine being able to view the Venus de Milo this way without going to the Louvre. 3. Is anyone doing this with porn? 'cause if not, they should be. You'd have to get a fancy rig like the kind they used to do "bullet time" in the Matrix, but think how much more interactive your porn could be if you could manipulate the angle to get the one that really, ah, does it for you.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:57:05 -0800

One tripod, one digital camera, one minimum wage lackey to move it around. How much could that cost? Well, yeah, but that wouldn't have the smooth perfict motion seen in the video. You would have to use a robot, It would cost at least $10k, I imagine, which isn't really a 'fortune' but if they were really going to do it would make more sense to just use a rotating platform...

By: crunchland

crunchland — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:11:34 -0800

Wait ... they sell data for figure rendering software that allows you to render people having sex? Right out of the box? O brave new world that has such people in it.