×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Hand Written Clock

samzenpus posted about 5 years ago | from the up-to-the-minute dept.

Idle 86

a3buster writes "This clock does not actually have a man inside, but a flatscreen that plays a 24-hour loop of this video by the artist watching his own clock somewhere and painstakingly erasing and re-writing each minute. This video was taken at Design Miami during Art Basel Miami Beach 2009."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ummm... (0)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 5 years ago | (#30433498)

Neat but not newsworthy.

Re:Ummm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30433566)

Neat but not newsworthy.

Agreed.

Re:Ummm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30433608)

I don't agree. It's Christmas time. This definitely makes for a great idea for that hard-to-shop for uncle on my list. Best thing - it can also be a DIY project.

Re:Ummm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30433732)

Which is why it's in Idle?

Re:Ummm... (4, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#30433796)

That's why it's in Idle.

Re:Ummm... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#30433836)

That must be why it’s in Idle...

Re:Ummm... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 5 years ago | (#30433898)

Well then I wonder how Idle made front page.

Re:Ummm... (3, Informative)

Spazztastic (814296) | about 5 years ago | (#30433920)

Well then I wonder how Idle made front page.

Adjust your Slashdot homepage to not include Idle, then.

Re:Ummm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30433954)

You know you can edit your preferences to not show idle "news" items.

Re:Ummm... (1)

robertc5 (55078) | about 5 years ago | (#30435040)

You know you can edit your preferences to not show idle "news" items.

It's the America's Top Idle, of course!

Re:Ummm... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30433848)

Don't look in the idle section then. I like these posts because they are entertaining and give me something to read on slow news days.

Re:Ummm... (1)

ddillman (267710) | about 5 years ago | (#30434508)

True enough, but the title did at least claim "Idle".

Creepy (1)

Pushpabon (1351749) | about 5 years ago | (#30433504)

Havin a guy 'inside' my clock would get creepy in no time.

Re:Creepy (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 years ago | (#30433718)

Not to worry. He comes out. At night. And watches you sleep. When he can see that your breathing is deep and even, he collects your tears with a thin glass needle.

Re:Creepy (4, Funny)

Looce (1062620) | about 5 years ago | (#30434120)

A thin hand drawn glass needle.

Re:Creepy (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 years ago | (#30435624)

Drawing thin glass needles by hand is hard.

With the right tools [sutter.com] , though, you can reliably produce glass needles fine enough to sample the contents of a single cell.(Or, presumably, sample your tears right through your eyelid without alerting you.)

Re:Creepy (1)

irp (260932) | about 5 years ago | (#30485612)

Drawing thin glass needles by hand is hard.

With the right tools [sutter.com] , though, you can reliably produce glass needles fine enough to sample the contents of a single cell.(Or, presumably, sample your tears right through your eyelid without alerting you.)

I couldn't decide whether to mod you Informative or Funny. Modding you Funny would have been Redundant, but Informative would have been really Funny...

In the end I realized: I'm at work! I don't have time for this!

Re:Creepy (1)

flydpnkrtn (114575) | about 5 years ago | (#30434490)

Do not fear me gypsy.... I only come for your tears...

Re:Creepy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30435076)

Whoever tagged this as informative needs somebody to talk to...

Re:Creepy (1)

mangu (126918) | about 5 years ago | (#30435880)

He comes out. At night. And watches you sleep.

Funny, that's exactly what my cat [imgur.com] does

24 hours? (4, Insightful)

MattSausage (940218) | about 5 years ago | (#30433554)

Also, I would imagine he only painstakingly did this for 12 hours, no need for 24

Re:24 hours? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 5 years ago | (#30433642)

Unless he DID do it for 24 hours, as in, what you see at 1 O'clock (and 1:01, and 1:02... etc) has 2 different possibilities or occurances.

Re:24 hours? (1)

MattSausage (940218) | about 5 years ago | (#30434220)

Should that be the case: Then THAT, my friend, is ART!

Re:24 hours? (1)

neiko (846668) | about 5 years ago | (#30434868)

Of course...there's no question that he COULD have done it for 24. I could reply to your post saying that he might have done it for 34 hours, but it's still not worth posting.

Re:24 hours? (1)

whitedsepdivine (1491991) | about 5 years ago | (#30435170)

I think a 34 hour clock would confuse people. Maybe a 36 hour clock would work.

Re:24 hours? (1)

MattSausage (940218) | about 5 years ago | (#30435820)

But wait.. what if he did do it for 34 hours by manipulating the clock he was watching and copying to move at 70.5% normal speed, then sped his video up to complete in exactly 24 hours? Holy smokes! I am an ARTISTE! (Mainly because I took his idea, your idea, and put them together, so now I can claim it was all my idea). ART!!!

24 Hours work for a digital clock in Rotterdam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30434884)

Of course you do need 24 hours when working on a digital clock, without AM/PM. As they did last month in Rotterdam. [youtube.com]
This clock is a LOT bigger too.

Re:24 hours? (1)

donkey55b (1630867) | about 5 years ago | (#30435332)

1 hour... he only needed to do it for 1 hour. Think it through. I don't think I need to explain how. In fact, I'm pretty sure he only did one hour.

Re:24 hours? (2, Informative)

bar-agent (698856) | about 5 years ago | (#30436876)

1 hour... he only needed to do it for 1 hour.

No. You notice how he cleaned up around the minute hand? Specifically, how he cleaned the juncture between the minute hand and hour hand? If the hour hand were in a different position, he wouldn't have been able to do that and keep the illusion.

Re:24 hours? (1)

Jojoba86 (1496883) | about 5 years ago | (#30437000)

I think you mean 1 hour and 5 minutes. But then he'd be upside-down at 6:00!

Re:24 hours? (2, Interesting)

iamhassi (659463) | about 5 years ago | (#30448796)

"Think it through. I don't think I need to explain how."

Actually I think you need to think it through and an explanation on how he could do all 12 hours by just doing 1 hour is necessary.

My question is when does the next minute begin? When he finishes cleaning everything off or when he begins wiping it off? I'd probably buy this if they offered it as a computer program and set it up on a tablet inside a box.

Re:24 hours? (1)

orlanz (882574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30560592)

12 hours, 24 hours - talk about having too much time on your hand.

I like... (3, Interesting)

msauve (701917) | about 5 years ago | (#30433556)

this one [yugop.com] better.

Re:I like... (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 5 years ago | (#30433908)

    Ya, I like this one a lot better too. It would have been fun to see with a microtime counter on it. :)

Re:I like... (3, Insightful)

Kesch (943326) | about 5 years ago | (#30435786)

While the Industrious Clock is probably a better "hand-drawn" timekeeper, I'd say the real draw of this is not just the clock face, but the entire mounting in a man sized box with the clock sunken. It then truly looks like you have kidnapped someone, shoved them into a box, and forced them to keep time with whiteboard markers. I'd like to see a pocket watch version with a tiny demon inside.

I want one of these (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | about 5 years ago | (#30433622)

I have the perfect spot already picked out.

Re:I want one of these (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#30433690)

...The bathroom, for the most creepy effect.

Re:I want one of these (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30435490)

I'm going to put 1 of them over my bed.

Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

Re:I want one of these (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#30435588)

I'm going to put 1 of them over my bed.

...and never have sex again!

Oh wait, this is Slashdot. Never mind.

Hey (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 5 years ago | (#30433630)

That's only a 1 minute 27 second segment... where's the link to the full 24-hour video? (And wouldn't looping it every 12 hours be just as effective?)

Re:Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30433950)

Torrent or it didnt happen. :)

Re:Hey (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 5 years ago | (#30434304)

He's not an engineer. He's an artist. Effectiveness is the least determinant. Evocativeness is the primary.

Re:Hey (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 5 years ago | (#30435064)

1:27 is all you need. He draws a minute hand. He waits a minute. He erases it, then draws another one.

It's tedious enough as it is. I can't imagine anybody watching more than two minutes, much less the full twelve hours.

The full video would be useful only for the actual clock installation, which is more novelty act than clock. And for what it's worth, it's his. You want yours, make your own.

buried (1, Troll)

Luke727 (547923) | about 5 years ago | (#30433664)

cool story, bro

I could do it in half the time (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 5 years ago | (#30433698)

Wouldn't it make more sense just to do it for TWELVE hours and maybe loop it 2x per day?

Re:I could do it in half the time (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 5 years ago | (#30433976)

Without seeing the whole thing, you don't know what he did. For all we know, he only did 60 minutes, and 12 hours (60 one minute videos, and 12 more for the movement of the hour hand). It would seem insane to do every single one of the 720 one minute videos.

    I rewatched it, and there's a break at about 53 seconds, where the camera is off to the side, so you can't see if there's a cut between shots.

    If I were doing it, I'd have done the 72 video method, and even have some extras, like where he was cleaning the clock face to fill time randomly. :) Most people have a very short attention span, so even if you had a dozen filler movies, they wouldn't see all of them. They'll watch for maybe 1-2 minutes, but very few people will stare at it for 15 minutes looking for duplicated clips. :)

Re:I could do it in half the time (0, Redundant)

rantingkitten (938138) | about 5 years ago | (#30434930)

But he's not doing this for efficiency. It's supposed to art, and maybe he felt it wouldn't be complete without each hand position actually being drawn individually. That said, I have no idea if he took a shortcut like you suggested. Just saying, artists think quite differently from engineers sometimes.

Re:I could do it in half the time (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 5 years ago | (#30439850)

    I know. He probably liked the art of every single movement being different. :) I'd like to see it, so I could analyze how he did it, and see if he took any shortcuts. If I did it, I definitely would have cheated it a bit. :)

Re:I could do it in half the time (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 5 years ago | (#30448958)

"I rewatched it, and there's a break at about 53 seconds, where the camera is off to the side, so you can't see if there's a cut between shots...If I were doing it, I'd have done the 72 video method, and even have some extras, like where he was cleaning the clock face to fill time randomly."

Agreed. Someone could probably do the entire video in a hour or two, then edit it all together, along with the cleaning fillers. All you have to do is draw the minute, then loop him cleaning back and forth for the remainder of the minute, then draw another minute, loop again, etc. But he'd still need to draw 720 times, and honestly it would probably be easier to record him cleaning for 30 seconds then create 720 loops lasting ~30 seconds.

Re:I could do it in half the time (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 5 years ago | (#30449010)

And at 12:23 pm, he eats a sandwich.

Re:I could do it in half the time (1)

2names (531755) | about 5 years ago | (#30434148)

Wouldn't it make even more sense to just buy a damn clock?

Re:I could do it in half the time (1)

Svartalf (2997) | about 5 years ago | (#30434550)

It would...but then it wouldn't be art...

Re:I could do it in half the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30434632)

It's not even art, did you watch the vid? It's roman numerals with a arrow pointing at each, it's not like it looks significantly nice.

Re:I could do it in half the time (1)

bobsledbob (315580) | about 5 years ago | (#30435550)

Thus, why it's called art.

Re:I could do it in half the time (1)

mafian911 (1270834) | about 5 years ago | (#30477206)

Looks nice? Art doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing to be called art. Art is creativity. Art is about making you think. This is not only a very creative piece of work, but it also required quite a bit of dedication to complete.

If anything, the theme of this very piece may be dedication. Or it could be monotony. Or tedium. Or simplicity, given the featureless form of the clock, and the apparent lack of mechanical parts (which, obviously, is only an illusion).

The rationale for this piece could be one or all of these, and that is what makes it art.

Digital version too... (1)

chico_the_chihuahua (925601) | about 5 years ago | (#30433744)

The Japanese artist Yugo Nakamura designed a piece with a similar theme... in digital! [yugop.com]

It's funny how analog time is glacially slow and digital time is totally manic.

Re:Digital version too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30434062)

Think it's really meant to be a commentary on the modern era?

Where's the repository? (1)

otis wildflower (4889) | about 5 years ago | (#30433790)

Where can I apt-get / yum / emerge / pkg / etc. that application from?

Looks interesting...

Re:Where's the repository? (3, Funny)

SEWilco (27983) | about 5 years ago | (#30435464)

It's an open hardware project. Most people can build one, but it takes 9 months to download the basic hardware. Programming it takes years.

Wrong (5, Funny)

electricbern (1222632) | about 5 years ago | (#30433800)

The clock is wrong. I wonder if it is due to daylight saving time.

Hex Clock is much cooler (1)

arrogance (590092) | about 5 years ago | (#30433860)

The hex clock is WAY cooler than this. And less creepy.

http://www.intuitor.com/hex/hexclock.html [intuitor.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal_time [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hex Clock is much cooler (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 5 years ago | (#30434128)

    Those remind me of something I did a long time ago. I wasn't aware of "Decimal time", but it seemed to make sense to make a base10 time. I wrote a little program that would show the localtime and UTC both natively, and converted to decimal time live. It was interesting to look at for a little while, but served no purpose since no one else used it. :)

Re:Hex Clock is much cooler (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30437460)

Planetfall is a game that comes to mind. Not quite a well known as it's distant cousin Zork, but it was made by Infocom just the same.

I played that game for quite a while before solving it. It had a very weird time system. Eventually I realized it must be base10 time, as you really were far too tired to do much of anything between 8 and 2.

Re:Hex Clock is much cooler (1)

Scutter (18425) | about 5 years ago | (#30434224)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time [wikipedia.org]

Makes more sense, easier to learn and convert in your head, and failed completely for the same reasons that hex time would fail.

Would be more impressive... (4, Funny)

aicrules (819392) | about 5 years ago | (#30433884)

...if he included a second hand.

Hand drawn clock thing too far. (1)

tjstork (137384) | about 5 years ago | (#30433934)

There's been much cooler and more concise hand drawn clocks out there. This one takes a clever idea too far. Now it is annoying. I hate this clock.

Video not playing? (1)

Smivs (1197859) | about 5 years ago | (#30434008)

This won't play for me. If you've got the same problem go here [youtube.com]

I want an attractive digital display (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 5 years ago | (#30434084)

I am amazed that most digital watches still use the same crappy seven-segment LED-displays from thirty years ago. I've look in vain for more attractive numerals, e.g. Times-Romain. Even the high-end digital watches (over $100) use crappy seven-segment numbers.

Re:I want an attractive digital display (1)

VanessaE (970834) | about 5 years ago | (#30453046)

This is a geek forum... wouldn't that be time-ramen?

The digital hand-written clock is better (2, Informative)

csb (23046) | about 5 years ago | (#30434102)

IMHO, the INDUSTORIOUS CLOCK [sic] is the coolest handwritten timekeeper:

http://yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html [yugop.com] ...plus it has one-second resolution.

That's still my favorite, although some prefer Human Clock:

http://www.humanclock.com/ [humanclock.com]

That one requires occasional thought, which makes it suboptimal for a quick time check. Yes, I am that lazy. =-)

Re:The digital hand-written clock is better (1)

bodland (522967) | about 5 years ago | (#30434462)

I hope management doesn't see this...

Just think ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 5 years ago | (#30434116)

... of how fast the elves behind your LCD screen must be working.

Later (1)

wzinc (612701) | about 5 years ago | (#30434456)

Later he found-out he only needed to record a 12-hour video. :-)

Roman Numerals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30434950)

Last time I checked 4 was IV not IIII Now he's got to record the whole thing over :P

Re:Roman Numerals? (1)

Fieryphoenix (1161565) | about 5 years ago | (#30435252)

Ancient Romans historically represented four as IIII. Using IV to represent four has only been standard in modern times. Clock making tradition predates this standardization.

Re:Roman Numerals? (1)

4181 (551316) | about 5 years ago | (#30437786)

See Roman Numerals#IIII vs IV. [wikipedia.org]

--
Hail IVPPITER!

OKAY I GET IT ALREADY (2, Insightful)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about 5 years ago | (#30435024)

This isn't as cool as the INDUSTORIOUS CLOCK and the artist could have looped two 12-hour recordings. Now how about you creativity experts come up with some original comments?

What?! (1)

Geraden (15689) | about 5 years ago | (#30435078)

What?! No second hand??

Effeciency... (0, Redundant)

Innova (1669) | about 5 years ago | (#30435714)

...I would have just made a 12 hour loop and played it twice.

heh (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 5 years ago | (#30437324)

Now that's what I call having too much time on your hands.

A real work of art (1)

babboo65 (1437157) | about 5 years ago | (#30443884)

This is one of the finest traditions in clock making. It shows not only the workmanship of the master clock maker but also the cabinetry of the master woodworker coming together to bring you . . .

the grandfather clock!

Whats the big deal (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about 5 years ago | (#30448484)

I've watched this thing all the way through three times, but I don't understand what the big deal is. It's a real pain since there are no bathroom breaks built into the show.

Maybe a fourth time will bring enlightenment.

Can I get this as a screensaver? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30449458)

I would love to have that running on my PC whenever I am not around. Just think about freaking out the janitor at night!

when does he get sawed in half? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#30484454)

or cut in half by a ninja?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?