In which this humble author, with tongue sometimes planted in cheek:
1. Shares a how-to video on datamoshing.
2. Forbids the use of the word datamoshing in future.
3. Challenges obscenely-gifted motion artist David O’Reilly to a rumble.

Here’s the story so far: there’s a compression artefact created when videos are compressed improperly, which causes frames to melt into one another like wax. And so, among others, we recently saw on CDM the music video Evident Utensil, a video that intentionally (ironically?) overused that effect until you started seeing missing p-frames and i-frames in real life and/or threw something at your computer in disgust. The most interesting part of that story wound up being a guy with a few dozen YouTube views who posted videos with this effect like they were home movies, and he seemed to actually speak in a language made up of compression artefacts, and he showed up in comments and said, insightfully I thought:

drul pixel the. teh pix pi pi aph afgh. $$$342agph. fafpht. :D :D :D !!!! teh. teh teh!!!!1 fteh ftehapple.>>>>VLC<<<< wmv &&&scrub vidcodec. mma ek :D S:D sence video. :D ghsg :) VLC VCKL :( wmv wmv ##raghg drool pixels<<>>_>baby. :D crazy like a fox. :P :D :D :D !!!! $$# ragha arugh pi pii pi squeez VLC%%%charflit, flarhfit. ckharlift. :( :( bad babyb, bad band. teh teh teh!!!! the

This is, of course, what baby boomlet parents fear will become the lingua franca of their children, as kids text nonsense to one another rather than paying attention to Pre-Algebra class. I think that probably doesn’t matter, because by the time those kids are grown up they’ll be jacked into the Matrix anyway, and to save money, the Matrix will be full of compression artefacts.

You probably think I post everything without remorse. You probably think I’m a hipster, lounging on a bed of PBR cans and spouting nonsense words for occasional blips of Boing Boing fame, that tomorrow I’ll have my own brand of steampunk datamosh. But believe it or not, thoughts do flash through my brain as I’m writing – well, at least some of the time. On those occasions, conflicting sentiments blink like so many p-frames in the frontal lobe of my brain:

1. (*&$#! With this video out, now Timbaland is probably going to rip off this effect.
2. Once you know how to do it, it’s not that interesting any more.
3. Wait, but if everyone knows how to do it, maybe people will be forced to figure out something creative and artistic, because other visualists will totally laugh at them otherwise, like when they go to some uber-hip VJ festival in Austria and some demoscene guys with beards say “har, har, these Americans don’t know how to program. I have a whole glitched-out virtual reality I programmed in one byte of code.”
4. David O’Reilly is totally going to beat me up and take my lunch money because I used the term datamosh. And I kinda deserve it.
5. I love ffmpeg. This is an excuse to talk about ffmpeg. I’m going to talk about this so I can mention ffmpeg.

But then I remember, you’re reading this.

So, let the record state:

1. When in doubt, assume nothing I or other contributors on CDM say is meant to be taken entirely seriously.
2. Datamosh is a silly term, and we will use it no more.
3. This how-to video is awesome and beautiful because it doesn’t take itself at all seriously. It is, as a result, immune to certain forms of critical analysis.
4. David O’Reilly is more talented than anyone mentioned in that earlier post.
5. I’m kind of peeved at David O’Reilly.

Let’s skip to point 5.

Novelty, and Why Go for Baroque

David O’Reilly makes some of the best motion work I’ve ever seen – not exaggerating. Apparently, some of his fans saw the more recent, primitive compression effects on YouTube as a rip of his work. I sure didn’t see it that way, not because O’Reilly’s use of the effect came first, but because it was infinitely subtler and still looks fresher today.

Unfortunately, David decided to post a rebuttal to all of this:

Datamoshing is so over!

“First of all, datamoshing is an extremely lame title for the effect”

I agree.

Okay, I did put it in a headline. But I never claimed my headlines were “edgy” and not just, some of the time, “lame.”

I think David is ascribing a greater degree of intent to all of this than maybe it deserves, but fine, I’ll accept that naming something is an attempt to make it novel.

“While I did what was probably the first intentional transition using compression back in early 2005…”

I’m curious about this. Was David really the first to use an intentional compression transition as late as 2005? That strikes me as both unlikely and in conflict with the whole point of his post.

The video to which he’s referring is utterly amazing. Claiming it was the first at anything – even casually – undercuts David’s (rightful) argument, that it’s how expressive something is that matters, not how “new” it is. And once you bring up the issue of novelty, I’d be stunned if someone hadn’t tried this earlier than 2005. There’s just no way. I could be wrong; if anyone can come up with an example earlier than 2005, let me know. (2005, wow, that was … okay, only four years ago.)

“I never structured my identity around it or overused it.”

Actually, David’s video on Vimeo is entitled a “compression reel,” has countless views, and he sells compression t-shirts. To the extent that he never overused the effect, that I can get behind. But why the need for protest? And, for that matter, is there anything wrong with marketing the effect, as David did? Ultimately, people will have to decide who does it best, and I think David has a real edge there. I even think his t-shirt is cool. But now, if I take his argument literally, I’m going to have to buy 1000 t-shirts from him.

Compression: the t-shirt.

For that matter, I’m not even sure I agree with David’s fundamental argument. What’s wrong with structuring (some of your) work around a particular effect? The criticism here is that it’s not done artfully — which is a more than reasonable criticism. But it’s not necessarily better to use more techniques than fewer. Sometimes, something can be more expressive by focusing on a single technique and exploring it – not as a way of getting more YouTube views because it’s novel, but as a personal experience as an artist.

Ironically, he singles out Kai’s Power Tools, which I think is the exception that proves the rule. Kai’s effects got overused, it’s true. But Kai Krause had, second only to the early Xerox and Mac teams, an enormous impact on user interfaces today. In fact, the “drop shadow” effect David claims is embarrassing is probably on your Mac, Windows, or Linux computer screen right now, making it clear which two-dimensional window is in the foreground. It wasn’t a matter of whether the effect was overused, but whether it was used with a purpose. With a purpose, you could actually use only glow effects but make them interesting, a bit like you can make a piece of music with a single rhythmic motive.

More telling:
“It’s not a big deal that it’s now mainstream.”

Absolutely. Ah, but that’s the rub. The line between “underground” and “mainstream” has been nearly obliterated by the Web. “Underground” may still exist, but it’s entirely unpredictable when a video will blow up and go mainstream. The mainstream is also able to mine the underground with terrifying new efficiency because they have access to what everyone is doing.

That could be destructive. Or it could prevent people from marketing novelty, which could be a good thing. If you want to do nothing but work with compression, go for it – you’ll just have to make it personally distinctive rather than relying on the effect itself. David does that brilliantly, so I don’t know what he’s complaining about.

And, indeed, you’re free to do something badly and share it with the world. Such is the democratic nature of the Web. Certainly, not everything I do is brilliant, but there’s something lovely about the power to share it anyway.

Then, oddly, David decides to finish by quoting Tarkovsky. I’m actually just as interested in what David thinks as Tarkovsky, but here it is:

“When exaggeration is not inherent in the imagery, but is merely an exaggerated attempt to desire and please, it’s a sign of provincialism, of the wish to be noticed as an artist”

Tarkovsky is making a specific aesthetic argument. No matter how much you respect his work, there’s no reason to take what he’s saying as law, just by virtue of him being Tarkovsky. (Composers used to follow Wagner. Yikes.) In fact, I think it’s a natural response to the availability of lots of digital effects that some artists will go rococo with their tools and exaggerate well beyond what’s inherent in imagery. And YouTube allows a kind of hyper-provincialism, all of which could be really interesting.

We are, naturally, in a kind of Neo-Rococo age in which effects are exaggerated and celebrated for their own life. At the same time, we have the ability to create a concurrent counter-movement that does just the opposite. Future art historians will have their work cut out for themselves by the Web – or maybe art history as we now know it will cease to exist. (Because of the impermanence of media, the art, too, may cease to be – but speaking as a person who values live performance, that may or may not turn out to be a tragedy.)

As an artist, I have to choose what to do about all of this. But as a writer, I have a wonderful luxury: I can stand back and watch what happens.

And I do appreciate Mr. O’Reilly protesting, honestly. Someone had to say something, rather than just accept all of this as given. I think this stuff is worth debating. Too often, the Web is just people posting stories that say “hey, look at this,” and it’s one-dimensional – no one bothers saying that one thing is better than another thing, even when it obviously is. But since he did bring up the matter of debate or opinion, well, I have some opinions of my own.

Overusing effects? Sometimes, it’s just a sign of the times. Photo: Jose Maria Cuellar.

I think closing with quotes is also a terrible idea, so I’ll respond by closing with some Yogi Berra.

“You can observe a lot just by watching.”

“If you can’t imitate him, don’t copy him.”

“This is like deja vu all over again.”

-Berra

Oh, yeah, I forgot – I was looking forward to talking about ffmpeg.

So…. ffmpeg. Go download it. Make something we haven’t seen before. You won’t be able to invent a new effect, because even if you do, it’ll be mainstream-appropriated by tomorrow. So you’ll just have to go make something that’s distinctively you.

Just don’t listen to me.

Or Tarkovsky. Or David O’Reilly. Or this datamosh guy.

But definitely not to me.

  • silvertron

    I don't know of Takeshi Murata's "Monster Movie," also 2005 predates David O'Reilly or not. Either way Murata's work is sublimely beautiful. Too bad his recent works are only available in limited editions.

  • http://experimentaclub.com/druhb Jaime Munarriz

    Great! I just explained codecs to my master pupils, and talked about time and spatial compression. But I didn't know a way to get rid of Iframes. I really love it!
    Thank you so much. Over? Of course not!

  • http://gieskes.nl gijs

    mooieschijt == beautifulshit.

  • http://createdigitalmusic.com Peter Kirn

    @gijs: that's brilliant. Now that's a term I can get behind.

  • jimmy

    why so serious?

    i guess what i got out of this was: David O’Reilly isn't good because he has sweet tools, he's good because he knows his art.

    everything you need to create is available to anyone, all the time, free. but owning a paintbrush doesn't make you a painter.

  • http://createdigitalmusic.com Peter Kirn

    I thought I told you: I wasn't serious. ;)

    And yeah, that was the idea of what you were supposed to get. O'Reilly absolutely knows his art. I also happen to disagree with the points he made – partly because I think it's possible to take things too seriously. And as far as the Tarkovsky quote, the issue is, I think it is possible to make art out of artifice and celebrate the very things about digital effects that make them "exaggerated" or even in conflict with the material.

    Peter

  • http://www.memo.tv memo

    this is an awesome post! I didn't really get the bits about david oreilly… but respect to datamosher for the lengthy tutorial! opensource all the way! only way forward m/ (and congrats on the gorgeous chairlift video too of course!)

  • http://createdigitalmusic.com Peter Kirn

    It's worth reading David's story on why Datamoshing is Over to understand why I rebut the point.

    Basically, I agree that using an effect and assuming that will carry some kind of novelty is silly. Where I disagree is that it's the use of a single effect as a technique that's the problem. And I don't think data compression is "over," precisely because the point was never that it was "edgy" in the first place — it's cool when it's used in cool ways, or from the perspective of the artist, when they feel like it's expressive in their own work.

    And I'm a believer in even creative overuse or artificial use of an effect as a valid choice, too.

  • http://www.memo.tv memo

    hmm yea David's post is an interesting one, he seems to be saying 'I was the first to use this effect intentionally in a creative and nice fashion, now lots of people have started using it and it's mainstream and boring the fad is over'. I think his point about not using an effect for the sake of it is a valid point, but the line between when it is required and not is a very blurred one. The chairlift video is still gorgeous, maybe it isn't a straight visual interpretation of the song, but it is complementary to it, so double thumbs up from me :P

    I'd just like to point out that Cher did not invent the vocoder. Yet she was single-handedly responsible for the rise of the dreaded IEEEIIEAAAH sound in every goddamn cheesy pop/hiphop/rnb song in the late nineties. Was she responsible for killing the vocoder, was the vocoder 'over' after that? We probably did all hate it for a while, but of course the vocoder is not 'over'.

    Datamosher did mankind a great service. By fully explaining and demonstrating the technique, he's made it accessible to everyone, to the extent that the effect has no technical novelty anymore. No one is gonna say 'oooh amazing effect, how did you do that?' which means only the videos where it actually 'works' are gonna stand out… emphasizing creativity over techy gimmicks.

    And thats why opensource rules (^_^)

  • http://www.airtightinteractive.com felix

    I'm with Peter on this one. David's post is inexplicably mean-spirited for someone who is so talented and successful. Also the Venetian Snares video he refers to only use compression artifacts for about 3 seconds. Why isn't he happy he has inspired other video artists?

  • Pia Philips

    i think David gave a really intelligent post on this subject, it was short and to the point. It seems here that Peter is bit hurt by it as if it was directed at him, but I don't think it was.

    The term was spread all over the place a few weeks ago… he kind of has a right to stand up against all the datamoshing headlines, he figured this stuff out himself years ago, the guy is a true independent.

  • joem

    Yeah, I just want to say that _I_ invented this effect, back when I was a freshman in high school downloading videos (don't ask) off of alt.binaries.something-i'd-prefer-not-to-mention and one of the unjoined parts (I believe it was filename.003) was only half downloaded, but I decided to join all the parts anyway! That was the trippiest por^H^H^H video I had ever seen.


    In all seriousness though, after trying to avoid such compression errors for years upon years in my video work (reputable, I swear), I can't stomach this effect. Especially when taken to Kanye levels of exploitation.

  • joem

    Whoops, forgot to mention explicitly that all the concern over who "invented" it is indeed crap and should not really be focused on at all. It's about as useful as arguing over who was the first American chef to use nori in a dish. It's impossible to pin down, and after however many years it's been, it's completely unimportant. In fact, to this day, plenty of people are still unaware of nori.

  • http://createdigitalmusic.com Peter Kirn

    Pia: I'm not hurt by David's post, not in the least. Actually, if anything, I'm not sure who David was directing this at – Kanye West? This apparently independent music video director? Data compression hasn't exactly reached cult status a la chiptune on the music side.

    But anyway, absolutely David has the right to stand up to conventional wisdom. I applaud that.

    I happy to have the right to do the same, though, to offer my own opinion.

    Uh, that said, yes, David does win out on being *short* in his post. That's okay, I'm paying for this server and I charge myself by the word. ;)

    I'm going to use all of this as an opportunity to start promoting the use of the term "mooieschijt" which I think is better than things like "datamosh" (or the single most meaningless word in the live visual language, "VJ".)

  • http://www.digitalmediajockey.com Kevin Hackett

    I just want to say thanks to everyone for sharing their points of view. I've become a huge fan of this site and really enjoy what everyone has to say.

    Peter, I agree, VJ is a meaningless term. I've been calling myself a Digital Media Jockey (DMJ) since 1999.

    This post just adds to my always expanding library of ways to jockey media and the insightful feedback gives it more meaning and a rich history.

    I hope to be contributing more as I work through some new performance techniques to jockey audio and video together. These new media controllers and the ever growing array of software is opening a lot of new ideas and possibilities. I see so much great stuff here, its all very inspiring.

    Much thanks to all.

  • Beebles

    Invented? This effect invented itself, it was inherent in the technology – all we hu-mans did was notice when the wires crossed THEMSELVES and then replicate that result. Does anyone honestly think that lossy codec coders didnt mess with this years ago? The ancients of glitch were trading similar clips on BBSs over a DECADE ago, (deep breath) *before internets!*

    Big tip o' the hat to datamosher for sharing a repeatable technique!

  • Jeffbbz

    There is no way that this was only discovered in 2005. I was mildly fooling around with this myself in 2005 and I'm not even an awesome and internet/tiny portion of hip big city population renowned person. Of course I wasn't purposely badly compressing, I was just messing around with badly downloaded movies burnt to scratched cds. And dang! now that I have finally gotten around to doing some stuff, I'm not allowed to use it anymore? Dang the world of fast moving internet/digital art trends! DANG! If someone does anything, no one else is ever allowed to do anything at all similar to it!

  • http://www.accentfeed.blogspot.com Miguex

    I loved the video- explanation..
    I was craking up the entire time.. the ninja turtle guy.. everything.. that video is gold. Thanks for sharing!

  • 639me

    i actually started asking for a way to delete the keyframes six-seven years ago. didn't really push it though. semed like no interest.
    but i like this, just as much as any other cheesy effect. overdose causes nausea, we all know..
    but as a realtime effect? i'd use it

  • Pingback: Create Digital Motion » Liquidify Video, Live: Optical Flow GLSL Datamosh Technique

  • Pingback: Maker Night Out in Kansas City « Someoneknows

  • Pingback: Create Digital Motion » More Fun with Pixels: Painting with the Camera in Processing, Glitch Endless Moshinating

  • phi

    of course all this has been done far earlier than 2005 (e.g. 2003 by tatiana marusic: http://tatjanamarusic.com/video/) but who cares, the evident utensil video ist nice, i like it more that the venetian snares.

  • http://www.hellocatfood.com Antonio

    has anyone managed to do any datamoshing on Linux/Ubuntu? I've tried doing it using ffmpeg in the command line but failing miserably

  • stein

    linux: the -g option to ffmpeg specifies keyframes.

    ffmpeg -i infile.flv -g 500 outfile.avi

    would produce a file you can manipulate in avidemux, like he does.

  • Pingback: Pixel Sorting at Panic Films

  • Jaedeci

    What so Kanye is able to use it but i can't because Mr O'reilly sad so. Get the F*** out of here!

  • Pingback: Does Takeshi Murata's Monster Movie predate David O'Reilly's datamoshing work? - Quora

  • Pingback: Kinesthetic Learning – Part 3 » Introduction of Artistic Intelligence

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003405408568 Enjang

    This is by far one of the best docos Ive seen..and Ive seen a lot. Right from the onpineg scenes, I was spellbound. I learnt a lot today, most of all I learnt you are one of the most honest filmmakers I know. Kudos Costa, and to David, I love how you think…

  • mattb3476

    I think the different keyframe effects – which Evident Utensil guy popularized as ‘datamoshing’, and a term I’ll admit to enthusiastically using for the past while – they’re a lot of fun.  Here’s some of the best I’ve seen so far.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/mm/videos

    And I’m sorry, but if you don’t see anything you like in this video:

    then I think conversation is over.

    One thing that will make datamoshing… And…well…what ARE we going to call it now?  You didn’t say did you?  I skimmed the article.  I was brought to it while trying to learn how you get the color bloom effect in most the videos.

    Working ‘datamoshing’ into a larger effects workflow will smooth out some of its edges, I think.  For example, going back and removing / blurring /whatever, the blocky stuff could make transitions much nicer.

    As most the transitions, or p-frame hacks – that’s what I’m going to call them – as they go, they start going with their eye trickery and then break and you get blocks. Smoothing that out – not too hard in After Effects – could help preserve the orientation bending that’s going on before the break.

    As I’m writing, I’m realizing I can’t assume to have understood your ‘sometimes tongue in cheek’ article from skimming.

    Anyways.  Lost my subject.

    My ‘datamoshing’ web surfs are what introduced me to David O’Reilly recently.  So give it that credit, of wiring us all more up.  And, David O’Reilly’s stuff.  Man.  The room changed when I played the first one.  It was late.  And dark.  Then, that crazy f’ing game show, with the murderous flesh eating cat god.  Freaked me the f out.

    To be fure, O’Reilly’s talents, skills, and technical achievements crumble any datamoshing test edit.  But I’m sure if O’Reilly gave it a week or two – or a day or two – of playing around, he’d blow your mind, partially to the credit of p-frame hacking.  And, sure, other people should be playing with it, too.

    http://vimeo.com/5769130

    Not O’Reilly.

    That was, though.  Crazy shit.

    Okay.  I have like ten tabs open now.

    Later.

    http://tiny.cc/fb-cdm-article

  • mattb3476

    hell.  yeah.  I did the bloom!  I was only pasting a handful of extra keyframes.  Not like a couple seconds worth.  I’m going crazy now.