> Why does NPR call Gugusse "a human clown" ? He is not wearing clown clothes.
Strange of you to criticize NPR for that bit seeing as they didn't come up with that description for Gugusse. From the LoC page for the video:
>> Gugusse the clown appears to control the actions of Pierrot Automate, a child-sized automaton standing on a pedestal. By turning a crank, Gugusse makes him march and wave a stick. As Gugusse turns the crank, the automaton gets bigger until it is the size of a grown man. Suddenly the automaton is controlling his own limbs. He hits Gugusse on the head with his stick. Gugusse pulls the automaton off the pedestal and picks up a large hammer. As Gugusse pounds the automaton on the head, he gets smaller and smaller. At the final stroke of the hammer, he disappears.
So they're using the supplied description of Gugusse. If you have an issue with it, take it up with the Library of Congress.
Well, the Library of Congress entry notes him as "Gugusse the clown" and the Wikipedia entry[2] has a few citations (to books, I can't verify) that support it, but more to the point, "Pierrot" is a classic[3] stock character in e.g. commedia dell'arte. It says clown but I think our modern meaning of that word is a bit removed, and perhaps "harlequin" (another character[4]) is more what we'd say these days.
*His character in contemporary popular culture—in poetry, fiction, and the visual arts, as well as works for the stage, screen, and concert hall—is that of the sad clown [...]*
George Meliese's silent films and automatons were at the core of the beautifully illustrated and written YA novel from the mid-2000s named The Invention of Hugo Cabret [0].
I worked on a massive audio (78s) digitization project for the LOC and it was a blast to see the process of how these archivists and their outsourced crews (like us) worked to maintain the human arts. It was an odd feeling, I never had a client prior to that make me feel like our work was so important.
As usual, science fiction is a cautionary tale of the future. The more effort we put into robots the bigger and stronger they get. Sooner or later one of them will hurt a human, and then what do we do? You can’t hold a robot accountable.
Well, where are we now? If that robot is a driverless car, it can pretty much run over humans with impunity. The owner and manufacturer of the car will suffer minor penalties (compared with the victim being dead or maimed). They will not be required to change their actions. The robots will continue to be allowed to harm people in public.
Personally, I liked it better when we told ourselves stories about breaking the damn things as soon as they hurt someone.
I don't really understand this article. It seems to centre around the quote "probably the first instance of a robot ever captured in a moving image" when it is quite clearly an actor not a machine.
Nowhere does the article refer to something like "depiction of a robot", no it explicitly talks about robots captured on film. This is not that.
It's definitely a cool glimpse into early filmmaking, but it's not a robot.
No, it's a mannequin that comes to life. Trying to retcon it into being a killer robot is like the pyramidiots who find images of spaceships in Egyptian temple wall paintings.
16 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 33.8 ms ] threadWhy does NPR call Gugusse "a human clown" ? He is not wearing clown clothes.
Gugusse looks more to me like the "mad inventor" of the robot, with a comedic bald head.
Strange of you to criticize NPR for that bit seeing as they didn't come up with that description for Gugusse. From the LoC page for the video:
>> Gugusse the clown appears to control the actions of Pierrot Automate, a child-sized automaton standing on a pedestal. By turning a crank, Gugusse makes him march and wave a stick. As Gugusse turns the crank, the automaton gets bigger until it is the size of a grown man. Suddenly the automaton is controlling his own limbs. He hits Gugusse on the head with his stick. Gugusse pulls the automaton off the pedestal and picks up a large hammer. As Gugusse pounds the automaton on the head, he gets smaller and smaller. At the final stroke of the hammer, he disappears.
So they're using the supplied description of Gugusse. If you have an issue with it, take it up with the Library of Congress.
1: <https://www.loc.gov/item/2026125501/?loclr=blogloc>
2: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gugusse_and_the_Automaton>
3: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrot>
4: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlequin>
[0] <http://1890swriters.blogspot.com/2015/10/victorian-clowns-an...>
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagliacci>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrot
From the Wikipedia entry...
*His character in contemporary popular culture—in poetry, fiction, and the visual arts, as well as works for the stage, screen, and concert hall—is that of the sad clown [...]*
A modern "Pierrot" style clown is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddles_Pity_Party
I have to admit... I wouldn't know about the Pierrot style of clown if it wasn't for Puddles...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1w5GUturU
George Meliese's silent films and automatons were at the core of the beautifully illustrated and written YA novel from the mid-2000s named The Invention of Hugo Cabret [0].
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_Hugo_Cabret
Well, where are we now? If that robot is a driverless car, it can pretty much run over humans with impunity. The owner and manufacturer of the car will suffer minor penalties (compared with the victim being dead or maimed). They will not be required to change their actions. The robots will continue to be allowed to harm people in public.
Personally, I liked it better when we told ourselves stories about breaking the damn things as soon as they hurt someone.
Nowhere does the article refer to something like "depiction of a robot", no it explicitly talks about robots captured on film. This is not that.
It's definitely a cool glimpse into early filmmaking, but it's not a robot.