Home » Video » ...

Comment faire gyotaku Videos

gyotaku by Romain ganer

Ou comment faire un GYOTAKU sans poisson.

Gyotaku- The Art of the Fish print

guide to making fish prints (gyotaku)

User Comments

Heather Fortner commented on 22 Dec 2012

Michael- I save the fish that I use, they do NOT get tossed away, they go back into the freezer for the next session of printing. The fish is used many many times. After several years and numerous printings I bury them in my yard as fertilizer for the plants that I then nature print. The fish you eat is only one meal, the fish I print become art thet serve to remind people that fish are a very limited resource and we cannot keep catching them for food at the current rate. Nothing is wasted.

ErraticConduct commented on 01 Oct 2013

You could use an acrylic ink for the fish painting, cheaper than oil ink, but would still have a very nice effect (I used acrylic ink in all my print-making at Uni, as well as print-making classes for elementary students I helped with). As far as paper goes, rice paper would actually be the cheapest for you to use and turn out the best. I suppose you could look for a porous & flexible paper to use instead at a paper supply store, but rice paper is quite cheap, if you look around!

ErraticConduct commented on 01 Oct 2013

P.s. I did use a thick, regular paper in the printmaking classes I was doing with elementary kids, only the printing plates we were using were flat Styrofoam plates that they drew into and then applied the ink over top with rollers. I don't think such a paper would work for a fish print, because of the contours of the fish. But you could always try it out at home first, with a few different types of paper and see what happens. Let me know how it turns out! :)

Heather Fortner commented on 13 Aug 2011

In my style, no, the fish is converted into a printing plate. The Hawaiian printers have perfected a method of printing then eating the fish- look at videos by Takeo or Naoki for this method

beckytonio commented on 10 Jun 2013

This is so cool!! I wonder if we could do regular paper instead of rice paper? Also what kind of ink/paint can we use? I would like to do this project with elementary kids...

Takeshi SAKAI commented on 07 Nov 2012

Great ! And we can help you who want to make your own japanese stamp called Hanko or Inkan in japanese at the web site "sakura hanko" Hope you a big result of fishing !

Michael Sapp commented on 22 Dec 2012

Really???!!! I mean,a fish that gets thrown away and not even eaten had to die so we could make a picture of it?Couldn't ya just have painted it?

micmoable commented on 11 Aug 2011

liked vid but words zipped along a little too fast for me to read before words changed to something else---liked the music

Bakir Silajdzic commented on 30 Nov 2011

@abaddon40k i was just going to ask the same question hahaha. were you able to find the method hawaiian printers used?

TakeoGyotaku commented on 07 May 2011

Nice video Heather! So interesting to see techniques of other gyotaku artist! Thanks for sharing!

ilinca l commented on 28 Nov 2012

this is awesome! will definitely try this technique, thanks for the tutorial!

catherine stephenson commented on 21 May 2013

Absoultly beautiful, Thank you for the tutorial.

UnbornBabyYakCheese commented on 30 Apr 2011

Awesome vid. Super helpful as a beginner printer

chi7072 commented on 26 Jul 2015

what does the spirit of the orient mean?

betty commented on 06 Mar 2011

Heather, great video, thanks..

Carole Bowman commented on 23 Aug 2013

thank you for sharing :)

JudgeW commented on 30 Sep 2010

thanks. They look great.

Taurus Black commented on 04 Jul 2015

Que asco

coohm commented on 19 May 2011

Nice~!!!!!

Gyotaku Art

Capt. Karen Chadwick does the ancient Japanese technique of Gyotaku.

What on Earth is spin? - Brian Jones

View full lesson: //ed.ted.com/lessons/what-on-earth-is-spin-brian-jones Why does the Earth spin? Does a basketball falling from a spinning merry-go-round ...

User Comments

Aditya Kaul commented on 10 Aug 2015

While he was showing that the cloud of dust and gas collapsed to form the celestial bodies in our solar system, he also showed that the moon also came out from the cloud. I think it is wrong because I have heard that The moon was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, about 30–50 million years after the origin of the Solar System, out of debris thrown into orbit by a massive collision between a smaller proto-Earth and another planetoid, about the size of Mars. I also searched it on google and it is also telling the same thing I have written......... And at 2:28 he has also mentioned that all the moons of the planets were formed in from that cloud. While I think that all the moons were actually asteroids or meteoroids that came into the gravitational fields of the other planets.

N LM commented on 27 Jun 2013

(cont'd) when a theist considers this data (s)he tends to ask the question "what came before that?" or "who started that expansion?" Theists tend to fill this knowledge gap with God. an atheist on the other hand would consider this data and accept the fact that we simply dont have the data to seriously probe such a huge question. we just dont know yet. yeah, the god theory is a valid suggestion, but its only that... a suggestion. the big bang theory is one of the most supported scientific (cont)

MartinDxt commented on 30 Jun 2013

first every trajectory that is not in line is off set (so most) the cases that will be able to generate the rotating cloud, have to be moving relatively slow to each other enough for the gravity to catch them in a turning trajectory second not only the gravity but also the centrifugal force plays a role in all that the particles close enough to the center will start colliding to the center due to friction and on the far side they get kicked off it. sorting the fast/slow particles from the cloud.

N LM commented on 27 Aug 2013

what??? accretion discs are discs of dust which surround stars which condense to form planets. nebulae are clouds of gas which condense to form stars. we ARE observing these things! a uniform gas condensing into a star which fuses atoms into new elements IS entropy. the universe is getting more complex! you have a very limited knowledge of these things which is why you are so quick to dismiss them in such fallacious ways. btw scientific theories are different from colloquial theories. look it up

N LM commented on 27 Jun 2013

let me explain the big bang to you properly. the theory was developed when cosmologists were photographing galaxies. they compared two photos of the same region taken at different times. they noticed the galaxies were moving away from each other like the aftermath of an explosion. thus they were closer together in the past. at some moment they were all in one place. this is as far back as our knowledge takes us. we simply dint know. the difference between atheists and theists is that (continued)

MartinDxt commented on 30 Jun 2013

the universe has zero spin in total but if some part start spinning one direction another one has to start spinning the other way on large or small scale resulting in a local spinning system nowykurier com/toys/gravity/gravity (dot) html is a gravity sim can help understand some features like how some parts start spinning from zero movement start just placing some masses with no movement until some of them start spinning one or the other way around each other resembling the cloud's mass center

N LM commented on 27 Jun 2013

(cont'd 2) theories to date. we see the outward motion of the galaxies; as we look deep into space we can see young galaxies forming out of what is left of the big bang's shockwave; we even detect a faint hum of radio waves everywhere we look with radio telescopes, the echo of the big bang. the big bang happened. what caused it and what happened before is an unsolved mystery. and atheists are okay with that. its not our place to make assumptions about creators. life is already beautiful enough.

Gammel Prutte commented on 07 Jun 2013

That's more or less what I'd figured out -- the particles attract each other and tend towards a general centre of mass, but mostly pass each other. They continue on, are slowed by gravity, turn and begin again. Over time the individual interactions will come to occur in an increasingly uniform direction as the random movements cancel each other out, and the tiny overall tendency in a random direction becomes magnified, according to the conservation of angular momentum, as the cloud contracts.

Gammel Prutte commented on 01 Jul 2013

I tried that simulator (thanks) a few times, and not once did any of the clouds start rotating. All that happened was particles began clumping together, orbiting each other in the process. I've come to the conclusion that clouds don't rotate, or if they do it isn't due to the attractive gravitic force, but maybe something like the rotating wave-type effect found in galaxies. As the gas begins to collect into large bodies, then I can understand how groups of them will develop rotation. (cont)

DoctorFastest commented on 07 Jun 2013

"Why was the original cloud of gas and dust spinning?" Great question! :) Short answer: because the chance if the spin being zero is...zero. Each particle in the dust cloud moves in its own direction. Thus some contribute to "leftward spin", others to "rightward spin". These contributions almost entirely cancel out...but left over is some small but non-zero overall spin, in some random direction! This also explains why different solar systems have different spin axes.

shidoink commented on 30 May 2013

Well, maybe... Have you considered the chaotic nature inherent in liquids? I feel like little eddies and turbulence would have a more profound effect than the Coriolis effect. after a bit of math i find that if we have a 2 meter tub of water aligned North-South, with the south touching the equator, the south end water is traveling 9.25*10e-5 meters/second faster than the northern end of the tub. so i have a hard time in visioning it making THAT much of a difference.

Gammel Prutte commented on 27 Jun 2013

Interesting theory. First of all, is there any evidence that 'offset trajectories' is most likely the case? Second, why should the colliding clouds start to spin and not just attenuate as they pass each other? The gravity between the clouds would have to be as great as or greater than the internal gravity of each, and even then I'm not sure that the particles on the near side would have any affect on those on the far side as the clouds pass. Cloud dynamics, anyone?

jhalpinable commented on 20 Jun 2013

Either matter or energy has always existed in some form, something created itself or it is beyond the realm of our understanding of the universe so far. If the first is true there is no need for a creator and if there was he must be created from something else. If the second is true there would also be no need for a creator. If the third is true you are extremely arrogant to think you know the answer and extremely stupid to think people 2000 years ago did.

Andy Briggs commented on 04 Jun 2013

Interesting question. The short answer is that we could never know: the long answer is that something spins only relative to something else.....and in that case, what is the Universe spinning relative to? The German physicist Mach also asked the question: if you take a bucket of water and rotate it so that the water is spinning, and you then reverse the direction, the water slows down and then reverses its spin. So what is the water spinning relative to?

N LM commented on 27 Aug 2013

the sources: Star formation en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org/wiki/Nebula Planet formation en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk Galaxies are a tricky subject since they are so old. Quasars are thought to be galaxies in their infancy. en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution Universal expansion: en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

Griffin Howlett commented on 04 Jun 2013

@Andy The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum doesn't say that contraction results in spinning, it only says that the body becomes easier to spin. Since there was a subtle spin before (it's probabilistically impossible for the dust particles to not start orbiting each other), the contraction results in the previously existing 'spin' having a now greater effect since the orbit radius of the particles has decreased (less distance to travel)

Dunsay commented on 30 May 2013

Because it orbits it has to spin, also "relative to the earth", to have the same side facing us at all times. Yes, we can say the universe is relative in movement, but not really in spin, although they are kind of related. Even without any external points of reference you could tell if, and which way, the earth is spinning by orbiting it in different directions at the same altitude and measuring the speed which the ground passes beneath you.

*freethinkerfreelover commented on 30 May 2013

That's really interesting. The theory is that the moon collided with earth, correct? So, with that in mind, is there a scientific explanation as to why their rates of spins would likely be the same? This would really quiet down a lot of moon conspiracy theorists and I would like to be able to cite the correct theory that explains why this is likely to occur (or inevitable under certain circumstances). This is far from my area of expertise.

Gammel Prutte commented on 07 Jun 2013

I would have thought that gravity rather than collisions was the mechanism. If you think of, say, two galaxies colliding (eg /watch?v=PrIk6dKcdoU ) it is mostly empty space, and the chances of two particles colliding is pretty small before it all starts to unify, by which time spin would be well established. Of course, I may be wrong -- there seems to be remarkably little information around, which was why I made my original comment.

FRIGGIN' HEALTHY'S WAFU SALAD!

Friggin' Healthy's first video recipe: Wafu Salad! try this recipe guys, you won't regret it!! Follow us on twitter and instagram: both account names are ...

User Comments

FrigginHealthy commented on 22 Jun 2013

Thank you! :)

Jimmy Christeven commented on 22 Jun 2013

(y)

Speed Painting - Abstract Fish

lots of finger painting pouring and brushwork in this speeded up abstract acrylic painting on a primed canvas sheet palooza.

User Comments

artbystevejohnson commented on 28 May 2010

@sevnstrings I agree, problem is that I'd have to delete and reupload as I've discovered that using YouTube's audioswap leads to copyright issues. I am adding music to all future vids. Thanks for taking the time out to watch and comment - really appreciated.

CupcakeCult commented on 02 Feb 2012

@artbystevejohnson I agree with you there....I use old tupperware box lids. My mom has a habit of losing the box but somehow keeping the lid, so I use them as palettes. But awesome video! I look forward to seeing more work!! ^__^

artbystevejohnson commented on 03 May 2010

@thecinnamonbunny It's also been used as a palette more than once - paint comes off it really easily making it ideal. All about the recycling.

artbystevejohnson commented on 03 May 2010

@grumpywumpystumpy This was on canvas as opposed to paper so a lot more was possible including using the thickness of the paint.

thecinnamonbunny commented on 03 May 2010

So that's what happened to the lid for the margarine tub! =;D

Nihon Breizh Festival 2014 - Atelier Furoshiki

Link for boards:

Link for your site:

Current link: