The "Burning" Man that almost was'nt.

Karma · Post by **Karma** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 5:20 pm

Well, as in years past, things did'nt go quite as expected when they lit off the Big guy.
A nod to the guys (and/or girls) in charge of the Arms and Neon on the Man.
Unlike the last few years, they went off without a hitch.

However, the Pyrotechnics guys were probably in a mild panic as once all the fireworks, explosions and igniters were finished going off, everything was ablaze and crackling............ except the Man himself !!

We watched in mild disbelief as the base of the man (a wooden geo-dome like structure this year) was rapidly becoming charcoal, yet the Man itself did'nt have so much as a splinter smoldering.

I started thinking to myself "the supports are going to give way any second and the Man is going to fall completely UN-BURNT "

It took a couple minutes but finally, flames from the base started igniting his feet and very slowly, started crawling up his legs.
It was a race against time.
The base had been burning for so long we could'nt believe the thing was still supporting him.
Then, just as the flames started to lick his head, the structure gave way and the whole thing came down in a Blaze.

It made for an extra level of excitement and apprehension at this years Burn.
The one that almost was'nt.

^_^

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:23 pm

Thanks!

Blonde Iguana · Post by **Blonde Iguana** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:21 am

Thanks, Karma. Since we had to leave Saturday and miss the Burn (which would have been our first) it's nice to get a little first-hand description.

It was nice to get a little of that Tuaca, too...

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:02 am

Karma wrote:Then, just as the flames started to lick his head, the structure gave way and the whole thing came down in a Blaze.
It made for an extra level of excitement and apprehension at this years Burn.

Wonder if that was intentional?

johnc · Post by **johnc** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:50 am

It WAS quite different this year. When the first group of pyro went off I turned to the person next to me and said there was too much smoke, we'd never see the Man (this was from the 12-0clock position, seeing photos from 6-oclock it seems it was clearer there). It did clear up enough to see him fall. But I did miss watching the fire engulf him.

JC

Burp! · Post by **Burp!** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:42 am

Having seen 7 burns now, I personally think this was one of the worst yet. It had potential to be great if only the man had gone up. The fireworks were great and the way the dome burned was cool. Problem is the man just seemed board and didn't want to burn, just fell over with a "Ho hum" and that was it. I think part of the problem is the structures that the Man is being built on these days. Back in the day when the man was on hay bails he burned as a Burning Man should. Now with these structures the dynamic has changed and he is simply a side note. Last year the Pyramid ate him up, this year he didn't burn. Wish they would go back to the old ways.

NF

Hotspur · Post by **Hotspur** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:59 am

I find this odd because I, personally, loved the way the dome burned away from around him, leaving him standing alone.

(Althougha pyro hit in the heart or the head would have been cool).

It was obvious, however, that the burn didn't go the way they planned it.

But I dug it anyway.

DoctorIknow · Post by **DoctorIknow** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:00 pm

I always try to arrive just before dawn on Monday. Seeing the playa lit up after a night of driving always such a rush, and then having the coolest part of the day to set up camp seems to work out SO fine...

However, this year, I couldn't even find the man until FAR past the greeters. WTF! Tiny little guy way up there on a dome!

So, I set up camp and pedaled out there. Techies and builders not even close to having the dome "open." Still installing the dioramas I think I remember.

Months ago when BMorg was soliciting artists to submit drawings for the outside of the dome, I was amused at the "participatory" concept: that an artist would get in their diorama, do their performance art, look in the crowd for someone interested in their piece, take them backstage, explain to them "simple" rules for being on stage, and then send them out on stage. Something like that. Any study of performance art since it became titled so should have told them it was doomed before it was even typed in HTML...

In the ten times I visited the man this year, I saw ONE person in a diorama.
-----Did anyone else see a performance?
-----Did anyone see someone from the crowd join in?
-----Was this the most stupid idea ever or what?

I've never been one to smear ashes of the man all over my body, but I've always treasured standing right at his feet, admiring the skill and scale of the construction. And then to see him burn, wondering how much longer those 4 x 4 legs can keep the weight! How are those arms staying on? Why didn't the pyro do more ignition of any part of him?

Putting him so far away from access, on top a gee whiz more boring computer shit full dome (and, wow, a dome! Never saw one of those before!) was not intimate on any level.

I'm all for doing away with the symbol entirely: keeping it will only breed more conservatism, but to remove it or minimize it through making it smaller, out of reach, and more of a logo instead of a bizarre object/sculpture, perhaps says something about the BMorg management I'd rather not know about...

If there HAS to be a man to burn (many artists could make something equally as fantastic to burn... why the freakin' "Man" year after year after year???) I say bring him back down to Earth. Don't make him so big that BMorg needs to spend a fortune on multiple cranes to raise him up. Let us get up close and personal and have SOMETHING real to relate to!

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:19 pm

This was my 3rd burn and I kinda liked this one. The arms stayed up, the neon stayed lit, and sure the chintzy dome burned first. But when the fire started on the man and then continued appearing on various parts I loved it.

Sure it wasn't as hot or spectacular as '03 with that massive Mayan pyramid structure under it. And coming in off Jungo Road he wasn't as visible as last year (He's the first thing I look for when I drop off that last grade and the playa becomes visible). And the dioramas....I saw used twice unlike the interactive and cool experiences I had last year with 7 different dioramas in action at once. I think First Camp needs to rethink the diorama concept and move on to something else. And shrink the man? No way! Make him even bigger! As for the base, I don't give a rat's ass about the base. I'd like to touch him but if I can't, then make him very large where his image becomes burned into my mind because every time I looked towards the open playa I saw him. That's what I'd like to see.

Sobretta Franjipan · Post by **Sobretta Franjipan** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:45 pm

Uh, people-where were YOU this year??

The Man didn't burn; he levitated.

Cut back on the drugs...

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:31 am

Sobretta Franjipan wrote:Uh, people-where were YOU this year??
The Man didn't burn; he levitated.
Cut back on the drugs...

Thats strange, could have sworn he walked off in apathy.

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:06 am

Well I got the whole thing on video. True, the dome was burning first, but the man definately burned for a number of minutes. The only thing that didn't was his head. From my vantage point it was really cool. Before he finally fell into the fire below, he started to move, the guy wires slackened, and he started leaning backward. He stayed that way for about two minutes. Then he fell.

I have no complaints about any of it. I think it was a good burn. I understand that the preparation ahead of time influences how the burn goes, but at some point it's a fire and that stuff becomes out of anyone's control. This is a good thing. Anyway, I had a great burn.

kinetic · Post by **kinetic** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 8:15 pm

I thought for sure that he was going to fall straight down into the dome. But it was sort of cool to watch his arms just light up spontaneously because of the intense heat. Yeah, he didn't go full human torch before falling, but it wasn't that bad.

The Temple on the other hand. Man did that thing go up fast. Wow. Very cool to see the spire fall down into the structure before really falling to the side. Great burn, even the last little bits didn't want to go down.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 8:54 pm

Kinetic? Hmmm. Someone got my old account ID. Interesting.

kinetic · Post by **kinetic** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:00 pm

Really? That's interesting indeed. Sorry to be stomping on your old SN. I think I registered this almost a year ago. I just never post.

kinetic · Post by **kinetic** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:01 pm

Doh, didn't even look, I guess I registered in Feb.

PurpleKoosh · Post by **PurpleKoosh** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:32 pm

Hotspur wrote:I find this odd because I, personally, loved the way the dome burned away from around him, leaving him standing alone.

I thought it was great, too. The joke with my friends was that we could almost hear him chanting "I'm not gonna fall! Nyah nyah!"

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:36 am

To the posters that say "the burn sucked and that it did NOT go as planned," WTF!!! How do you KNOW it did not go as planned? Back up your assumptions with some substance, please. Also, changing the base of the MAN which subsequently changes the style of burn is a good thing. Boring otherwise...

Karma · Post by **Karma** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 12:32 pm

I never said the Burn sucked. I just said I doubt it went according to plan.
I can just imagine the Pyrotechnic guys standin there as the dome is burning full tilt and the Man is un-touched, kinda scratchin their heads goin 'Hmm, did'nt think of that one'.

It was just a funny thought.

And PurpleKooshs comment about the man goin Nyah Nyah Nyah was runnin through all of our heads.
Classic !!

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 12:43 pm

I hear ya.
Imagine though,,, perhaps that is the effect that they were after, the Man falling into the flames. We will never know...

That is funny imagining the Man saying "nyah nyah nyah," but then again, that is what it is about, using our imaginations. Personally, I imagined, or felt, that it was symbolic having the Man standing above the flames for a spell. One can go down many different avenues with that thought...

Karma · Post by **Karma** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 12:57 pm

Truth !
And besides that, remember the "Save the Man" contingent from a couple years ago ?
They must've been having a laugh for a few minutes that night.

Honestly, if everything went exactly according to plan on Burn night, I would probably be dis-appointed.

Wheres the fun in Perfection ?

lol

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 12:58 pm

WORD!!!

diode · Post by **diode** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:15 pm

I still miss the hay bales. I liked standing under the man's legs and looking out at the desert while Bob explained about the lake bed. The man getting hoisted up and down every day.

Now the man's removed up there. The only time I get to interact with him (Him?) is when he's being built. The dome made the man look kind of small. And didn't the man used to have a couple of colors of neon, instead of being all blue?

Anyway, the burn is fun regardless. Just kvetching. I liked how the man listed before finally falling. Made it more suspenseful.

Sobretta Franjipan · Post by **Sobretta Franjipan** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:46 pm

Well I got the whole thing on video.

That's so cool. Were you the guy in front of me with the tripod?

I hope you enjoy watching that video over and over again at your fondue parties.

Cordially,
SF

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:39 pm

Sobretta Franjipan wrote:
Well I got the whole thing on video.
That's so cool. Were you the guy in front of me with the tripod?

I hope you enjoy watching that video over and over again at your fondue parties.

Cordially,
SF

How should I respond to this comment?

First of all, no I wasn't the guy in front of you with the tripod. So I am sorry, but I can't become the brunt of your misguided anger, generalizing , and outright stereotyping.

Also to let you know, I have never had fondue in my life and haven't been particularly planning on it. So I guess that means that the parties I will be having or attending are beyond your ability to figure out, unless of course you weren't so quick to jump to conclusions, and took some time to figure out who I really am or what my intentions were with that video camera of mine.

Though I am somewhat offended by your comment, I find it interesting and funny that you would label me as you have. Obviously to you, I am some "yahoo" or "fratboy" or "dirty old man" or "rapist" or "pornographer" or whatever other labels some of you like to throw around. At least, this is what I read between your lines.

I have been reading the other threads on this board about some people's ideas of cameras and video. From the way I am reading their words, all MEN that use a CAMERA, or especially a VIDEOCAMERA are perverts and only want video footage of naked women to take back home to masturbate too, or show to their frat brothers, or sell as a porn, or some other exploit.

Though I can understand much of your reasoning, I feel that some of you have gone overboard on this. The comment that has been directed toward me is a perfect example. I don't fit the description. There are some men out there that do. However, sometimes it is easier for people to categorize and clump together certain groups of individuals, based on a limited set of factors. This often leads to false conclusions or misinterpretations. in this case, there are OTHER uses of a videocamera.

I am not sure I need to "justify" the use of my videocamera to you, but I do feel I need to challenge you on your characterization of me. Frankly, you don't know me and you really have no idea what I did or did not do with my camera. All you know is that I filmed the burning of the Man. Maybe YOU don't want video footage of stuff like that, but I do. To say that I am the one standing in front of you obviously shows that you should consider lightening up just a bit and not be so quick to jump to conclusions.

Just so you know I have very little footage of any form of real nakedness. When I was recording shots of an area or object or camp and there was someone naked in the shot I continued to move the camera onward as to not dwell on the subject. To be honest, it would have beautiful to focus directly on the movements of a particular person, I didn't. I once asked a girl if I could film her hula-hooping in Center Camp. That time I specifiacally filmed a person for an extended period of time. I gave her my card with my email address so she could get a copy of the footage if she wanted. If someone asks me to not to film them I would comply.

We are all so concerned about protecting our little haven we call Burning Man that we end becoming ridged and intolerant and critical in the process. I thought we were trying to get away from that. Maybe it is too much to expect that in that week away from normal life we truly can let go of the usual constrictions society places upon us. Seems that if we do achieve that at Burning Man, we forget it just as quickly when we come back home and get behind our computers.

I wish some of you would listen to yourselves and how much complaining you do. Blah blah blah. I complain sometimes too, but some of you should lighten up.

Who knows? Maybe I am making a kick ass Burning Man video. If I am, it might be hard for you to figure out, since I happen to have the characteristics of being in my 30's ("old man"), MALE, and I HAVE A VIDEOCAMERA.

Maybe next year, at my fourth burn, I will have gotten it.

Cordially,
Jordan 10-E

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:51 pm

Jordan 10-E wrote:
Sobretta Franjipan wrote:
Well I got the whole thing on video.
That's so cool. Were you the guy in front of me with the tripod?

I hope you enjoy watching that video over and over again at your fondue parties.

Cordially,
SF
How should I respond to this comment?

First of all, no I wasn't the guy in front of you with the tripod. So I am sorry, but I can't become the brunt of your misguided anger, generalizing , and outright stereotyping.

Also to let you know, I have never had fondue in my life and haven't been particularly planning on it. So I guess that means that the parties I will be having or attending are beyond your ability to figure out, unless of course you weren't so quick to jump to conclusions, and took some time to figure out who I really am or what my intentions were with that video camera of mine.

Though I am somewhat offended by your comment, I find it interesting and funny that you would label me as you have. Obviously to you, I am some "yahoo" or "fratboy" or "dirty old man" or "rapist" or "pornographer" or whatever other labels some of you like to throw around. At least, this is what I read between your lines.

I have been reading the other threads on this board about some people's ideas of cameras and video. From the way I am reading their words, all MEN that use a CAMERA, or especially a VIDEOCAMERA are perverts and only want video footage of naked women to take back home to masturbate too, or show to their frat brothers, or sell as a porn, or some other exploit.

Though I can understand much of your reasoning, I feel that some of you have gone overboard on this. The comment that has been directed toward me is a perfect example. I don't fit the description. There are some men out there that do. However, sometimes it is easier for people to categorize and clump together certain groups of individuals, based on a limited set of factors. This often leads to false conclusions or misinterpretations. in this case, there are OTHER uses of a videocamera.

I am not sure I need to "justify" the use of my videocamera to you, but I do feel I need to challenge you on your characterization of me. Frankly, you don't know me and you really have no idea what I did or did not do with my camera. All you know is that I filmed the burning of the Man. Maybe YOU don't want video footage of stuff like that, but I do. To say that I am the one standing in front of you obviously shows that you should consider lightening up just a bit and not be so quick to jump to conclusions.

Just so you know I have very little footage of any form of real nakedness. When I was recording shots of an area or object or camp and there was someone naked in the shot I continued to move the camera onward as to not dwell on the subject. To be honest, it would have beautiful to focus directly on the movements of a particular person, I didn't. I once asked a girl if I could film her hula-hooping in Center Camp. That time I specifiacally filmed a person for an extended period of time. I gave her my card with my email address so she could get a copy of the footage if she wanted. If someone asks me to not to film them I would comply.

We are all so concerned about protecting our little haven we call Burning Man that we end becoming ridged and intolerant and critical in the process. I thought we were trying to get away from that. Maybe it is too much to expect that in that week away from normal life we truly can let go of the usual constrictions society places upon us. Seems that if we do achieve that at Burning Man, we forget it just as quickly when we come back home and get behind our computers.

I wish some of you would listen to yourselves and how much complaining you do. Blah blah blah. I complain sometimes too, but some of you should lighten up.

Who knows? Maybe I am making a kick ass Burning Man video. If I am, it might be hard for you to figure out, since I happen to have the characteristics of being in my 30's ("old man"), MALE, and I HAVE A VIDEOCAMERA.

Maybe next year, at my fourth burn, I will have gotten it.

Cordially,
Jordan 10-E

Damn,,, RELAX!!!!!!

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:53 pm

If there HAS to be a man to burn (many artists could make something equally as fantastic to burn... why the freakin' "Man" year after year after year???) I say bring him back down to Earth. Don't make him so big that BMorg needs to spend a fortune on multiple cranes to raise him up. Let us get up close and personal and have SOMETHING real to relate to![/quote]

I agree... not with getting rid of the man altogether, but having a New man designed every year. New interpretatikons of the image and less hightech/Disney stuff. The old one is beginning to look like a logo....something I try to avoid bringing with me every year.

Lydia Love · Post by **Lydia Love** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:00 pm

um... it *is* a logo for a limited liability corporation.

and there is also the matter of the name of the event. Burning Thingie just doesn't have the same ring to it...

PurpleKoosh · Post by **PurpleKoosh** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:05 pm

Jordan 10-E wrote:Also to let you know, I have never had fondue in my life and haven't been particularly planning on it.

Please, rethink this. Fondue fuckin' rocks. I even found you a restaurant in SLC:

The Melting Pot

The only reason I don't go out for fondue more often is the best place in my area - La Fondue - is painfully expensive (dinner for 2 generally runs in the $120 range when you add in drinks and tip), and nobody should have to eat bad fondue.

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:09 pm

Sorry for the sidetrack...

I really came back to this thread because of something that has not been mentioned yet about the dome buring before the Man. I knew I was missing something.

After looking at some pictures I noticed the two wooden beams that the man actually stands on. He may not have even been supported by the dome, but probably was. However, if the dome was part of it, we all know that the geodesic dome is one of the sturdiest possibles structures he could stand on, wood or not. For these two reasons, it is no surprise that he stood so long amid the flames around him.

The fact that he was on two beams and supported from falling over by the dome also explains why the Man "listed" for a few minutes before falling into the pit. His support beams and the dome webs were weaking, but still somewhat holding on, until they finally failed and he tipped back into the fire.

So in some ways I think the process was controlled very well. Maybe the best ever. Let him stand over the fire, instead being consumed at the same time as the pedastal. Planned or not, it was a cool effect.

The "Burning" Man that almost was'nt.

The "Burning" Man that almost was'nt.

Re: The "Burning" Man that almost was'nt.

Dome, diaoramas, manburn...

Misguided Assumptions

Re: Misguided Assumptions

Re: Dome, diaoramas, manburn...

Thread drift? More like thread derailment....