This short film most obviously funtions as art due to the fact that 1) It is drawn and 2) it uses these drawings, strictly, to try and communicate somthing to the viewer including evoking some kind of emotion. The fucntion of this film as a metaphore comes in where it chooses to focus on the absurdly common and (Somewhat) everyday practice of walking. The film seems to link this activity to its abstract message, which to be completely honest I am not entirely sure I understand. My personal belief is that a central theme was that of Diversity due to the quickly flashing color changes and different types of drwings presented, though this is more my grasping at figurative straws of meaning than anything else.

One thing that can certainly be said though is that it does dehabitualize its activity of focus by visually reapeating it on the screen and by basically specifing a few distinct types of walks and the charachters they belong to. For instantce, we do not habitually see naked people walking around carefree. I know if I were naked I wouldn't have quite that thoughtless swagger in my step as that of a daydreamer.

Also, this film addtionally decontextualizes the activity of choice by creating a blank canvass upon which we can focus on specific aspects of the image or movement. However, I am not quite sure it accomplishes the same type of decontextualization that Joy Garnett's work does because were Garnett choses to crop and focus on part of an entire image, and then to blur the rest to really make the work almost somthing entirely new, this film dosen't seem to create a new way of "walking", but uses the action of the walk as a catalyst for viewing those doing the waking in a new way.

In the end, I think that this piece functions as art, or i should say modern art, more than anything else due t the fact that its obscurity certainly leaves it open to interpretation by its audiance.