Car ART

[BrixtonSaint]

An aspiring artist, that's me, is looking for an art space to show this....



It's all about this....

The installation looks at all our relationships with the automobile, from the good to the bad. It is a celebration of everything the car has brought us from the freedom of the open road to the beauty in design but also asks us to consider the impact automobiles have had from the frustration of congestion to, depending on your standpoint, the wars fought over oil and lives lost to bring us the freedom to get from A to B in the easiest and most comfortable manner.
The piece consists of 1500+ diecast models of varying vintage collected over the past year and added to my childhood collection, one acrylic globe of 1.40m diameter, one 45 gallon oil drum and ten litres of used oil.
The oil drains then drips over the course of the day 'into' the drum, forming a pond on one end which drops into a hidden compartment to be taken out and refilled at the beginning of each day.
I hope for the piece to conjure up all sorts of images and interpretations as well as engender plenty of reminiscing as viewers point out toys they once played with or cars they or their fathers owned.

And came about like this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtbpL4FDyF0

I'd like to hear your comments. And please don't hold back...I've had plenty of earache from those who resist the notion that a collection of cars stuck to an acrylic ball can be called art.

[NismoGT]

I usually regard 'Modern Art' as a load of pretentious ste! But this looks very cool!

[slomax]

basically you had a really cool idea about what you could do for a piece of art and then made up a load of tosh about emotions and deeper thought so that art critics would buy into the idea. I know this because this is exactly what everyone does in art degrees/foundations and A levels to some extent. Its just a shame people wont buy the idea that it is a really cool sculpture. I like the idea- but not all of the BS surrounding 'the concept'.

of course all of this is my opinion, and in no way meant to upset/demoralise you, i like the art/sculpture, but im not a big fan of the emotions and sub concious thinking it is meant to reflect. I just think its pretty cool from a greasy garage way of thinking to be honest

[zollburgers]

If you find somewhere, can I bring my istallation along too?



It's all about this:

The installation looks at all our relationships with the recent war in Iraq and the easy access of Apache gunship footage shooting 'terrorists'.

It is a celebration of everything the modern technology has brought us from the freedom of the press to the horrors of war but also asks us to consider the impact helicopters have had from the frustration of being shot, depending on your standpoint, the wars fought over oil and lives lost to bring us the freedom to get the most awesome helicopter-shooting-people footage.

The piece consists of 1 model collected over the past year and added to my childhood collection, one desk from Ikea, one remote control for an LG TV and a used Microsoft mouse.

The remote changes channels of a TV and the mouse moves a pointer on a computer screen. The helicopter can also fly but I can't find the remote and the batteries are probably dead anyway.

I hope for the piece to conjure up all sorts of images and interpretations as well as engender plenty of reminiscing as viewers remember helicopter gunships wiping out 'terrorists' in those black and white grainy videos.

[BrixtonSaint]

zollburgers said:

If you find somewhere, can I bring my istallation along too?



It's all about this:

The installation looks at all our relationships with the recent war in Iraq and the easy access of Apache gunship footage shooting 'terrorists'.

It is a celebration of everything the modern technology has brought us from the freedom of the press to the horrors of war but also asks us to consider the impact helicopters have had from the frustration of being shot, depending on your standpoint, the wars fought over oil and lives lost to bring us the freedom to get the most awesome helicopter-shooting-people footage.

The piece consists of 1 model collected over the past year and added to my childhood collection, one desk from Ikea, one remote control for an LG TV and a used Microsoft mouse.

The remote changes channels of a TV and the mouse moves a pointer on a computer screen. The helicopter can also fly but I can't find the remote and the batteries are probably dead anyway.

I hope for the piece to conjure up all sorts of images and interpretations as well as engender plenty of reminiscing as viewers remember helicopter gunships wiping out 'terrorists' in those black and white grainy videos.

I love it, so glad I've inspired you

[zollburgers]

Being honest, the work you have done is impressive but it is an idea. Once someone has an idea then to make that idea a reality is not too hard if there are no specialist skills involved.

Is your idea art? It may well be, my definition of art is probably not the accepted definition.

I've always said that if I can do something myself then it isn't art as I'm not an artist. I could make your installation easily but I wouldn't have thought of making it, which I suppose is where the art is?

If I was an artist in the traditional sense that had a special talent and could create things that nobody else could then I would be angered by seeing this. But I'm not an artist but I do recognise that no 'modern' artists have done anything that will survive the fashion of the times that they created their art. Can you put a value to this work?

Who judges whether this is art? Why can't I put my helicopter, mouse and remote control in the same venue? Would this be art? If not, would making up a story change things?

Define art and define why my installation isn't art. I accept that you have posted here wanting advice and feel free to ignore this or to shout aloud as it is an attack on your work?

If making a living is simply having an idea then I'm bordering on being offended as I've spent a lot of time and money learning my trade. And I'm random. I could think up a billion pounds worth of random things.

[pokethepope]

Got a vid of it 'dripping'?

[Red Firecracker]

I think Brian Sewell has the best comment;

Brian Sewell said:

The question isn't whether it is art or not, it is whether it is any good.

and that is something that realistically only the viewer can say. It's a personal judgement.

As an objet d'art, I like it. Not sure about the oil drum or the oil, but I like the ball, but then I like quirky stuff. As for the justification nonsense, nah, not for me. It always strikes me as a lack of confidence in what has been produced if there is felt a need to offer a massive explanation and pointers.

I had the misfortune to have to work for a few months in a building that housed the Brighton Poly art department. The inmates had tried to turn it into a poor faux replica of a Parisian artists squat and it was full of small bits of art with A3 sized directions on how it should be viewed and thought of. Of course, the inmates were all playing on the beret wearing, Gauloises smoking image of their heroes (or the image they thought they needed to project of themselves) when in actual fact they turned up in a brand new Golf and then changed into their daytime persona before returning to mummy and daddy in Surrey each evening.

Please don't fall into the trap of feeling you have to define each piece of your work. If it's good enough, it'll live on its own merits and people will appreciate it. Buck the trend, forge your own path. I for one look forward to seeing more of your work.

[BrixtonSaint]

Thanks guys. I am glad it's generating discussion. I'm divided on the explanation. When I read the little card next to a piece, I want to know what the artist was getting at .....after a good ponder and generating of meaning for myself of course.
The words are what it represents to me, I hope it generates plenty more to whomever gets to see it. Undoubtedly though, if and when it gets seen, people will want to know what the inspiration was...surely. And though the work developed whilst in the making, the core meaning still resides, something within me and plenty of others that I want to explore.
The question as to whether it's art or not is perplexing me. I am not a trained artist, never went to art college and so it seems the London art world wants to ignore me. So be it, I'll find a way round it.
Zoll - I've seen a lot less that the copter & mouse being portrayed as art, so who is to say what it is. As regards training, well you've either got a hand that can paint in the traditional sense of art or you can portray ideas with your hands and the things around you. Are we saying all art has to be made by people who went on a fine art degree course? This is ridiculous. I work in tv, if kids knew how derided a Media Studies degree was in the industry, courses would be shutting down all over the country. And who's to say knowledge of Gauguin's inspirations or Van Gogh's state of mind makes for a better artist anyway?
As is pointed out, any fool with a collection of cars from their youth, the time to visit car booty's every weekend, the balls to go into Selfridges and ask them what they are going to do with the big ball in their window, research the best way to hang the piece etc etc could have made this. They didn't have the idea to though, and so if people want to come and see something I am calling an art piece, then that makes it art....surely?
I will be filming some of the oil flow early next week.

[rhinochopig]

In a past life I was an Art teacher before the lure of nuclear and military stuff won over. Coming from a design background I used to have some interesting discussions with the Art grads on the PGCE.

In design, you HAVE (or had) to be able to produce a picture or model of something that was pretty much photo-realistic, but yet it was a means to an end - simply to communicate an idea. In "art" the picture / sculpture is the end point, and often the skill employed getting the "art" to its end point was highly questionable.

We'd spend hours debating the nuances of what constituted good art. The position I finally settled on, was the the Art should hold your attention; it should demand you you take a second glance. This can be because the viewer marvels at the skill and technique of the artist or because you have a WTF moment and just need to find out why?

Personally I love the more thought provoking installations, from the brainwave turtles to the giant hammer and glass - which was superb; imagine a giant sharpened spiked hammer that swings across a room with terrifying force only to stop with a huge bang about half an inch from a delicate sheet of glass. Simple yet held viewers attention in rapt awe for a long time. There were queues of people wanting to read the paragraph of text, yet you didn't need to to find it interesting.

OP with your installation, I personally don't find it that interesting. I've seen a fair few sphere's made out of stuff before so the concept isn't that original - it doesn't make me stop and ponder - and the bit that could do - the oil dripping - again doesn't make me question why. The links between the car and oil are far to obvious. Had it been blood - the loss of life in our quest for oil - or oil dripping over something though-provoking / controversial then it may have held my attention more. In summary, it's interesting enough as an object, but fails to hold my attention and doesn't lead me to question why.

[Elderly]

How about the world's oil dripping into all the cars?

[BrixtonSaint]

rhinochopig said:

In a past life I was an Art teacher before the lure of nuclear and military stuff won over. Coming from a design background I used to have some interesting discussions with the Art grads on the PGCE.

In design, you HAVE (or had) to be able to produce a picture or model of something that was pretty much photo-realistic, but yet it was a means to an end - simply to communicate an idea. In "art" the picture / sculpture is the end point, and often the skill employed getting the "art" to its end point was highly questionable.

We'd spend hours debating the nuances of what constituted good art. The position I finally settled on, was the the Art should hold your attention; it should demand you you take a second glance. This can be because the viewer marvels at the skill and technique of the artist or because you have a WTF moment and just need to find out why?

Personally I love the more thought provoking installations, from the brainwave turtles to the giant hammer and glass - which was superb; imagine a giant sharpened spiked hammer that swings across a room with terrifying force only to stop with a huge bang about half an inch from a delicate sheet of glass. Simple yet held viewers attention in rapt awe for a long time. There were queues of people wanting to read the paragraph of text, yet you didn't need to to find it interesting.

OP with your installation, I personally don't find it that interesting. I've seen a fair few sphere's made out of stuff before so the concept isn't that original - it doesn't make me stop and ponder - and the bit that could do - the oil dripping - again doesn't make me question why. The links between the car and oil are far to obvious. Had it been blood - the loss of life in our quest for oil - or oil dripping over something though-provoking / controversial then it may have held my attention more. In summary, it's interesting enough as an object, but fails to hold my attention and doesn't lead me to question why.

thanks Rhino, I too wonder about the self-explanatory elements as well but at the risk of offending those that don't want an explanation from the 'artist', in my mind the oil did in fact represent the blood of lives lost. I'm sure the obvious would be the first to come to mind for most ...ie the draining of world oil supplies but its open to interpretation like all art works I guess.
I'd like to see if it held your attention in the flesh though. Given your membership of PH and therefore car interest, I'd lay a tenner it'll keep your attention long enough to see if your favourite Dinky, or one of your Dad's actual cars is up there.
Dare I say, there's a few pistonhead tales told through the layout of cars on the piece as well.

[rhinochopig]

BrixtonSaint said:

rhinochopig said:

In a past life I was an Art teacher before the lure of nuclear and military stuff won over. Coming from a design background I used to have some interesting discussions with the Art grads on the PGCE.

In design, you HAVE (or had) to be able to produce a picture or model of something that was pretty much photo-realistic, but yet it was a means to an end - simply to communicate an idea. In "art" the picture / sculpture is the end point, and often the skill employed getting the "art" to its end point was highly questionable.

We'd spend hours debating the nuances of what constituted good art. The position I finally settled on, was the the Art should hold your attention; it should demand you you take a second glance. This can be because the viewer marvels at the skill and technique of the artist or because you have a WTF moment and just need to find out why?

Personally I love the more thought provoking installations, from the brainwave turtles to the giant hammer and glass - which was superb; imagine a giant sharpened spiked hammer that swings across a room with terrifying force only to stop with a huge bang about half an inch from a delicate sheet of glass. Simple yet held viewers attention in rapt awe for a long time. There were queues of people wanting to read the paragraph of text, yet you didn't need to to find it interesting.

OP with your installation, I personally don't find it that interesting. I've seen a fair few sphere's made out of stuff before so the concept isn't that original - it doesn't make me stop and ponder - and the bit that could do - the oil dripping - again doesn't make me question why. The links between the car and oil are far to obvious. Had it been blood - the loss of life in our quest for oil - or oil dripping over something though-provoking / controversial then it may have held my attention more. In summary, it's interesting enough as an object, but fails to hold my attention and doesn't lead me to question why.

thanks Rhino, I too wonder about the self-explanatory elements as well but at the risk of offending those that don't want an explanation from the 'artist', in my mind the oil did in fact represent the blood of lives lost. I'm sure the obvious would be the first to come to mind for most ...ie the draining of world oil supplies but its open to interpretation like all art works I guess.
I'd like to see if it held your attention in the flesh though. Given your membership of PH and therefore car interest, I'd lay a tenner it'll keep your attention long enough to see if your favourite Dinky, or one of your Dad's actual cars is up there.
Dare I say, there's a few pistonhead tales told through the layout of cars on the piece as well.

But if it's holding my attention because it's an interesting collection of toy cars (which you're probably right it would thinking about it) then it's failed as Art IMO and merely become an interestingly arranged toy collection. It's not challenged me intellectually or challenged any pre-conceptions I might have which is generally the point of an installation.

I have to agree with the post above showing the oil draining into the sphere. As a message of conspicuous consumption, it works much better that way IMO - the logic works. Have you considered doing it that way OP?

[zollburgers]

BrixtonSaint said:

As is pointed out, any fool with a collection of cars from their youth, the time to visit car booty's every weekend, the balls to go into Selfridges and ask them what they are going to do with the big ball in their window, research the best way to hang the piece etc etc could have made this. They didn't have the idea to though, and so if people want to come and see something I am calling an art piece, then that makes it art....surely?

That makes every single person on this World an artist if the only definition is that the creator calls whatever they want to a piece of art.

But having said that I've painted and drawn things before and so maybe everyone can be. It's just a good job that the same rules don't apply to airline pilots!

[BrixtonSaint]

zollburgers said:

BrixtonSaint said:

As is pointed out, any fool with a collection of cars from their youth, the time to visit car booty's every weekend, the balls to go into Selfridges and ask them what they are going to do with the big ball in their window, research the best way to hang the piece etc etc could have made this. They didn't have the idea to though, and so if people want to come and see something I am calling an art piece, then that makes it art....surely?

That makes every single person on this World an artist if the only definition is that the creator calls whatever they want to a piece of art.

But having said that I've painted and drawn things before and so maybe everyone can be. It's just a good job that the same rules don't apply to airline pilots!

So what is the definition of an artist? I have looked into this question on artists websites and even those with formal education in the area, painting and making for years, question their validity if their work hasn't been shown etc.

As regards airline pilots, surgeons engineers etc, their skills are based on knowledge so yes, I'd like them to apply by different rules but anyone can make a tv programme nowadays, just look at youtube and even some shows on tv, their made by the untrained general public (hell, I could point you towards plenty of tv industry forums which decry the amount of training within the industry - you really do learn on the job), so why can't anyone make art?

Rhino - I started it in the scale models section - I didn't see an art one.
Now if I was to turn it upside down, would it be mine? I think not but thanks for the suggestion.

Maybe I should put out there the one word that purveys each of the pieces I am working on or have at the planning stage? This is a condition that I want people to ponder and pervades all our lives. It would have come out if I had been able to show three installations, each different but all portray this one facet of the human condition which fascinates me. I wasn't sure I should let it out at this point though.

Now though, I fear I am treading on territory where Zoll & Slomax would rather I didn't go.

[Kozzy]

What I've always wanted to know is: Why do artists want other people to see their art? Why is it important to them that other people bare witness to these pieces?

[Elderly]

Kozzy said:

What I've always wanted to know is: Why do artists want other people to see their art? Why is it important to them that other people bare witness to these pieces?

Because artists are show-offs, insecure and need people to say "Darling you are wonderful" .