Posted: 6/28/2010 15:05:33
That's what I think, anyway ... while I'm happy to agree that aircraft are works of art, it's a shame to see them like this, especially the Jaguar, ignominiously flipped on its back on the floor.
Read the story and tell me what you think ...
Online Community Manager - EAA
Posted: 6/28/2010 16:28:42
I remember the days when artistic recognition was achieved as the result of actual talent and ability, not simply displaying some abstract idea and passing it off as art. These days you can simply draw a giant box of Wheaties, put a Crucifix in a jar of urine, or turn a plane upside down, and pass that off as art. What have we sunk to, or at the very least, allowed all of our histories, beliefs, and thought processes, to be turned upside down and be re-written by the few?
Posted: 6/28/2010 16:32:28
Assuming the aircraft was still flyable and somebody wanted to buy it and keep it flying then, yes it would be a waste. My guess is that it may have been heading for the European version of the "Bone Yard". I'm no art critic, but it is a beautiful aircraft in any attitude. Having read the article she makes a few observations that call attention to the fact that objects of war can be see as beautiful even if their purpose is kinda negative.
As an aviation fan I'd like to see it sitting upright on it's gear, but that wouldn't be as eye catching.
Posted: 6/28/2010 19:15:04
Not as depressing as the Cadillac ranch, but close.
Posted: 6/28/2010 19:42:01
Modified: 6/28/2010 19:52:06
That really is a waste. Just like what modern art is, a waste.
I don't get why disfigured sculptures or paintings with random shapes are even considered art, or why there even sought for. There is no conveyed meaning or any considerable effort. Just something that a 4th-grader would make.
Also, you don't just put a warbird in the most undignified position ever possible in its final place. Turn it up on its gear for crying out loud!
Posted: 6/28/2010 22:51:10
Of course it's art. It ART TO BE FLYING!
Posted: 6/28/2010 23:50:56
If it's art they want, just get a static display of a Spitfire or Hurricane in a mock dogfight with a Me109. The Battle of Britain was pure art, in a sense, as the young men of Germany and Britain in an epic battle for air dominance over the Channel....
Posted: 6/29/2010 00:02:48
John Eiswirth wrote:
Of course it's art. It ART TO BE FLYING!
As in "It OUGHT to be flying!?" That almost got past me. LOL
Posted: 6/29/2010 08:10:10
The Harrier I like, the Jaguar, not so much. If this is what she is calling art, she's behind the times. We have all kinds of airplanes hanging on the walls right here at the EAA AirVenture Museum! Perhaps we should change our name - the EAA AirVenture Museum of Modern Art....
EAA Timeless Voices Program Coordinator & Museum Collections Assistant
"Let No Story Go Untold!"
Posted: 6/29/2010 08:51:10
Let me expand a bit on the "Art" thing. A real artist doesn't care much about what other people think of his "creations", artists are just pleasing themselves. You can take whatever "message" you want from their work. Using landscapes and portraits as "the benchmark" is an old habit that went out with the development of photography. Don't get your shorts in a twist over this.
Posted: 6/29/2010 09:04:57
I was looking over some photos of Davis-Monthan AFB with a friend of mine. He commented on how the chopped up B-52's were such a sad sight. I replied that though the B-52 is a marvel of engineering, it was just fine with me that we're living in a world in which we don't require hundreds of B-52's. A combat aircraft that is unneeded is in many ways a waste of space rather than a waste of an aircraft. I understand what the artist is trying to express here, but art to me is not a paradoxical statement, but a clear and unambiguous expression. Art also implies a bit more originality and composition than I see here. She has taken two objects that were designed by others, added her own finishing, and placed them in unusual positions in a chamber decorated in the architectural style created by men who lived thousands of years ago. Any achievements she gets from this exhibit will be second-hand.
If we're discussing a fighter plane as art, let us recognize it as a triumphant expression of the human spirit. It is above all a symbol of strength. It is the ultimate machine created by men to defend their ideals and their freedom. Note that historically, fighter planes of aggressor nations usually seem to be less beautiful than those of nations defending their freedom. The art of a fighter plane lies in its ability in the air and the abilities of those who fly it. Any display of an aircraft that does not revere its triumph is mere scrap metal just like the B-52's at Davis-Monthan. You can't have it both ways.
Posted: 6/29/2010 10:41:15
Great Comments! I think we find a lot of original art at AirVenture every year. While homebuilt aircraft are meant to fly many builders who have Grand Champion award winners have beautiful paint jobs. If we go back through the years you'll see some really creative expressions of homebuilders who truly love aviation and share that with all of us. Another area of aviation artistry comes from the likes of Shaun Tucker, and the great aviators who use creativity to demonstrate their flying skills and the beauty of a performing aircraft. That's the kind of art we all love.
Posted: 7/6/2010 12:46:42
While I find it hard to appreciate an upturned Jaguar as art, it is better than the alternative for such a good looking aircraft which, here in the UK, basically means breaking it up.
Apart from the cost of operating an aircraft of this type privately, the regulatory regime in the UK essentially makes it almost impossible to operate any multi-engine ex-military jet aircraft. The only exceptions are defense contractors providing training services to the RAF and the Vulcan bomber which was restored in recent years with public money and operated by a charitable organisation at huge cost.
As far as I am aware, the only place you will find ex RAF multi-engine jets are flying privately is in South Africa.
Posted: 7/12/2010 09:51:24
I am an engineer, and many people have told me that I don't have an artistic bone in my body. That said, a lot of other people have told me that engineering is a form of art in itself.
Whatever your definition, taking something as majestic and beautiful as a jet fighter, and disrespecting it by flipping it upside-down on the ground in a position it has spent all of it's life trying to avoid, is more akin to sacrilege than art.
As far as I am concerned, put the plane in the position that it was intended for, fix it up to make it look appropriate, and add some artistic expression to it in such a way as to promote it's future usefulness or preserve it's past heritage. That would be art.
Posted: 7/13/2010 05:47:36
Here's my second take on what I think. My interpretation is that it's NOT upside down on the floor of a museum. It is airborn having just rolled into the top of an Immulman to reverse direction for a strafing run below. Perhaps the "artist" is standing down there!
Posted: 7/14/2010 00:54:47
Russ Zimmerman wrote:
... What have we sunk to, or at the very least, allowed all of our histories, beliefs, and thought processes, to be turned upside down and be re-written by the few?
I don't know much about art, but I don't think that is. However, I do know the truth when I see it, and Russ nailed it.
Sadly, his statement seems true in just about everything these days, from art to politics to education to aviation.
Posted: 7/14/2010 12:38:25
The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) has a Bell 47 on display as a piece of art:
A few years back we tried to get funding for an exhibit at the EAA Museum on the subject of "The Airplane as Art"... somewhat similar in concept to the motercycle art exhibit that ran at the Guggenheim.
Posted: 7/14/2010 13:51:04
Airplanes in museums in unusual attitudes - all been done before. This artist needs to go back to art school.