Gimmick or art?

[MichaelChang]

<p>CNN's Jeanne Moos reports on an LA photographer blowing up a Rolls Royce and photographing it: <br>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/10/15/erin-pkg-moos-blowing-up-a-rolls.cnn.html">http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/10/15/erin-pkg-moos-blowing-up-a-rolls.cnn.html</a></p>

 

[David_Cavan]

<p>I think the answer is likely "yes", Michael. There's no reason that a gimmick can't be art, of vice-versa. Whether it has value - well that's a personal choice, as with all art.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>That's a good point, David, but in this case, is the art in the explosion of something expensive? or is it in the art of photographing it? </p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Interesting thought Michael. It almost sounds as if you are asking whether there is art without documentation, or at least without photography. I suspect there is in fact "ART" in this case with the action - you could interpret as negative environmental art, for instance, as a symbol of destroying industrial artifacts in a natural environment. Or something like that, at least. And perhaps there is potential for downstream art as a result of recording the event?</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Actually, David, I'm trying to determine if any of those actions constitutes art. </p>

<p>In some way, it's just a glorified version of a child setting off a firecracker under a soup can and recording it. </p>

[steven_clark]

I usually say people asking if something is art want to

exclude things from being art, which is kinda the

opposite of what art is about.

[MichaelChang]

<p>Steve, I imagine there are at least a few people willing to acknowledge it as art with their money by purchasing it, but it might also be fair to suggest that it's no more than a very successful viral marketing stunt to the majority of photographers. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I looked at Tyler Shields's <a href="http://www.tylershields.com">BODY OF WORK</a> to help me understand what he might be doing. It makes a little more sense in context. I think his work is art, interesting enough to look through, doesn't move me all that much, and a good deal of it is not to my taste. He has a voice, which helps define an artist. The act in question in the OP is like a scream made by that voice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is the art in the explosion of something expensive? or is it in the art of photographing it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I take it as a whole. The photographing is part of the entire performance. He's linked the three acts into one for a reason, I think. When he blew up the car, he didn't have an audience, seemingly by design. So the filming is a necessary part of the communication. But there's more going on as well: the blowing up of the car, the filming of the blowing up, and the filming of the filming, since we are seeing the cameras and not just the car blowing up. Sort of an ultimate selfie, in addition to a statement, IMO, about advertising and wealth. The slowmo sequence suggests that there's something in the actual burning of the car that he finds worth looking at. It's pretty powerful and awesome to see such an explosion, the burning flames in themselves.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I imagine there are at least a few people willing to acknowledge it as art with their money by purchasing it, but it might also be fair to suggest that it's no more than a very successful viral marketing stunt to the majority of photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it might be very fair to suggest it's no more than a marketing stunt and I'm not sure Shield's would object to that. He may, indeed, have made that an intentional part of his project here. A thoughtful artist might very well want to play with the tension, especially in today's world, between art and marketing stunts. If a urinal can be art, why couldn't a marketing stunt be? If approached with artistry and if some artistic sensibility is projected... What did Warhol do? Artists have a long history of <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo3642895.html">SELF-PROMOTION</a>.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>I think anyone who's seen (and done) too may explosions in his or her lifetime would see this as devastation, not art. Hardly a rational conclusion, but inescapable for some...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Speaking of the notion that devastation isn't art . . .</p>

<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/feb/18/ai-weiwei-han-urn-smash-miami-art">Ai WeiWei</a></p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Overpriced ripoff of <a href="

Plasmatics.</a> And lacking the music and visuals other than the car.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Is lapis lazuli more valuable when polished and preserved as jewelry, or when crushed to make ultramarine pigment? Or does it depend on whether the painting is "good" or "bad"?</p>

<p>Is a painting "bad" if the pigment included toxic materials such as lead and cadmium? Or does it depend on the painting? If an expert forger could perfectly emulate Caravaggio and painted the <em>Cardsharps</em> as 1980s glam/hair rock and rollers, using every toxic pigment he could find, and titled it <em>Heavy Metal</em>, would the point of this pun have been lost a couple of minutes ago?</p>

<p>Was Serano's <em>Piss Christ</em> "bad" because it literally used urine (has this ever been verified?), or because of what it represents to some interpretations? Would it have carried the same baggage if he'd used apple juice? What if he'd used urine but called it "Apple Juice Christ"? What if the figure wasn't fabricated as Christ on a crucifix, but was actually a modified G.I. Joe with a wig, and attached to a couple of popsicle sticks, then immersed in apple juice? What if he'd actually used human blood instead and titled it <em>"Washed in the Blood"</em>? Is it the materials, intentions or interpretations that matter?</p>

<p>With some art, intentions and actions seem more relevant than the materials. Should our reactions to the destruction of a Rolls Royce onstage with a chainsaw, or by an artist, be any different than the reactions of a demolition derby crowd to the bashing up of a Gremlin and Pinto? It isn't the materials but what they represent in terms of status, socio-economic class, etc.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Destruction can of course be part of an artistic approach or creation. It can also be banal or highly imaginative. The latter category is I think quite rare as an intended creation (rather than the case of an artistically sensitive recording of 3rd party or natural devastation). I don't see much art in what Shields is showing us (unless every element of devastation that is popular in so much current cinematic production is art (another topic)), but there is certainly self promotion and that seems the main purpose. His art (portfolio) is of a type often seen by young commercial photographers and requires a certain taste of the appreciative viewer.</p>

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

<p>gimmick</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Aw, come-on. Who doesn't like to see things blown up? </p>

[john_robison3]

<p>The Rolls is OK to blow up. But if he blew up a Leica I'd be outraged.</p>

<p>Sarcasm alert. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The video left me mostly with the idea of a juvenile anti-capitalism statement of sorts; at least, the choice for a Rolls gave me the impression that it wasn't just about getting photos from a exploding vehicle. And in this light, I found it nor gimmick, nor art. Just cheesy and a tad cheap; large loud gestures without much substance.<br>

And maybe that wasn't the artist's intention at all, in which case, the whole ordeal failed on me too. Not quite sure which of the two is better. And maybe I'm wrong on all counts, maybe it is art, but I just don't get it. Happens.</p>

<p>Looking at his portfolio, the Rolls served well as a prop for quite some photos before it got demolished. As for this other work: what Arthur wrote about. I'm not gifted with the certain taste required - a bit too much cliché which makes me fear the "<em>I'm an <em>anti-capitalist</em> rebel, look at me being arty, let's blow up a Rolls and get viral on social media</em>"-vibe I picked up could well be true.</p>

 

[warren_wilson]

It's always enjoyable to debate what constitutes art. For me, art requires a great deal of skill -- enough skill to elevate it

above craft (which I see on the same continuum). In my mind, skill is a necessary (but insufficient on its own) component

of art. Art also has design.

 

As an interesting sidelight, I recently wrote a college course on drilling and blasting. As I worked in the field I came to

understand that highy skilled blasters elevate their craft to art: reading the rock (both the geology and the hardness),

planning the blasting pattern, choosing the products, setting the delays, establishing the amount of stemming, etc.

 

A good blast never rises much above the surface, it's smooth and undulating with no flyrock, no airblast. It leaves a pile

of rock where it should be, and it is perfectly fragmented to the final use. The remaining rock (often the face), is also

perfectly conformed for its next use.

 

Putting a few sticks of power under a car does not qualify as art either on the photographic side or on the explosives

side.