Guns as an art material

These sculptures were on display in the British Museum in London when I was living there a few months ago (only got them developed the other day). All made for old gun parts (mainly AK47s).

Ruined parts that can't be saved, using them like that? That's fine.

Ruining parts to use them for that? That's not fine.


Interesting art, though not to my taste.

Bleaugh. Abstract crap. I'm a realist to the core.

That's sick and perverse. Would you use body parts that way?

Bleaugh. Abstract crap. I'm a realist to the core.

Doesn't look very abstract to me, honestly. That third one is pretty clearly a gunmonkey climbing a guntree, there's a magturtle (with dustcover eyes!) in one, and the first one is clearly a falcon descending on some..thing.

Additionally, I don't see that it's perverse, either. It's freaking metal. METAL. Just because a Russian in a factory somewhere yanked a lever and a big machine squished it into the shape of a useful part of a device doesn't make it sacred. I could go chop up my old computer crap upstairs (which is still perfectly useful, just old, and cost a damn sight more than my guns when I first got it) and glue it together in an astonishing facsimile of a big motherboardgle descending on a harddrivecupine and y'all wouldn't give half a crap.

Badgers aren't bishops, anthills aren't mountains, and a sculpture is just a freaking sculpture. You're free to not like it. Heck, you're free to find it "perverse", but I think the medium is a silly reason to hate a sculpture.

~GnSx

Additionally, I don't see that it's perverse, either. It's freaking metal. METAL. Just because a Russian in a factory somewhere yanked a lever and a big machine squished it into the shape of a useful part of a device doesn't make it sacred. I could go chop up my old computer crap upstairs (which is still perfectly useful, just old, and cost a damn sight more than my guns when I first got it) and glue it together in an astonishing facsimile of a big motherboardgle descending on a harddrivecupine and y'all wouldn't give half a crap.

Badgers aren't bishops, anthills aren't mountains, and a sculpture is just a freaking sculpture. You're free to not like it. Heck, you're free to find it "perverse", but I think the medium is a silly reason to hate a sculpture.


I was just kidding.

I was just kidding.

*cough* Er, yes, uhm, of course. I was, too. I totally didn't get all worked up and bitchy because of that, not at all. *ahem, cough* I'ma.. go.. place.

You can't prove a thing! Lies! Lies and slander!

:o
~GnSx
And libel!

This passes for art? :barf: I must not have any culture.

I gotta admit they make an interesting sculpture.

Untill you realize that those guns used to protect the Brits. :uhoh:

Now, as Oleg would say they must settle for extra vaseline (and interesting art).:(

"Hey!! Stop robbing her, or I'll create interesting sculptures!!!"

*cough* Er, yes, uhm, of course. I was, too. I totally didn't get all worked up and bitchy because of that, not at all. *ahem, cough* I'ma.. go.. place.

You can't prove a thing! Lies! Lies and slander!


~GnSx
And libel!

It would actually only be libel.

Now, if only some of those magazines still contained live rounds, and we could apply a welding torch at the right spot...

:evil: :D

I think that the tortoise made out of the mags is kinda cool.

At least that art is better than the U.N. sculpture of a revolver with its barrel twisted into a knot.

I would be interested in what the museum posted about the exibit. I know I'm jumping to conclusions but I wouldn't be at all surprised it it wasn't an anti-gun exibit.

I would be interested in what the museum posted about the exibit. I know I'm jumping to conclusions but I wouldn't be at all surprised it it wasn't an anti-gun exibit.


Unfortunately you're right - there is a "getting rid of dangerous weapons" motivation behind it, and they were made from decomissioned weapons.

On the other hand, all the weapons were exchanged for tools, rather than confiscated, and if someone decides that they need something else more than their gun, I guess that's their choice. (And they may well have been smart enough to only trade in their nonworking guns). There's more about the project here:

Link (http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/hixclient.exe?_IXDB_=compass&_IXFIRST_=1&_IXMAXHITS_=1&_IXSPFX_=graphical/full/&$+with+all_unique_id_index+is+$=OBJ13492&submit-button=summary)

I did think they looked quite cool though, and justified liking them on the grounds that if the artist had instead declared "I like guns, and when I found a load rusting away beyond the point of use, I though't I'd turn them into something neat" I would have approved, so its the artist that's objectionable, not the art. After all, its not the object thats the problem, just what its used for. And if you refused to appreciate art on the grounds that you disagreed with the artist's politics or opinions, then that would rule out an awful lot of art (e.g. Wagner).