Can weapons be art?, page 1

Of course they can.

Click on the "View" link on any one of these
Holland & Holland guns

The engraving work alone would qualify them as works of art...never mind the woodworking or the inlay work on some of them. Now, if I just had a winning lottery ticket....

reply posted on 29-7-2009 @ 06:18 AM by Lonestar24

No, weapons cannot be art.

The reason is that proper art primarily is self-serving, its reason of existence is being "itself". A weapon however has a mundane purpose, it is a tool; even if meant only for display. Wether one adds ornamentals and engravings does not change that purpose.

One should be aware of the difference between artisans and artists.

[edit on 29/7/2009 by Lonestar24]

reply posted on 29-7-2009 @ 07:11 AM by Brother Stormhammer

reply to post by Lonestar24

So, by your definition, the Sistine Chapel isn't art, since it serves a purpose other that 'being art' ? By a literal interpretation of your definition of 'art' (that its only reason for being is 'itself'), most of the works of the classic masters wouldn't be 'art'. Michelangelo's "David" wouldn't qualify, nor would Rembrandt's, nor Bernini's. Why? Because they didn't come into existence 'for art's sake'. They served the most mundane of mundane purposes, namely, to keep the artists in question fed.

reply posted on 29-7-2009 @ 01:04 PM by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

reply to post by soldier8828

Ak-47 is the perfect combination of wood and metal, primitive means nothing when the weapon is effective.

As for the guy who said weapons cannot be art... You're wrong. Art is about expression. If you see a man holding a rifle, then you can probably assume what he stands for.

reply posted on 30-7-2009 @ 10:53 AM by Lonestar24

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer

Obviously you misunderstood my point. I was not speaking of a romanticised view of the matter, not the "art for art´s sake" idea, which is bogus. There is nothing wrong with artists earning money for their work.

What I meant is that art has to be created with the intention of carrying a message, a value, an emotion or an experience. Much like sports, art itself is unproductive, it has no tangible benefit or output. But it is the nature of art that it acts as a catalyst to what the onlooker´s brain makes of it.

There are of course many grey areas, and defintions of such complicated cultural concepts are naturally highly debated - one extreme being Joseph Beuys´ mantra that "Everything is Art". Furthermore, there are thousands of excellent craftsmen for every actual artist, craftsmen that often are more proficient in their trade than said artists, but they are missing the genuine spark that connects the artwork to the brain.

I personally am of the opinion that art starts where it is not slave to a function - and ornamenting a weapon to turn it into male jewellery is slaving it to a function. I can enjoy it, I can like to look at it, but that is mere playing with my sense of style, not my deeper emotions.

[edit on 30/7/2009 by Lonestar24]

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 02:48 AM by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

I understand what you are saying, but guns are developed by national culture. The AK-47 is pure Russian, just like an M-16 is American. Weaponry is culture, even if it is meant to destroy other culture.

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 03:56 AM by GORGANTHIUM

reply to post by seamjay

Yes weapons can be art.I make robots six feet high from recycled products.The current robot has 32 weapon and defence systems.I sold one last year for $285.00.They take four months to make.It takes me twealth months to save up enough parts to make one robot.The current robot has parts in it from,washing machines,old tvs,bikes,cars,plastic tops,photocopy machines,fridges,beds,old video players,old typewriters,tosters,toasted sandwhich maker,pens,electricial cord,heaters,cloths dryers,steel rods,wood,plastic boxs and used razors.Just about anything i can get my hands on will proberly go into the robot.

reply posted on 1-8-2009 @ 12:43 AM by PaddyInf

I suppose it depends on your definition of art. I for one don't really class a lot of what is being peddled today as what I would define as art. I believe that art should be something you find visually appealing. Yet I do take pleasure in admiring the lines and aesthetic appeal of some firearms.

For example I think this is a piece of cr@p: