It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Can weapons be art?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:44 AM
Purely from an aesthetic point of view can weapons be enjoyed as art pieces?

I do not have a great deal of interest in the use of these weapons, but would love to have some of these just to display and enjoy the art of the craftsmen who made them and for the decoration and flow of the lines.
For a blade I would be stuck for choice between Kukri, Kris or the intriguing Katar.
The choice of a gun would have to be the gun described by the Metropolitan as the most beatiful ( and probably the most valuable) gun in the world: the Louis XIII fowling piece.

Cutting Edge Weapons: 10 Unusual Knives, Swords and Blades

Amazing Old Bangers: 10 Interesting and Unusual Antique Guns

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:49 AM
Yes, they can.

In England, most of the large houses and castles have armour, swords, guns ... all kinds of weapons... hung on the walls as decoration.

Anything pleasing to your eye is art I guess.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by axehappy

Definitely. I think it might even be able to work the other way around too. But for some, there is nothing more beautiful than a fine weapon.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:00 AM
Definitely. I don't think there are many pieces of art that can compete with a well designed sword. A well-designed hilt blade and sheath can leave one in awe.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:29 AM
Most definitely. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so they say.

Check out this website

There are some really beautiful knives on that page. All hand made.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by seamjay

Yeah definantly... If you've ever seen a japanese sword, forged and made by traditional methods, it is much like a work of art.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 12:13 PM
I agree with the posters above. Not only are antique weapons artwork, or handcrafted weapons artwork, but there is a whole community of Modders who make the weapons they use in the Video Games they play, which is most definitely art (and it's not just boys with their toys either...but girls are doing it too).

Resistence 2: Making Her Marks(man)

or even...

Origami Weapons

Of course, such weapons aren't really functional, but they go a long way to prove that weapons can and are art.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:45 PM
How can anyone not say an AK-47 is a beautiful weapon?

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

actually i tend to think its a lil more primitive than the M16-A2

is this art?

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:18 AM
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....

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:18 AM
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]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:11 AM
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.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:04 PM
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.

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:53 AM
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]

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 02:48 AM
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.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:56 AM
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.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:43 AM
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:

Yet I am happy to have one of these mounted on my wall

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:54 PM
I think that I agree with what most of the others have said and that is yes they can be considered art. War is an art form in and of itself. The skill and ingenuity to not only design something for a specific purpose but to make it work is a thing of beauty.

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:52 AM
I Think Anything Designed To End Life Can Neva B Considerd Beutifull , Or Nice To Look At Etc.

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:14 AM

Originally posted by ProudDominicanAmerican
I Think Anything Designed To End Life Can Neva B Considerd Beutifull , Or Nice To Look At Etc.

If you are so opposed to weapons, why did you join the Navy? The Navy has plenty of goodies designed to end a life and pound an enemy into submission. You just may be ordered to fire such a weapon. Good luck in bootcamp! You'll have a blast.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in