|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Cameras as Weapons Art Show
Hi all. Saw this on DPReview, and thought it might be worth a discussion. I have my opinions, but I'm curious to hear yours. https://m.dpreview.com/news/1544955874/ … as-weapons Jan 15 17 08:18 am Link Loved it. He's a creative genius. Those are freakin' incredible art. Lol at the some of the anti-gun whining comments in the article. Puts a smile on my face. Jan 15 17 02:10 pm Link Black Z Eddie wrote: Right? I'm about as pro-gun control as you can possibly be while being a gun owner, and even I have to admit that most of the commenters are preaching without getting the point of the work at all. Jan 15 17 03:01 pm Link Zack Zoll wrote: A pro-gun-control gun owner? That's like being a pro-abortion fetus. Jan 15 17 05:29 pm Link California Girls Skate wrote: It's called gun control, not banning of all guns. You may not believe this, but there is actually a middle ground. Jan 15 17 05:36 pm Link Zack Zoll wrote: Zack, thanks for taking the middle ground. Jason Siegel's installation is humorous, interesting and well done, even for someone like me, who is not a gun owner. Of course, a camera by itself, is a very powerful weapon. Jan 15 17 06:36 pm Link Zack Zoll wrote: He's an artist. Some talk (even negative ones) is better than no talk. Jan 15 17 08:10 pm Link Reading some of the comments. Zack: What would happen to a kid in the school system where you worked, if he/she created an art project which depicted guns or gun violence? What about at the college you teach at? Would you expect the same kind of reaction as the people posting in this article? Let's keep this about art, lest the thread not be here in the morning. Jan 15 17 09:26 pm Link I had a very long, thought out post here, but my machine crashed. I'll try to recapture it. First, my feelings on gun control. This is NOT to create a debate; I'm only writing this because there is obviously an assumption that you are one or the other, and some background on where I'm coming from would be useful. I strongly believe that gun control laws are generally passed by idiots on both sides. As an example, NYS passed(and rescinded) a law banning any semi-automatic magazines capable of holding more than 7 rounds. Where did they get that arbitrary number? Well it just so happens that the most famous American pistol holds exactly 7 rounds. I'd understand a ban on any pistols but revolvers, as it is consistent; this was obviously an example of a law being drafted by people that don't understand firearms, and with compromises made to people in the NRA's pocket. Again, not looking to start a fight - send a PM if you must. Just explaining how I can both agree and disagree on the topic. So that's where I'm coming from. As far as the work, I think it is fantastic, and works on multiple levels. The most obvious of course is that a camera is a weapon; by forcing police to wear body cams, were are arming the citizens; the fact that they always seem to malfunction when they're needed most disarms citizens. And of course, media can be more influential in toppling a regime than bloodshed. Not every video affects change, and not every videographer is right; but one soldier cannot win a war, and some are on the wrong side. It also speaks to photojournalism: terrorist organizations recognize the power of imagery, and not only produce their own, but often treat photojournalists as enemy hostiles. Lastly, it brings up the fact that a firearm is as cheap and nearly as easy to get as a camera. This isn't the place to decide if that should be, but you can't deny that it is true in many states. As far as Hunter's question about what I would do if a student made this work ... I think that's an excellent question. In the university setting, I would be ecstatic if a student presented this as shown, and maybe just a little bit jealous. I say 'as shown' because as much as I am an optimist, I have to admit that most young people wouldn't have the wherewithal to make this work. Most likely what you'd get is a proper rifle with a lens for a scope, and that's not nearly as smart. The grenades, gas mask, and mines especially are what makes the work ... Well, work. In the high school setting, this would pretty much never fly, even if the student produced the work exactly as shown. Many schools have a zero tolerance policy on guns or anything gun-related, and this would get axed before lunch. If the student's teacher had a great deal of respect with the administration then maybe there would be some pull there, but it's still very unlikely to ever be shown on school grounds. I can't say I'm outraged by that either. Despite all my cries of respecting art, I know all too well that parents will make everyone's life a living hell until the work comes down, and some will still be out for blood. Shit, I've had parents(okay, parent) stop me in the parking lot and tell at me in front of everyone around about how I'm a horrible human being for giving their kid an A instead of an A+ in freaking art class, and how I just ruined their chances at getting into a good college. I am NOT putting guns up on the wall. Jan 15 17 11:40 pm Link  Nice concept but just try getting THAT through the airport Studio36 Jan 16 17 01:43 am Link One thing i enjoy about Siegel's installation is that it shows that art isn't always pretty and benign. Pretty and benign doesn't necessarily make for good art. Good art is also scary, disturbing, ugly, thought provoking. Good art can force one to confront an issue and bring about discussion. Jan 16 17 08:40 am Link Frank Lewis Photography wrote: Yup, precisely. The best (and by best I mean most effective) art is essentially propaganda, in that the conveyance of a message is the purpose, and that message can often be controversial and therefore unpleasant for many. Art that simply caresses the eye, soothes the mind, and provides some decorative purpose is all fine and good, but it doesn't hold a candle to art that challenges the senses and demands understanding from the viewer (that's not necessarily a mutually-exclusive dichotomy, of course... but the former rarely contains the latter and vice-versa). Jan 17 17 05:02 pm Link If you don't occasionally piss off people with your art then you're doing something wrong.... or boring. Jan 18 17 03:25 am Link hbutz New York wrote: I could not agree more. An instructor once said, 'If everybody likes your work, it means you're too late - they've already seen it before. So unless you can do it better than everyone else before you, you're wasting your time.' Jan 18 17 04:33 pm Link hbutz New York wrote: I've seen lots of art that doesn't 'piss off people.' Luminist paintings, e.g,, much documentary work, early photos of Native Americans, photos of the 'F64 movement', Mexican folk art, countless brilliant portraiture, and much more. Jan 18 17 04:47 pm Link Eagle Rock Photographer wrote: A lot of that got more backlash than people realize, and early Native American photographs are a perfect example of that. Jan 19 17 03:36 pm Link California Girls Skate wrote: Nay... it reads: I should be allowed to own a gun. The other guys should be not allowed. Jan 20 17 03:35 am Link TomFRohwer wrote: I outlined my feelings pretty clearly in response to this post, and those weren't the reasons by a long shot. If you want to argue, please send me a PM(which I may or may not ignore), or take your soapboxing elsewhere. Jan 20 17 03:53 pm Link |
