crash
it used to be a car. now it's a story
Yesterday, I took these photos of a terrible car wreck. I debated with myself whether these are considered ‘art’ or not. I did post them on Facebook. But am I being lewd and exploitative by posting them here (or there, for that matter!)? I may be sick, but I find great beauty in this wreckage. It’s not cool that it happened, and it’s not cool that most likely the person who was driving this is dead. But if I remove that from the final result- the wreck and these photos-is it possible to filter out the tragedy and be left with a painful reminder in the form of an onsite installation? People were actually driving to what’s left of this Lincoln Town Car to take photos. Many of these people were with their uniformed kids (this is where I park to pick up my children after school) who had brought along cameras (the crash is three days old today). I saw at least three dads come through with their children, commenting on the wreckage, shaking their heads and tut-tutting. Would they have gone to an art gallery to see this specimen of modern day ruins? Or is it up to the artist to dub this a work of art, take it to its next evolutionary stage? I don’t know. I just feel strongly that I have to hope I’m forgiven by whoever it was in this car for posting these photos.
front to back, back to front. the detailing in this accident is phenomenal. in just a few seconds, the physical forces of nature sculpted the perfect crash
you are left a headless carcass
the car was dragged away from its original site, leaving this trail of intestinal tubing and wire
To be honest, I think you are okay here, since they don’t show any people, or gruesome details–I think you are fine. My husband is also intrigued by wreckage, and I am very drawn to the beauty in destroyed or dilapidated things. That first black and white photo makes an amazing composition as well.
I definitely agree with Carly. It might be just an artist’s view though. Other people may not see the beauty in such pieces.
This is exactly how I felt when I stood in Saatchi Gallery this summer looking at Dirk Screber cars crashed and hanged on a pole … I was wondering if that was real with people’s life taken would it be considered ART? If you look at the material itself there is no art to “emotes” you … what is intriguing and always been through art history is the subject of DEATH, what we are standing in front is the “tragedy” that makes us feel … “Art is an aesthetic experience where senses are operating at it’s peak” this is said by Sir Ken Robinson-Jamal Tayara-Baroudy via Facebook
I think one of the things about taking a ‘found’ object and either photographing it or transporting it to a gallery in the name of art, is that we attach our own feelings to it, and that’s what takes it beyond being a mere news tidbit. For three or four days my circumstances took me back to that car, and every time I felt differently towards it: awe, sheer horror, incredulity. And when the car was taken away, I just felt sadness.
The car is gone but these photos will always be here to remind me of that ephemeral relationship others and I had with it, whether they realize or not.
Your words are very well supported. I think nowadays, there’s a very thin line separating what ‘is’ and what is not considered art. To me, art is a process, a way of thinking and implementing. You did that with those photos, even though most of the thinking might have been done afterwards, it’s still a process.