British artist buries MiG-21 fighter jet to symbolize the end of an era - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Blind Weasel;52796682]so what about the ones just sitting in abandonment? [img]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f0/ac/a6/f0aca6e9ae302db88da137de687befb7.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I wonder if it would be legal to just haul one of those out of there. And how much would it cost? I mean, shit, I'd take one if I had the money to ship it. If not just to have it in my lawn and ask my friends, "Hey, you ever hotboxed a MiG-21?"

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;52797328]If people are so bothered by a single MiG-21 getting buried after being gutted, then [url=https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?make=MIKOYAN&s-type=aircraft]buy yourself a working one[/url] to keep around for funsies. [/QUOTE] Facepunch community fund for a MiG-21 when?

I hate that these people get labelled artist

[QUOTE=croguy;52796567]In a way burying the 21 is pretty symbolic. It's arguably one of the most retained aircraft in the history of man and was used by numerous countries despite being incredibly advanced for its time. However, that time ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. There's a reason why nobody but a few countries want the 21 anymore. Other planes surpassed it and the [B]factories haven't produced any parts for it in decades.[/B] Most of the current ones exist solely because their owners cannibalize other MiG 21's for spare parts. So in the end, having its own grave commemorating its success in the cold war is better than getting torn up in a hangar until it's not even recognizable anymore. Because that'll be the fate of the MiG 21 when no more of them are left. Could have just put it in a museum though.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-7[/url] Not quite. The last "one" (actually a Chinese license-built version called the J-7) made (for Bangladesh A.F.) rolled out of the factory less than 5 years ago, in 2013. One change made was because at the time (back in the 60's) the soviet MiG's ejection seat had the canopy fuse to the seat when ejecting, forming a "Capsule" of sort around the pilot. [IMG]https://www.suchoj.com/andere/MiG-21/images/MiG-21F-13_SK_154.jpg[/IMG] The Chinese felt that was "unacceptable" and replaced it with a side-hinged one that would simply fly off when the ejection handle was pulled. (because the older one would often outright kill pilots when ejecting by hitting them in the face, or the canopy would fail to detach and chute fail to deploy) The later "Side-Hinged" one became the standard for the Soviets because pilots would keep getting killed, which really says something.

[QUOTE=mickers;52797641]I hate that these people get labelled artist[/QUOTE] feel jealous?

Almost as equally bad of an offense is the fact they didn't even capitalize MiG properly in the article. :bullshit:

[QUOTE=mickers;52797641]I hate that these people get labelled artist[/QUOTE] Why? Art is art even if you don't like it or think it's garbage.

so let me get the situation straight after all the "but it shouldn't have been buried, instead-" posts -there's a ton of them in scrapyards that are still useful for their components to maintain/repair functional ones. OK? -there's so many of them that museums are already stocked up and it's not an endangered object, so the "treating it as disposable and it ending up like X example" argument isn't worth anything -[i]when presented the understanding that it's piss easy to just purchase and restore one yourself[/i], people don't care to do so because upkeep is too expensive to make owning one worthwhile (I guess compared to non-military aircraft in similar price/size ranges?) so, where is the problem in using the dead husk of a shit mass produced plane, in which the artist was [i]asked to do this[/i] by the Prague art museum as a celebratory event, who apparently knew he had done this kind of large-scale dig-and-place in the past While visibility of the thing from above would have been a cool way to make the most of it over time, that defeats the purpose of it all. The whole idea is the era should be dead and buried in the past, not that we should have a cool new military jet exhibit to gawk at. Having said that, I love the idea of being able to walk [i]over[/i] the jet, I rarely get to see this kind of hardware from anything but ground level when I visit actual museums and airshows so catwalks or a huge glass walkway would be kickass for anything at a proper museum

My problem with this piece is that after it's buried, the display is a patch of earth with a sign that says "there's a mig here" which is just fucking lame

[QUOTE=Blind Weasel;52796682]so what about the ones just sitting in abandonment? [/QUOTE] and just where might this scrappers paradise be?

Even past the idea of preservation I just think this is a shitty unevocative art piece tbh. Like many others have mentioned before, putting a glass pane over it without fully burying it would've made for a way better piece with all the same symbolism.

Some of you stockpile guns in a bunker. Maybe you even have a humvee. [b]Come the apocalypse you will all bow to this artist as your king and ruler.[/b]

I don't see what the big deal is, it's not like they just buried a cache of rare vintage weapons. It's one of the most widely produced jet planes ever made, and there are an unknown number just rotting in scrap piles around the world.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52799361]I don't see what the big deal is, it's not like they just buried a cache of rare vintage weapons. It's one of the most widely produced jet planes ever made, and there are an unknown number just rotting in scrap piles around the world.[/QUOTE] I dislike it just cause I think its shit and the symbolism is lost on me completely.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;52797328]If people are so bothered by a single MiG-21 getting buried after being gutted, then [url=https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?make=MIKOYAN&s-type=aircraft]buy yourself a working one[/url] to keep around for funsies. [editline]19th October 2017[/editline] The cold war stopped ages ago man, what we have now is basically as you described it, "The Slightly Chilly Arms Race".[/QUOTE] Stopped? It changed slightly. But we still have the proxy wars and we still keep our nukes pointed at each other. Russia, having obviously lost most of the conventional arms race, switched to corrupting our democracy.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;52796453]It would be pretty cool if they left the hole open but covered it with glass so you could at least still see it[/QUOTE] yeah but that would actually be kind of interesting and not as pretentious and stupid

You know eventually it's going to rust, rot and start to return to the Earth and I guess that's all artistic and shit but it also means that the ground above it is going to sink and become all deformed. [i]Potentially[/i] dangerous if it creates a sinkhole. But in general it's just going to suck over the next several decades to whoever they hire to mow the yard.

I don't really see the point of this, it's not doing anything useful, and doesn't even really make a statement Also on the point of rapid loss of historical artifacts, there were over 7000 lancaster bombers produced, and now there are only two airworthy ones, and 15 others in non-airworthy condition, this kind of thing can be lost very quickly and suddenly, and there are plenty of other examples of this happening It's not worth it

[QUOTE=Rastadogg;52796460]Why do a lot of artists seem to not care about history when it comes to weapons?[/QUOTE] Not just weapons. I've seen plenty of pieces of historical furniture defaced for the sake of art. Or worse, that "nu-cycled" weathered look that's getting popular with rich white kids now.

Their so rugged and so many produced and maintained that people will still be flying them hundreds of years from now, it isn't any great loss. If anything it might be one of the few left intact if the world experiences an extinction level event :v:

He might as well dig the plane up and sell it for scrap one week later. Beyond the initial symbolism of the burial there is nothing here. If it's going to be completely covered, nobody will see it or even know it's there. Even if they make markers it might as well not be there for what the public cares. The only way to make this work was to leave it half buried and then cover it with glass. This way everyone can see it rotting in the ground and the statement will be carried on whenever someone sees it.

The thing that pisses me off is what end of an era is it supposed to represent??? Soviet Union? Ended decades ago. Russia being evil? Still ongoing. Proxy wars and cold war? Hasn't stopped yet. Supersonic Fighter Jets? More like the beginning of an era, dipshit, with all the new stuff being developed. There's nothing related to aviation, or cold war, or russia, or nuclear tension that's ending right now. Quite the opposite. This is stupid "art."

[QUOTE=Rastadogg;52796460]Why do a lot of artists seem to not care about history when it comes to weapons?[/QUOTE] because postmodernism dominates the art world, and the claim of "value is absolutely arbitrary and subjective" has in it an intrinsic rejection of the worth of history, as there's nothing innately valuable about something which is old for being old, and the only things that are valuable is what's currently hot, which by nature is what's immediately in front of us, and not what's served it's purpose and been and forgotten, and has no immediate importance to the here and now. Which i think, shamefully enough, is a bastard offshoot of modernism's fascination with the future and the desire to shrug off an intrusive overvaluing of the past, which was seen to inhibit the progress of a self actualized mankind. [URL="https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/marcel-duchamp-in-advance-of-the-broken-arm-august-1964-fourth-version-after-lost-original-of-november-1915"]also all postmodernists are resentful shits who cling to postmodernism as a device that enables and justifies their lack of redeeming qualities and overwhelming lazyness, while also being able to claim virtue in being misunderstood and avaunt guard. Which is why this chucklefuck can't even articulate what he's trying to express in the first place[/URL]

[QUOTE=Mr Kotov;52796464]Modern art is such bullshit.[/QUOTE] since this gets so tiresome to hear again and again for someone with a good art history education: 1) [B]modernism is a movement, not a style[/B]. not only that but modernism is the types of works that you definitely should love, such as pointilism, impressionism, post impressionism, etc. some of the most expressive works ever, from van gogh to manet to cezanne to picasso to monet, are modern art. 2) you mean postmodern art, which was a largely reactionary anti-art movement that is a [I]movement[/I] and [B]not a style[/B]. it is contemporary art that could be described as having postmodern or possibly anti-art qualities, but art movements typically gain names only in retrospect. modern art: [img]http://www.theartstory.org/images20/works/monet_claude_4.jpg[/img] postmodern art: [img]https://www.moma.org/wp/moma_learning/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Duchamp.-In-advance-of-a-Broken-Arm-295x395.jpg[/img]

Postmodern's origins are also pretty cool and done with taste, such as this: [t]https://remodernreview.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/fountain.jpg?w=700&h=832[/t] Yes, it's a toilet, but if you read the story behind it, that toilet has a huge amount of meaning. And no, before you ask, not the kind of '~meaning~' undergrad art students try and attach to their crap.

Seems all you gotta do to be an artist nowadays is to be stupid.

Why do so many people think they're some kind of special authority on what art is If anything is pretentious it's that attitude

Iraq did it 20 years ago. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/KEvpiOb.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=The Jack;52796662]Nah, Can you imagine a T-34's Insurance? Plus it's a gas guzzler. On the otherhand, if you're going to blare out [I]the international[/I] when you gatecrash, there's nothing better.[/QUOTE] Don't need insurance on something that never leaves my property, and sure it's hungry but it'd only get run once every month or two so it'd be NBD to feed it. Not like I'd try to DD the thing.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52804248]Postmodern's origins are also pretty cool and done with taste, such as this: [t]https://remodernreview.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/fountain.jpg?w=700&h=832[/t] Yes, it's a toilet, but if you read the story behind it, [B]that toilet has a huge amount of meaning.[/B] And no, before you ask, not the kind of '~meaning~' undergrad art students try and attach to their crap.[/QUOTE] Can you enlighten us to the meaning of this miracle toilet? [editline]22nd October 2017[/editline] Okay I looked it up (My google results now contain "postmodernist toilet", thank you very much.). It seems like the only meaning of it is to be pretentious, which doesn't really help the case of it not being ~meaning~. This philosopher guy seems to sum up the "meaning" pretty well. [quote=Stephen Hicks]The artist is a not great creator—Duchamp went shopping at a plumbing store. The artwork is not a special object—it was mass-produced in a factory. The experience of art is not exciting and ennobling—at best it is puzzling and mostly leaves one with a sense of distaste. But over and above that, Duchamp did not select just any ready-made object to display. In selecting the urinal, his message was clear: Art is something you piss on.[/quote] That sounds exactly like the sort of pretentious ~~~meaning~~~ that an undergrad art student would assign to their crap. Or piss, in this case.