Are Cars Art Anymore? [Archive]

6speed

11-10-2006, 09:41 PM

Controversial I know.But you have to ask yourself, other then concepts, and high end exotics, is a normal car you can go out and buy anymore art?A normal car, in terms of a Chevy, or a Honda.Finding a true car that fits you is getting rarer and rarer.A MINI is always befitting... but then again so is a rented Tux... and they're both cheap...An EVO is fast! But doesn't it look a little tacky from far away? And does it really need that rear spoiler?Ooooh... A Corvette is art! Nope. Don't you remember at one time it was the "C5 and a half"?Art.It's a very different word. To some people Art is everything. To others, it is rare.What is it to you, and what's your opinion on the normal cars and them being refrained to as ART?

Superfresa

11-11-2006, 12:39 AM

Cars aren't, never have, and never will be art. But I do catch the drift of your line of thought. To me, British car have that styling that you could probably put as "art". Aston Martin, Jaguar, the Mini you speak about, Landrover. To me, the Audi R8 could fall in that category, as could the Porsche 911, Wrangler, MX-5, Mustang, Alfa Romeo....And notice how all of the above are actually Motoring Icons - Legends. So If I catch your drift, then that is as close to "Art" as a car could and should be. But I repeat, cars aren't, never were, and never will be art. You can't compare a masterpiece of Michelangelo, with 2 tons of nicely bent metal. Then again, some call pop music art. From that point of view, a Toyota Camry is very artistically made.

Hornbag

11-11-2006, 04:19 AM

I think BMW cars are Art. That sort of Art where you just spash paint and bits and peices all over the place and in the end it looks good.

MitzXJ220

11-11-2006, 04:54 AM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hornbag »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think BMW cars are Art. That sort of Art where you just spash paint and bits and peices all over the place and in the end it looks good.</TD></TR></TABLE>Andy Warhol did that ages ago: <A HREF="http://www.bmwworld.com/artcars/70_warhol.jpg" TARGET="_blank">http://www.bmwworld.com/artcars/70_warhol.jpg</A>Yeah I understand where you're coming from about the art thing. To me the F355 is one of the most beautiful cars ever built - a work of art, but all modern Ferraris just aren't in the same league.

Superfresa

11-11-2006, 05:10 AM

Andy Warhol? He's a fool. If we're going to talk about Car artists, Andy Wheel was the one you should've brought up! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/beerchug.gif" BORDER="0">

mzoltarp

11-11-2006, 05:56 AM

Art:63 boat tail Corvette Stingray bullet nosed Thunderbirds Deusenbergs

Tidal

11-11-2006, 07:36 AM

Well, if you consider that art is what is exposed at an art gallery, MoMA had an exhibit a couple of years back of what they saw as the future of the automobile industry, that included the Fiat Multipla, the original Smart, the Ford Ka, and the Prius. I guess the Multipla can be considered the automotive equivalent of a Geiger or a Bosch <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0"> , but they were going more for iconic than artistic i think.I would have to say though, regular cars can't really afford to be that artistic. They have to make too many compromises and please to many people, especially nowadays. The last regular car that may be considered art, imo, was the DS. That is art.

DoMiNo

11-11-2006, 09:24 AM

I wrote an essay about this once. Frankly, I think if you look hard enough you can find art in almost any automobile, and I'm astonished that I seem to be in the minority here. If you step back and take the time to find the subtle details that most drivers miss, you'll find a lot to admire in the same way that a long look at a painting can reveal the artist's subtler intentions. Case in point, I was walking to class the other day and I passed by a silver Honda Civic sedan; not exactly a car I'm particularly fond of, and not one that would normally be considered art in any sense. But the light was hitting this car in such a way that it highlighted the beautiful creased arch over the wheel well, and I couldn't help but notice what a striking design element that was and the effort that must have gone into making it perfect. In that respect I admire car designers more than artists (if they're even different), because while an artist in the traditional sense makes things that only a select few need to love, the car designer is charged with producing something that must be more or less universally loved--especially in the case of something like the aforementioned Civic. Cars are a part of popular culture, to be sure, but in this day and age the line between art and pop culture is thin, and cars straddle it perfectly. Someone mentioned BMW before: the discourse surrounding the Bangle BMWs parallels that of a new art style--the controversy, the extreme opinions, and the ensuing debates between two fervent camps--is exactly the kind of dialogue you'd expect to surround a controversial art piece, not an "appliance."So I sincerely believe the car is one of the truest forms of art. It's accessible, something everyone can appreciate and even buy. It's current: it reflects its social context better than any painting can. It's dynamic. It's endlessly personalized. And I for one could stare at a car for hours and never run out of new things to interest me. How can a car not be art?

Mil

11-11-2006, 10:05 AM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DoMiNo »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> How can a car not be art?</TD></TR></TABLE>Too right, theres art all around us.

Comrade

11-11-2006, 10:22 AM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DeadDave »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The last regular car that may be considered art, imo, was the DS. That is art.</TD></TR></TABLE> do you really mean that? Their main purpose was to make some car as aerodynamic as possible and the DS was the result. Pure case of form following function. Not much art here, IMO.Some would argue that in order for something to be art it has to be created by only one person. But I dunno, there definitely is a lot of creativity, imagination and beauty in cars. I think they're art.

Cozz

11-11-2006, 04:26 PM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DoMiNo »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">How can a car not be art?</TD></TR></TABLE>When "art" is made for use. When the same piece of "art" is sold in the thousands.Art comes from the soul. Not a group of people deciding which look will sell more.Just because it's beautiful doesn't mean it's art.

FRDesign

11-11-2006, 05:25 PM

Ford GT Aston Martin DB9 ^^^Those cars are Art. At a Parking lot, There were at least 15 people stopped to look at the Ford GT. Its Art While: A Camry or Accord or a 500 or Impala, Is not art. They dont do anything to help look nice.

Tidal

11-11-2006, 05:38 PM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Comrade »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> do you really mean that? Their main purpose was to make some car as aerodynamic as possible and the DS was the result. Pure case of form following function. Not much art here, IMO. </TD></TR></TABLE>Yes, i do. There's a lot about the DS that has nothing to do with function, and is just there because the designers thought it looked good, the dash for example. I see it as a totally emotional thing, can't help but look at it and smile.And DoMiNo, i agree with you when you say that you can see art in everything, but as a hole, a car always ends up being compromised in some way or another due to the necessities of modern living, security, comfort ( i mean regular cars ). Art should be a direct expression of it's creator, and therefore be irrational imo.And yes, the DS was compromised too, i know <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0">

MitzXJ220

11-12-2006, 07:08 AM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Superfresa »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Andy Warhol? He's a fool.</TD></TR></TABLE>LOL I know he is.<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Cozz »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">When "art" is made for use. When the same piece of "art" is sold in the thousands.</TD></TR></TABLE>So a chair Bauhaus chair isn't art just because Ikea sell them by the shed load?<IMG SRC="http://www.modernfurnitureclassics.com/images/modernfc/editorials/barc_side.jpg" BORDER="0"> <IMG SRC="http://www.eye-ear.com/d40.jpg" BORDER="0">

Nurburgring

11-12-2006, 07:20 AM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MkRylan »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ford GT Aston Martin DB9 ^^^Those cars are Art. At a Parking lot, There were at least 15 people stopped to look at the Ford GT. Its Art While: A Camry or Accord or a 500 or Impala, Is not art. They dont do anything to help look nice.</TD></TR></TABLE>People don't have to crowd in to make the car a piece of 'Art'. Some 'art' pieces are the Audi TT, VW Beetle, Aston Martin DB9 and the Jag E-Type. I believe the GT is just a modernized version of the original GT-40. It was 'art' back then. You can call Bangle designs 'art'. Art doesnt have to always look pretty. However, except for the 250GT and the F355, Ferraries arent 'art' either. Also, Cadillacs from the 50's with the tail fins and the 69' Impalas are 'art'. Also, I believe that the Volvo C30 is 'art'.

Cozz

11-12-2006, 07:23 AM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MitzXJ220 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So a chair Bauhaus chair isn't art just because Ikea sell them by the shed load?<IMG SRC="http://www.modernfurnitureclassics.com/images/modernfc/editorials/barc_side.jpg" BORDER="0"> <IMG SRC="http://www.eye-ear.com/d40.jpg" BORDER="0"></TD></TR></TABLE>First thing we need to understand is this is all an opinion thread. Hopefully no one goes out and starts attacking anyone else because of different opinions.2nd, The chairs ain't art. Beautiful, nice, yes all of that stuff but for use. The end result is a design covers a product for use and people think it's art. It has four legs because it's a chair. The "art" is limited to it's own design that it covers.Too many people confuse beautiful with art. Art is from the soul. A product is from the mind. I don't care how well it's dressed up, it's still a product designed to sell.

Nurburgring

11-12-2006, 07:29 AM

I believe 'art' is something that is sometimes controversial and most usually simple yet effective. Something that is embellished and adorned is not what I call 'art'. On a car, it has many flowing lines that piece up to a car that captures an image vividly. I call those chairs 'art'. They are simple yet they have made the chair legs into a new way. It looks modern and the key term used for defining 'art' in the modern ages is 'simple'.

Comrade

11-12-2006, 09:36 AM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MitzXJ220 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> <IMG SRC="http://www.eye-ear.com/d40.jpg" BORDER="0"></TD></TR></TABLE> Art or not aside, that thing is horrendous! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/scared.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/1orglaugh.gif" BORDER="0"> I quite like the black one tho..

napoleondyna

11-12-2006, 11:44 AM

I think these cars are art: Talbot Lago Bugatti Royale Bentley Continental R Bentley S1 Murcielago Aston Martin DB4 GT Zagato Aston Martin DB9 Aston Martin DB7 GT

Santeno

11-12-2006, 12:45 PM

Cars are not art, they are engineering. Design, not art accommodates the engineers' requirements to come up wit a homogeneous overall design.

Mil

11-12-2006, 01:08 PM

A type of immobilized car would be art (?).. Something smashed up etc. you know what im getting at...

DoMiNo

11-12-2006, 01:14 PM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Cozz »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Too many people confuse beautiful with art. Art is from the soul. A product is from the mind. I don't care how well it's dressed up, it's still a product designed to sell.</TD></TR></TABLE>See, I personally consider that an elitist point of view. We live in an age where the boundaries between commercial and art have been so blurred that the distinction is really invalid. Something can serve a commercial function and still be artistic; those two things are no longer mutually exclusive. So yes, while I agree that engineering/design constraints may hinder to some extent the "artistry" in an automobile, I refuse to believe that because it's intended to sell an automobile can't be considered art, or that it can't come from the soul. After all, if indeed art exists completely outside the commercial sphere, why are people paying $100MM for Picassos? If artists painted solely for self expression and not to sell their works, none of them would be on the market in the first place. Plus, the vast majority of artworks traditionally considered masterpieces (Flemish, Renaissance, you name it!) were commissioned by wealthy patrons... how could something whose content was decided by the buyer truly come from the soul of the artist? Then there are more modern examples of artists like Salvador Dali (and to a lesser extent Warhol) who embraced the commercial function of art, and who got extravagantly rich because of that view. But does that mean that a Dali painting isn't art? All I'm saying is that simply because something is produced with the intent to sell doesn't mean it exists without soul itself. There are plenty of notable car designers who would question the assumption that their creations are, at heart, soul-less products. There's more to it than that.

MitzXJ220

11-12-2006, 01:32 PM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Cozz »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">First thing we need to understand is this is all an opinion thread. Hopefully no one goes out and starts attacking anyone else because of different opinions.</TD></TR></TABLE>You're right, most people wouldn't think that the exhibits in the Tate Modern aren't art, but then there are loads that do. Each to their own.<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Comrade »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Art or not aside, that thing is horrendous! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/scared.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/1orglaugh.gif" BORDER="0"> I quite like the black one tho..</TD></TR></TABLE>It was just meant as an example, maybe I shouldn't have included it?

Comrade

11-12-2006, 02:17 PM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MitzXJ220 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It was just meant as an example, maybe I shouldn't have included it?</TD></TR></TABLE>No it's fine, I'm just expressing a crazy opinion <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/all_coholic.gif" BORDER="0">

CosworthKid

11-12-2006, 04:08 PM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Superfresa »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Cars aren't, never have, and never will be art. But I do catch the drift of your line of thought. To me, British car have that styling that you could probably put as "art". Aston Martin, Jaguar, the Mini you speak about, Landrover. To me, the Audi R8 could fall in that category, as could the Porsche 911, Wrangler, MX-5, Mustang, Alfa Romeo....And notice how all of the above are actually Motoring Icons - Legends. So If I catch your drift, then that is as close to "Art" as a car could and should be. But I repeat, cars aren't, never were, and never will be art. You can't compare a masterpiece of Michelangelo, with 2 tons of nicely bent metal. Then again, some call pop music art. From that point of view, a Toyota Camry is very artistically made. </TD></TR></TABLE>Oh man i disagree with you sooo much. To me a car is pure art, either good or bad, well done or lazy.Citroen DS and Citroen C6 : art Ford GT and Ford Mustang GT500: art Jaguar E-type: art TVR Tuscan : art Alfa Romeo 8c and Alfa Romeo Brera/Spider: art and the list goes on and on( just too sleepy to think more and argue) <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/cool.gif" BORDER="0">

Hornbag

11-13-2006, 02:50 AM

I think Cadilacs resmeble the Cubism movment to a small extent. While that may not make these cars Art, it is an inspiration and therefore elements of Art can be found everywhere. I supose it just comes down to your perception of what Art is and what it means to you.

CosworthKid

11-13-2006, 04:13 AM

I dont think relating cars with actual Art movements is the way to see whether they are indeed Art forms themselves. We can find art in almost everything. A car doesnt have to be a Cubism, Modernism or Art Nuveu to be seen as Art.

TitanSteel

11-13-2006, 08:03 AM

I beg to differ. To me, cars are the purest form of sculpture. There is no artistic substitute than a beautiful car. Take a look at BMW. As much as anyone may think that they are ugly, they are still sculpted and designed by people who care about the appearance of cars. To an artist, their lines flow, coordinate and meld together. It goes well beyond beauty (my art teacher thinks that the Z4 is a design masterpiece, just not beautiful). When you look at a car from an observer's standpoint is very different form looking at it from an artist's standpoint.Some cars that I feel are "beautiful art" --- Bugatti Type 57 SC Atlantic Coupe Aston-Martin DB9 Talbot-Lago T150 C SS Teardrop Coupe Ferrari 275 GTB(probably some others, just can't think of them now) 
Modified by TitanSteel at 12:16 PM 11/13/2006

6speed

11-17-2006, 09:14 AM

I knew this would be a controversial thread. A car is ART.A designer, usually of the highest degree, designs a car, the car is clayed, it is prototyped, then made into production format, but it always started out as just that: Art.

Santeno

11-17-2006, 12:51 PM

I have to agree with Cozz's train of though. Cars are not any more art than an Ipod. Both are unique and attractive pieces of industrial design, but not art. The defining characteristic being that in industrial design the design is primarily (and above all other considerations) supposed to serve a practical purpose. Art on the other hand, observes no such considerations. Art can serve a practical purpose, but it is not it's reason for being. Most of the time, art serves no practical purpose whatsoever.in the case of the Corbusier chair that was posted earlier, that is a prime example of industrial design. It's primary function is to be a practical chair. the stylistic design of the chair is secondary.

Cozz

11-17-2006, 04:25 PM

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 6speed »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I knew this would be a controversial thread. A car is ART.A designer, usually of the highest degree, designs a car, the car is clayed, it is prototyped, then made into production format, but it always started out as just that: Art.</TD></TR></TABLE>Yes, I would think that would be art in the beginning. But an artist doesn't draw a car, the artist paints a drawing of a car. What happens in the beginning to final production is a lot of "designed" steps of engineers and machines to make the product. Engineers change certain aspects of the design to fit their needs.Since when can you choose the color in art?