Annoying the purists

[Cap'n Wannabe]

While not quite on the same wavelength as the OP, I can see *sort of* where he's coming from....I appreciate aircraft simply because they're aircraft and they fly - or flew. Personally, I'm not interested in building anything with a military scheme if I can help it. That's not to say I won't, but the first thing I'll do upon deciding what to build is to see if there's a civvy scheme that catches my eye....if I can't find one, I'll make one up. How would I paint this aircraft if I were to own it? Were I to be in a position to run a museum, there would be a Mustang in the short-lived Tiger Beer scheme of 1994, for example. Given that in this little fantasy, it's all my funds going into it, I can do whatever I like. Whether or not it annoys the purists is irrelevant.

[pigsty]

Britain Tate Modern Art Museum

Tate Britain, to be precise, and they call it a gallery; Tate Modern is a couple of miles down the river. But the display was a couple of years ago and has gone. I'd be interested to know what happened to the airframes ...

[Kevan Vogler]

Tate Britain, to be precise, and they call it a gallery; Tate Modern is a couple of miles down the river. But the display was a couple of years ago and has gone. I'd be interested to know what happened to the airframes ...

They were cut up and made into ingots:

http://fionabanner.com/works/ingots/index.htm?i108

[Grant in West Oz]

They were cut up and made into ingots:

http://fionabanner.com/works/ingots/index.htm?i108

I'm with OP on the concept. I'm with the artist who had the 'canvas' reduced to raw materials. As a plastic modeller, I'd love to see a carbon fibre and chrome Spitfire, ala the Aerolite, but in 'billet punk' fashion.

The art project a few years ago where 'street artists' decorated unwanted hulks of aircraft into vibrant art, made those aircraft fly one last time. Not according to hidebound chugging rules, but some other melody line such people can't see.

I'd go if Banksy was exhibiting.

G

Edited October 28, 2013 by Grant in West Oz

[CorsairMan]

Another "is it wrong to model war" thread but slightly disguised.

Have fun with it!

[turboz]

I will even take it one step further. I wish current squadrons won't mess with the history the A/C in petting zoos. I wish 164604 was still painted in gloss black and vx-9 markings as that is how it served its entire life. Instead it wears the markings of who's ever turn it is to paint it. Although, I'm sure some in the Navy would disagree with me.

This, SO THIS!!!!! Although I would prefer the VX-4 markings. I grew up near Point Mugu and my Dad worked right next door to VX-4. I used to see them fly over all of the time.

[niart17]

That's nice, I like the feather pattern on the wings and tail surfaces.........but it isn't museum material, it's art.

I agree, I think this is a very beautiful exhibit piece. It definitely conjures up some imagination and shows the graceful lines of the jet perfectly. It's almost angelic...but it's not a historic museum piece. I can appreciate art. I can even appreciate art I don't like for what it stands for. But I can't appreciate artistic interpretation of history when it's supposed to represent true history. That's call revisionist history and I can't support that. Alternate history for entertainment, sure. But there is a line that shouldn't be crossed imho.

Bill

[vince14]

I agree, I think this is a very beautiful exhibit piece. It definitely conjures up some imagination and shows the graceful lines of the jet perfectly. It's almost angelic...but it's not a historic museum piece. I can appreciate art. I can even appreciate art I don't like for what it stands for. But I can't appreciate artistic interpretation of history when it's supposed to represent true history. That's call revisionist history and I can't support that. Alternate history for entertainment, sure. But there is a line that shouldn't be crossed imho.

Bill

Small point, but revisionist history is not an 'artistic' interpretation of history. It's looking at commonly accepted history and offering new interpretations on events, or proving that the accepted version is wrong.

A case in point is the use of parachutes in World War One. The common perception - which continues to this day, even amongst those interested in aviation - is that ignorant, bumbling Generals forbade the use of parachutes for pilots in case it encouraged them to 'abandon ship' instead of carrying on the fight. This was reinforced through the post-war era, through the memoirs of a small number of pilots with an axe to grind and a continuing general public fear that those in charge don't really know what they're doing. 'Blackadder goes Fourth' encapsulates this perfectly.

The reality is that there was no parachute system widely available to the Allies during the war that was small enough to fit in a cockpit, or light enough not to adversely affect the performance of the aircraft. It wasn't a case of the Generals denying their use, it just simply wasn't an option on the table for your average Allied pilot. The Germans did develop a system which worked but it was never used in large numbers, and many pilots felt that the potential benefit of the system was less than the performance disadvantages it bestowed - simply put, it was felt to be better not to carry a parachute and fly a higher performing aircraft which was less likely to be shot down, than to carry a parachute which increased the chances of you being at a disadvantage in a fight.

Vince

[niart17]

Small point, but revisionist history is not an 'artistic' interpretation of history. It's looking at commonly accepted history and offering new interpretations on events, or proving that the accepted version is wrong.

A case in point is the use of parachutes in World War One. The common perception - which continues to this day, even amongst those interested in aviation - is that ignorant, bumbling Generals forbade the use of parachutes for pilots in case it encouraged them to 'abandon ship' instead of carrying on the fight. This was reinforced through the post-war era, through the memoirs of a small number of pilots with an axe to grind and a continuing general public fear that those in charge don't really know what they're doing. 'Blackadder goes Fourth' encapsulates this perfectly.

The reality is that there was no parachute system widely available to the Allies during the war that was small enough to fit in a cockpit, or light enough not to adversely affect the performance of the aircraft. It wasn't a case of the Generals denying their use, it just simply wasn't an option on the table for your average Allied pilot. The Germans did develop a system which worked but it was never used in large numbers, and many pilots felt that the potential benefit of the system was less than the performance disadvantages it bestowed - simply put, it was felt to be better not to carry a parachute and fly a higher performing aircraft which was less likely to be shot down, than to carry a parachute which increased the chances of you being at a disadvantage in a fight.

Vince

I understand what you mean, but I was referring to when you place an artistic interpretation in a place that's suppose to represent facts. That interpretation could be misconstrued as truth and become a revised version of history. For instance, take those same German WWI planes. If in a historical museum you decided to put Swastikas on the tails because you thought it was cool looking or some other reason. Since it's context is in a place that is supposed to represent historical facts, you could be revising some people impression of early 1900's Germany into thinking that the Nazi's were in power then, which is false. So that in my opinion becomes a revised history. I know it's a minor point, but it's all about context. I realize that may not be the common definition of revisionist, but I think it still would be a proper use of the term. We'll call it a revisionist definition.

Bill

[Exhausted]

OP - You want to build an art gallery, not an aviation gallery. You may get oohs and ahhs from the artsy crowd, but you would be shreaded by the aircraft and aviation crowd.

Don

Not from me. I would love to see planes integrated with new humanism. As long as the planes aren't "one of a kinds," such as an F4U-1 when there is an F4U-1a out there instead, I would be happy to pay and see it. I would love to see some of the roadside birds collecting birdshit and dents to become restored and painted.

Industry and technology isn't just about war and profit, it's to serve man.

I would like to see a Spitfire 1:1 replica painted like a 12 yr old would have done it. And I don't mean in a "British TV special" kind of way. There are plenty of Day Attack Harrier IIs out there that are just begging to be displayed in a new way. Or maybe a Catalina with scales.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Exhausted