Autoblog

art would have been two priuses or minis.

↓↑report

Old style musclecars ARE dead. The only people that can afford to pay for fuel on them are rich, middleaged men. The future lies in smaller, lighter cars with more complex engines and drivetrains to achieve high performance. $4+ a gallon is here to stay.

↓↑report

Hey "Vintage",

Heres one for ya....pick anyone of your complex compact tuner POS's with their $100 an hour mechanic setting it up for ya and take it down the track. Then when you're done running your soup can pile of Jap scrap, i'll let ya run my 575HP Pontiac down, and we'll see what ya say then. By the way i'm 32, not rich, and i can appreciate quality and workmanship when i see it.

The artist that wrecked those classics should be boy-cotted by all the gear heads that built the American Muscle cars and made them special. They are the ones that made racing what it is, and the cars will never be forgotten. At least not by me, and the other how many millions of people out there that have a passion for a classic car.

There's no better sound thean a real Motor growling from the pipes, and burns up the rear tires, not the pie plates on the front. I don't 7MPG when i am having the time of y life!

Long live Muscle cars, piss on the 4 bangers, they're for city drives to work...lol.

↓↑report

Hey Hick, I mean Bill,

You sound like Vin Diesel from the fast and furious. "In those ten seconds or less, I'm free". "When I'm burning rubber listening to AD/DC getting 7mpg with a budweiser in my hand, I'm free"

Whatever man. My first car was a 68 Charger, it was a lot of fun, but today's musclecars have turbochargers, AWD, and don't weigh much. They'll outperform V8/RWD cars in almost any category, yet are able to achieve decent MPG if you stay off boost. $4 a gallon and rising. Wake the hell up.

↓↑report

+1 for Vintage. Bill the hick, get off the internet. You can't afford to waste time on here with gas prices as they stand, and you wouldn't want your 'jap-crap' semiconductors to fail on you.

(PS: 67' Camaro SS, jet black... loved that car a lot, ended up becoming a complete money-pit)

↓↑report

Wow guys, getting a little hasty. Im a current student majoring in Transportation Design. Of course todays cars handle better, and get better gas milage, its the sign of the times. However, there are things called hobbies. Old cars are not dead. Pro built hod rods are selling for 6 figures....seems like their alive to me.

And just to reinforce something, everyone is suffering from fuel prices these days.

Anyway...The video is interesting, but idiotic. Any kind of car guy, would feel its wrong, weather its an old car or new car.

↓↑report

No!?!?! WHYYYYYYY???!!!!?!??!?! I can't bear to look... http://www.azautophile.com

↓↑report

It has nothing to do with his message, but everything to do with his choice of media. It's not like there is a arge supply of these cars out there.

Perhaps someone should get a Rembrandt or a Van Gough and slash it to shreds with a razor blade to make a statement as well? That's what's wrong with this "art".

↓↑report

@Bah - you're comparing these pieces of detroit junk to a Rembrandt painting.

That is rich.

I wonder if anyone here complaining about this has ever driven a muscle car...

↓↑report

His other, similar installations have used cars of different colors; this is the only such installation to use red (white) and blue cars.

↓↑report

Nice to see how the reaction here. This forum is not likely frequented by a lot of people who appreciate art that makes a dramatic statement. Artists who push the limits, operate on the thin edges of things, and manage to get people to think or piss them off have balls, not just talent. Piss Christ was a fantastic piece of work that got people to automatically spew their own pathology.

BTW, comparing a 1970s/1980s smog-choked, power down, badly screwed together "muscle" car to a Rembrandt is more than a bit of hyperbole. A Firebird, even this crashed one, can be re-built to be better than new. But as art, it may be worth even more in its bent state.

↓↑report

@ Bah, Gregg

Well said, Gregg.

Bah, at the end of the day, even if someone were to slash up a famous painting and call it art, they might be justified in doing so. Before you can even make the claim that this is somehow devalued because it destroys other art (and I agree that cars can be art) you'd have to put forth a definition of what you mean when you say 'art,' just so we are all operating with the same understanding.
Is it implicit in your definition of ‘art’ that it must not destroy other ‘art’ during the act of its creation? If I cut some bits out of a newspaper to use in an installation, is it still art?

↓↑report

Piss Christ a great piece of art, but the use of actual urine showed it for what it really was, a piece designed to evoke a reaction. Just like this is. It's not art, it's a political statement. Not all art is a statement. Not all statements are art.

↓↑report

Art sucks? All art? Painting sucks? Sculpture? Photography? Home furnishing design? Web page design? Performing arts? Poetry? Architecture? It all sucks?

↓↑report

@Gregg,

not all of those things are Art. not all examples of art have merit simply by existence.

Art's reason to be is not necessarily to offend.

I find this art to be opinionated, shallow, and wasteful. That overshadows whatever *seemingly socio-political* statement the "artist" seems to want to make.

Craftsmanship, vision, and truth speak to me much more as art, than shallow opinionated social statements.

The only thing social statement art does is give effete snobs something to snicker about, and further fodder for other people to dismiss the arena of art entirely. They aren't exactly wrong to shun it.

and since the "Piss Christ" has been brought up, that is not art, it is a direct insult and cannot be connotated any other way. there is only one interpretation, and absolutely no rational thought generated.
It is deplorable, lacks any merit, and demeans the term "art" to be considered such. It actually damages the term "art".

If anyone had done that to a star of David, a muslim, buddhist, hindu, or any other religious symbol, it would be decried as insulting and not multi-culturally sensitive, at least by some. But Christianity was fair game for insult, and that insult called "art."

This muscle car thing isn't *that* bad, but that doesn't mean it has much of any merit, either.

Art haters need to realize that most art, especially non-modern impressionist art is not like this near-literal stupidity.

And artists who do things like this need to get a large clue. Craft does not benefit from a huge departure from reality. Most good art, comedy, drama, architecture, design, and other craft endeavors are best when creativity is firmly rooted in reality.

Look at car design. The most fantasy-derived, gratuitous and unrealistic, and needlessly complex are the most ugly. The simplest, most technical-based designs, (even smooth organic designs have merit in aerodynamics. 'technical' doesn't mean square.) with an expression of honest creativity tend to be the most timeless.

↓↑report