Tate Jag and Harrier

Good to hear the important bits survived 🙂

Thanks for clarifying that. Seems the airframes did at least make some useful contribution to the preservation movement then.

There were no instruments, panels, internals etc…. in either airframe. Those items did survive !!

.

I think its quite clearly a statement and part of her artistic process. Why bother smelting the aircraft seperately and individually stamping each ingot. I don’t like it either but she was entitled to do as she wished with her property.

I think we can safely say that there were more people who appreciated them as complete aeroplanes or as they were in the Tate Gallery than are likely to appreciate them in their final form.
I believe the Tate paid a lot of money for a load of bricks a good few years ago now so maybe she is hoping a connisseur of modern art may be in the market for an artistically stacked pile of ingots – much easier to store now as well.
Can’t dispute that she was entitled to do as she wished with her own property but there must have been many parts that may have been of use to restorers / cockpit collectors which wouldn’t have been smelted anyway like cockpit canopies and switchgear, instruments etc. It would have been nice (and potentially profitable for the “artist”) to have offered these parts to interested parties and the rest could still have been smelted so it wouldn’t have detracted from any desire by the artist to “make a statement”.
I suspect that some of the components of the parts that couldn’t be smelted will end up as landfill where they will do far more damage to the environment than they would have done safely installed in a resto project or sitting on an enthusiasts mantle piece as a souvenir.

I think its quite clearly a statement and part of her artistic process. Why bother smelting the aircraft seperately and individually stamping each ingot. I don’t like it either but she was entitled to do as she wished with her property.

At the end of the day it seems reasonable to assume that the artist owned the aircraft so she would have been responsible for their disposal.
Was anyone given the opportunity to express an interest in them or parts of them for spares?
Artists usually earn their living by selling their works and the fact that these were melted down rather than being sold as works of art suggests that there was no interest in “the piece” or “installation” or whatever else you want to call it. Since there appear to be investors out there who are prepared to buy what they percieve as “significant” pieces of modern art it seems this wasn’t regarded as a “significant” piece although I suspect that the sheer size of the “piece” and the cost of moving and storing it was a major consideration for any potential investor.
We can’t save every ejection seat in the world and we don’t have sufficient aircraft /cockpits to use them all anyway. Many of the engine parts that are polished are unsuitable for airworthy projects and selling them as art is a way of raising more revenue than selling them as scrap just as many of the race car parts sold as souvenirs have either run out of life or were machiined out of tolerance in the first place and raise more as souvenirs than they would as scrap. I even know of a late 70’s F1 car that was used as a show car that was built almost exclusively from “reject” parts.
In a way she did buy a dog and then chuck it out on the street as one moment these aircraft were an artistic masterpiece and not too long afterwards they were perceived as a heap of scrap.
I stand by my comments but if others have different views then that is fair enough.

Just wait for the Burma Crates (and contents) to be turned into a ‘work of art’ then destroyed afterwards…

Muahahahahahaha…

WJ244 – I think its a little strong to say she had little thought for anybody or anyone apart from herself . Unless your in the position that you actually know the person I don’t really see how you can justify that.

Because the aircraft were scrapped -she is ultimately responsible ?? She hasn’t bought a dog at Christmas and then chucked it out on the street.
We don’t know the gallery rules – we don’t know if anyone even expressed an interest in them – she made a piece of art which drew attention -I dont believe she was under any long term obligation to it!

Maybe we should we castigate the people who sold it to her for allowing it to happen?

Or maybe we should look at the people who polish ejection seats for them to be displayed in apartments or dismantle engines so they can become industrial art !

Whilst I have no issue with the aircraft being scrapped – there are plenty of each around, your last para sums it up perfectly!

[QUOTE=Al;1883630]If they were such important works of art as to be shown in the Tate, why were they destroyed after their exposure?

I had exactly the same thought. I don’t doubt the artist would come out with some c–p about returning the aircraft to their original form and that this formed part of the artists remit in showing how transient objects can be in this world and how things come full circle but I suppose if I had my head firmly lodged in my own behind (an affliction which seems to affect many modern artists) then maybe I would also think that destroying a perfectly salvageable aeroplane for no apparent reason was the right thing to do.
If these were such a great work of art I don’t understand why they weren’t snapped up by an art investor. If their ultimate fate was the smelter then why couldn’t the artist have offered parts to anyone who needed them for resto projects – probably because she had little thought for anything or anyone other than herself and the glory of having her “art” exhibited in the Tate.

If they were such important works of art as to be shown in the Tate, why were they destroyed after their exposure?
Here’s an old Henry Moore…

I think she needs a good spanking!

Soooo..

Aluminum ingots are around $2,500 – $3,000 per metric ton (and dropping)

Who would have forked out £1,860 ($3K) for the pair??:rolleyes:

There were some parts on that Jag that I could have used or at least found good homes for, not much good to me now though.

Hi Inkworm, didn’t you mean ‘the wonderful Jaguar’?

I feel it was a bit of a waste, and don’t understand why. I actually liked the Jaguar, and it could have had a longer life in a museum. Irrationally, this act has pi$$ed me off.

I bet it moves faster now than it ever did in Service.

Man, that Jaguar would have looked mighty fine on my drive…..

🙁

Jack I think it is better that we let James think there is some element of the wonderful Harrier (and that other thing;) ) still intact, the truth is just too much to bear for some.

James, as per post #1 they are now approx 1ton of ingots.

.

I remember that, but weren’t the cockpits and major sections still there?