Fine Art America is the world's most powerful sales and marketing tool for photographers and visual artists.
Simply open an account, upload your images, set your prices for all our available products, and you're instantly in business! FAA provides you with an e-commerce website, fulfills your orders for you, and sends you your profits each month.
I thought of excesses when I posted this, not the finished product. I like the end result, but if I could afford it, I would never purchase it and condone how and why she does this. Throwing buckets of paint at a canvas, could achieve the same results, right? Just have to factor in the height of the building and velocity! No pollution and waste!!!
Very surprised by reactions here about the resulting art, using probably the most wasteful and environmentally wrong way to create art! Are people that narcissistic that using a multi-million dollar jet and hundreds or thousands of gallons of jet fuel to produce a piece of "art" is acceptable? Don't we as artists, have some need and even a right and an obligation, to protect the landscapes and environments we paint or photograph. Should we just hope that this "princess" create schools all around the world and help spread this "new" way to create art?
Do we need to create new excesses for us, just becasue the final product is "kinda cool"???
Sorry all, thought this process of hers was offensive to us and Earth, but seems some still are condoning the use of the jet to fuel her art!
Don't care really how good the photography is of her paint being sprayed by a jet engine, that's just the math, but just surprised that artists don't see a basic problem with this "artist" using a jet to be her paint brush, which seems a little "overboard", to say the least. If we all started doing and creating art, that was good art maybe, but hurt ourselves, our children and the rest of the planet, would the art be worth the "expense"? That's my question,
I say, it's her money, she can spend it as she wants. Would it be worth it to me? No... but I wouldn't want to be told how to spend my own personal funds. And, I do think the earth will survive her little endeavor.
A very expensive way to create an artwork. The lifestyle of the rich and the famous. The jet is not the clincher, I think the price of the finished work would be very expensive. Besides the outcome is beautifully done. And she wouldnt find it hard to sell it to her fellow royalties, or billionair friends. Maybe we could do the same style guys, but instead of a learjet we could use an industrial fun. Who knows we might get the same result. LOL. Thanks Rich for the share.
rich ... the key words are wasteful and environmentally wrong the fact she was in the process of creating art is of no importance .you create a piece of art using all of the most enviromentally sound products you can it turns out fantastic now you live in florida, i live in africa i order a 24x36 canvas wrap how am i recieving that between processing and shipping who knows how many planes,trains and automobiles it is going to take to get me that canvas wrap .
those of you who think this is art just stop pretending and ask yourself if she paid $10 to a guy/girl from the street would end result be better or worse I think not. That's exactly how rich ppl see art if it someone famous even pisses on canvas it's a masterpeace...
I though more of you ppl...
Very interesting discussion, I enjoyed reading all the viewpoints. I think she could have easily achieved the same end result without the jet fuel, with some other type of blower. But then the whole performance part of it would be missing. My first reaction was the irresponsible use of fuel and the environment. But, as someone touched upon, we do not think about the "carbon footprint" of other things, such shipping our canvas, or producing a movie, or even the manufacture and shipping of cameras, and the constant upgrade of our computers etc etc. ,Or all the jet fuel we manage to use around the world to kill one another......
Of course I see the finished product has a similiar look, but he used house paint, alcohol and drugs to create his works, not some gimmicky excuse to burn jet fuel. Putting this "princess" in the same sentence as Pollock, just took me by surprise!
I've seen videos where apes and elephants "paint" by doing the same as she does, but no one would compare their finished product to Pollock!
As I mentioned above, I was just surprised when artists here condoned and supported her method, which after all is used by the owners of the company that leases these Lear jets.
And as far as the references to the "carbon foot print" things we do, as part of our every day life, doesn't really apply here, as opposed to where somebody is going out of their way to be excessive. What we do on a daily basis, generally has to be done, food needs to be shipped to stores and flights have to be taken for business or personal reasons, just part of life. What we do with the things we can control, is more important than some "artist" on a tarmac, throwing paint at a cavnas, which is just being done to get attention to FlexJet and their stockholders.
I just thought as artists, we would innately be "Greener" and opposed to silly antics like this example, but seems I was wrong, for the most part.
I can't see this going anywhere further without getting politics involved or personal attitudes brought up, so, I will close this discussion,