Ulfreida, sorry for snapping at you. I’m just overly frustrated trying to figure this thing out.
Any ways, I sent the pic links to a friend who went to art school in CT. He says it looks like it is made out of injected molded plastic. Which would explain the lack of corrosion or oxidation. NitroPress will have to verify the material if he ever gets a chance.
Also, it was modeled somewhat poorly to be a sphere for any type of scientific endeavor. Looks like that patterns where mapped out on paper.
If it’s art, then I don’t like the point on the pole. Either make it round, or make the point more exaggerated, concave even, so that it looks like it’s supposed to be there. The way it is now, it just looks poorly made. [/art critic]
My husband says it’s an atmospheric chamber used to test high pressure liquids and gasses.
He’ll take the pix to some of the engineers that work that sort of thing and get back to us.
The only thing I can contribute is the possibility that it was produced by replicating many identical parts from a limited number of small originals. That might be easier than building one large piece, and if pressure or multiple joints aren’t a factor, the simplest construction is best. If the biggest thing you can cast is 6 inches across, the only way you can build a 36 inch object is by joining smaller ones.
That doesn’t narrow it down to an art object or a laboratory one, however.
Tour guide: Now, this painting represents one of the finest examples of impressionist painting from that era. It is a great work of art that exemplifies the style and processes and philosophy of that age.
**
Tourist**: Well, I don’t like it.
**
Tour guide**: Well, you’re wrong.
Art. Art, art, art. Allen Peterson, or somebody who works with him. In the last photo the irregular opening looks like it could be a broken or incompletely cast segment, with the opening shaped like many of the grooves or markings on the Peterson item called ATL Globe from Memory. Gotta be.
Moreover, it is in the particular branch of art that involves not being able to contain fluids.
Yes, I know that site - the upper left image is the one I am referring to for comparison. And you will note that the device of this thread is NOT precise. Look at the third, closeup view. The sphere panels in the background line up poorly and there are mismatched seams all over the place.
Whether something is art or not really depends on the eye of the beholder, or some damn thing, I don’t know - but it is obvious that Peterson and whoever made this sphere (which I bet is Peterson anyway) are doing the same thing, be it art or not.
I still agree, not art. The arguments that it might be art are that we can’t figure out what else it is and it looks cool.
I think the damage in the closeup looks like cast aluminum would break due to an already thin and/or weakened area. Does anyone else think there’s deformation to the endcap nearest the hole? That would help explain the odd placement inside the hollow of the section.
The coloration seems to be a bit too varied to be PVC or similar and there’s some luster on the edges of the section that would probably have faded if it were plastic over a few exposed years.
“Imprecise, wounded and distorted” sounds like a considered response to a work of art. Or, if you believe in the necessity of what Medieval theorists called opus perfectum, certainly the last two adjectives. They’re quite startling to call to mind when looking at a bunch of surfaces, engendering that response. Art–but not only Art by Artists–does that sort of thing contractually (usually), as it were.
In fact your final sentence surprised me at first reading, given the clarity of your response.
Maybe my pronouns were ambiguous.
By this, I meant the mysterious object.
Anyway, to expound:
I suppose it’s posible that this object was created as an art piece. However, I seriously doubt it. My wife is a big fan of contemporary art, and even volunteers as a docent at a local museum (SMOCA), so I have seen a LOT of things that are Art, but might be considered trash, or purely as functional objects. Art that uses devices such as this are usually damaged or modified in some way in order to make a statement. If the artist wants to use a piece of lab equipment in his installation, then it is generally placed in an environment that either conflicts with its’ intended function, or in some way conveys the artist’s message. A good example of this was Marcel Duchamp’s use of urinals as art- but that’s a subject for another thread.
So, it’s possible that this was conceived as an artistic project, and we are only seeing part of it, but I think it’s more likely that we are taking the role of the artist - sitting as it is, abandoned, in a weedy, snowy lot, we have decided that it has become art.
It doesn’t look at all like Allen Peterson’s work. Peterson’s work relies heavily on empty spaces, tension, and the interplay of weight and empty space.
This ball, on the other hand, is a fairly boring form, with no particularly thoughtful use of weight, material or space. If it’s art, it’s decorative art of some sort, not studio art.
I really doubt it is art, though. I can’t imagine an artist spending that much time on such a dull piece, and if they did spend that much time, I can’t imagine them discarding it rather than keeping it or selling it.
My guess is a professor wanted to give the engineering students a challenge, made some ridiculous constraints on it like it has to have more than 500 individual pieces held together with 1,000 bolts and your grade depends on how close you make the main section resemble a perfect sphere. After the class was over they put it out on the lawn, intending to make a display of some kind and then forgot about it after the students graduated.
Ok, I was wrong. Well, I misunderstood. It looks like a vacuum chamber. Hubby doesn’t work until Monday. He’ll show it to some of the engineers that do satellite research to be sure.
Is this thing definitely made from metal? I originally thought so, but in the subsequent images, I can’t quite shake off the suspicion that it’s fibreglass or something. Also, some of the sphere panels make me wonder if the parts are cast or die pressed.
Could this have been made as a prop for a movie where it would have appeared in various states of assembly? If it was an important part of an engine or life support on a movie spaceship, or if it was a movie about a nutcase building an atomic bomb in his garage, it may have been essential to show it being made from tiny pieces.