Scott Campbell: Misforming Transformers

7 Apr 2006 Category: Events & Exhibitions, Features, Japan, Worldwide

In Scott Campbell’s studio in Shinjuku are more than a thousand dismantled TransFormers in various states of disrepair. Starting his sculpture series in 1999, the Australian artist re-arranges parts of perfectly functional TransFormers to extremely dis-functional MisFormers. PingMag visited Scott in his studio where he assembles, plans and tweaks those precious sculptures - to find out why.

written by Uleshka

Scott, you had your first show with your MisFormers in 2002 and things have developed very well from there. The right people get attracted to your art, countless exhibitions (“Relationships replayed again and again across an internal landscape” at the QUT art museum, Australia closed last week) and you sell most of your pieces.

What is your intention behind building those MisFormers?

TransFormers are shining examples of functionality. They transform from useful machines into even greater robots capable of god like feats. As a model for the transition from a boy to a man, a TransFormer is a pretty tough act to follow. The MisFormers series brings some balance to the idea and represents the multitude of humans and social realities stuck somewhere in the middle. No longer a car but not quite becoming the world saving robot either.

The MisFormers Project started as a brief glance at the inability of many industrialized societies to raise socially functional male adults. However, it quickly developed to act as a platform to explore a much wider range of issues related to social dynamics.

Besides all that, I like the complexity of the mythology and the internationality of the visual language of the TransFormers as a material. I love the way they feel and the colour as well as the sound they make when they shift from one pose to another (Here is a little demo movie.)

I think your work looks very stylish, due to their components and the way you arrange those shapes! Are esthetics more important than meaning, or do they go hand in hand?

Primarily, the MisFormers are Visual Art objects. I could write an essay or a book about the same ideas and the meaning would still be communicated. What I love about visual art is that a whole chapter of ideas can be communicated instantly. I love the way that when I first look at an artwork, a whole flood of new thoughts can enter my mind at once.

The works in the MisFormers series are simultaneously figurative, abstract and symbolic. Ugly symbols just don’t work so I make the objects look attractive to the human eye and easily acquirable by the general psyche.

Your sculptures are interactive works, meaning, they allow the visitor to touch and “misform” them constantly. How do most viewers react?

I had always felt isolated by the arguably passive role of the art viewer. By using TransFormers as a medium I could allow for a final percentage of the composition to be created by the person engaging with the work. For some people the taboo of touching anything in a gallery or museum is initially hard to break but, after they get over their initial concern, most viewers become captivated.

Do you think that the understanding of your art changes once people are allowed to touch and mis-form those pieces themselves?

In addition to their esthetic communication I also make the movement of each piece fit the concept behind it. (Here is a little movie of how Scott misforms his sculpture)

If the particular work is about anger then perhaps its movement will be more explosive. If it is about cowardice then perhaps it will be more restricted. So, the way the work feels as it moves also communicates something.

I think people get more of an understanding of themselves when they reform one of the works because they get a visual representation of how they have reacted to that particular symbol. At the Role Models Exhibition in 2004, people’s different approaches to reforming works like “Dad” and “Mum” were extremely diverse.

I am fascinated by how the meaning gets revealed knowing the central theme of your exihitions and the specific title of each body of work. Stories spring to mind, symbolism, creating new shapes and individual meaning by how you interact with those MisFormers.

I find, that it all worked especially well in your Landscapes & Botanicals collection you made between 2004 and 2005: About the movement of plants from one country to another, with the migration of people and cultural values.

Can you tell us about your story behind one of the pieces, let’s say: “Three month Rice and Coca-Cola scarecrow”?

When I was in Indonesia, I would often walk past this rice paddy with lots of Coca-Cola advertising. I thought that was a pretty aggressive move from the marketing department until I realized the banners were mostly upside down. On chatting to the farmer, it transpired that the flapping red banners were the best to keep the birds from eating the soon to be harvested rice. In the past, rice was harvested every five months and people observed the spiritual practices to thank the rice goddess, Dewi Sri, according to this time frame. A number of new, much faster growing varieties of rice, particularily the IR36, have been introduced in Bali and so the traditional rhythm of spiritual observances no longer fits. Many songs and rituals have died out as a result.

This was a landscape where both a foreign plant and a foreign culture had changed the inner life of a society.

All the works in the Landscapes & Botanicals collection were made in such places where the plants and cultures interacted in dysfunctional ways.

Actually, I awoke one morning to find another farmer had gone through my studio garbage and used all my discarded TransFormer packaging to make scarecrows for his field. The MisFormers project had become an ironic example of the thing it was observing.

HaHa! Perfect ending! For another of your exhibitions, MisFormers in 2002, you also created un-functional manuals. What was the purpose of those?

They were made to illustrate the theme of communication breakdown. Many of the sculptures in the show had matching illustration manuals which were remodeled to become more of a confusing guide. They would not help to decipher the object although it looked like they could.

They look very handmade to me. How did you create them?

I took the separate instructions from each TransFormer I used in the resulting sculpture and cut and recombined them with a scalpel and glue. They were very intricate and multilayered, weaving in and out of themselves. Although I am sure Photoshop would have been faster, I wasn’t interested in making a secondary object but rather making an assemblage from the real TransFormers product instructions. Being consistent with the medium was important.

Some people bought them as a set with their MisFormer, others bought them individually.

That must have taken forever…

Out of how many TransFormers is each MisFormer sculpture made?

This is extremely variable and can be anywhere between two and fourty. Sometimes parts from fifteen or twenty different TransFormers go into one small sculpture because I might need just that little piece of green that I can only find on that arm on that TransFormer.

Off comes the arm, off comes the specific part and then one more whole TransFormer has contributed to the work. That armless TransFormer might sit in a pile for six months before it’s foot has the perfect shape to complete the rhythm of another totally different work. At other times I want a less fractured composition so I use many of the parts from just three or four TransFormers to create a more seamless object.

How long does it take you to make one?

Days, weeks, a year? It just depends on the complexity of the piece and the availability of the parts I need. I’m really neurotic about them being correct in every way.

And about how many pieces have you completed already?

About 180 to 200 sculptures.

Oh my god! You are a nonstop-worker! Don’t you meet collectors who think you are crazy to take expensive, rare TransFormers apart?

Yeah, I have had some interesting and educational conversations with some real maniacs. I nearly shit at my first show when I heard what one Transformer I had carved up was worth. The passion people have for these toys is astonishing and adds to the conceptual value of the medium itself.

How much would one cost? Let’s say - Doanld Friend and Cherry Blossom for example?

Around 100,000 Yen.

And what kind of people buy your art?

Many kinds of people have bought the pieces over the years. Private collectors, Museums and other artists. The reasons they buy them are as diverse and complex as the works they buy.

I heard that Ex-Girl-Friend was the first one sold in your Role Models exhibition. Correct?

Yeah! She was snapped up in mere minutes! I think if I had made a whole show just about that theme I would have sold everything in mere minutes! She was beautiful in a scary, hateful kind of way.

Are you happy about selling, or do you hang on to them a little?

Because the works are destined to be handled in the future, I submit them to rigorous play testing before they leave the studio. After that I like to keep them around for a few months to enjoy them myself (Link!) and also to see how people who visit the studio react to the works. Once they go into an exhibition I have an emotional connection to them but am elated when someone wants to place them in their collections. That’s when my social role feels completely fulfilled.

Anything you would like to add?

These works have no moral value. They are observations and documentations. Some of the subjects are not pretty or particularly nice but I really don’t have any interest in telling people what is right or wrong, good or bad. The MisFormers series was conceived and created as a means to an end, not an end in itself. People bring their own morality with them to attach to the works as they see fit.

Thank you so much, Scott! I feel honored, that you allowed PingMag to finally be the first online medium to publish your work (I complained about that earlier here). Good luck also for all your other projects in the future (I might write about those in another article….) and yes - if there are any lovely strangers out there who feel like contributing their unused TransFormers, please let us know in the comments! Thank you!!!

184 Comments

1. Well, I never had a transformer (my generation was more about Conan the future boy - that I love by the way) but if I had one, I would help this guy for shure. Nice work. And nice work also for you Ping.

   Posted by: Pedro Rebelo on April 7th, 2006 at 11:10 pm

2. [...] Scott Campbell makes amazing sculptures from Transformers toys. I’m sure there’s a pseudo-intellectual link between this and the twisted metal of J.G. Ballard’s Crash, but my brain is very tired. Care to take a crack at it in the comments? [...]

   Posted by: Pop Astronaut » More than meets the eye on April 8th, 2006 at 5:26 am

3. This article makes me want to go dig out the “transformers” and “power ranger robots” that I used to have. Man, I never knew they were this cool.

   Posted by: bentong on April 8th, 2006 at 8:18 am

4. digging the outside forcefully

   Posted by: Olltta on April 8th, 2006 at 1:44 pm

5. looks fantastic!! i had deepest impression from Scott’s artworks. Misformers, but they are super standing. amazingly he makes each works exactry what they are. beautiful…
   i enjoyed this intervew, excellent!

   Posted by: YukiK on April 8th, 2006 at 3:57 pm

6. I had a neighbor once that every year for halloween would take her kids old toys, take them apart, and make sculptures out of them. Anyway, nice to see these.

   thanks,
   A

   Posted by: andrew jones on April 8th, 2006 at 11:16 pm

7. As an avid collector of transformer action figures I am always attracted to new and novel ways to collect and make use of them.

   That said, what Scott Campbell does is a ridiculous dismantling of these great toys Takara and Hasbro have created for us. In short it is appalling. By taking apart these characters, Mr. Campbell is taking apart icons of youthfulness and boyhood. It pains me to see these objects reconstructed and misshapen as something familiar yet alien. The robots in Transformers (With the possible exception of Beast Wars, which I note Mr. Campbell makes gratuitous use of) teach us to care not only for machines , but for each other. They reflect values, like perfect moments of precise machine-like love, honor, discipline, devotion, courage and trust.

   Instead, Mr. Campbell’s mutations preach, in piecemeal convocations, of our limitations. Of how we can never be someone as sleek as Starscream, as honorable as Optimus Prime, or as devoted as Iron Hide. His works are like pointed jabs at the psyches of men (and the boy that rests in all of us). While I recognize in them parts of those characters I cherish ( Ultra Magnus’ arm here, Grimlock’s mouth there), what I fail to find is the depth and conviction that completes the characters I know and love. In taking these characters apart, Mr. Campbell has exposed them to the futile whims of our world. apart, they no longer function fully, and are no longer more than meets the eye, but simply bodies exposed and embarassed to every judging eye in the world.

   And to what end?
   To distract we the viewer from the possibilities of a consistent set of value and belief? To lead us into a state where we cannot act as organisms, as though struggling with our own disparate functionless-ness? Where our only possible “how” is our every which way? Does Mr. Campbell hate that he is a man? Is he so focused on his limitations that he can’t see his own moments of being special? How do such obvious boy stuff as transformers possibly tell us anything about ex-girlfriends? And how can the pearly colors of preformed plastics possibly tell us about landscapes?

   It may be fine for art-savvy sophisticates to look upon these things as great creations of wild intellectual ideas, but I can only see the awkward depletion of another icon of youth and the futile absurdity of the endeavor. Scott Campbell’s lexicon of landscapes, botany, girlfirends and parents makes for crooked superhuman heroes and ties them plainly to ourselves. Further while Mr. Campbell may have the touch and the power to sell his work to art collectors, but I for one will steer clear of these silly mutations of a worthwhile and meaningful part of our culture.

   And please, am I really to feel bad that Mr. Campbell “nearly shit” when he realized what he disassembled to make his art? Does anyone realize what he really disassembled?

   Posted by: Colin on April 9th, 2006 at 12:20 am

8. I would love to do such kinda activity. I bought a set and I wanna make something like this. Lets see.

   Posted by: Paavani on April 9th, 2006 at 2:23 am

9. Truly Wild work. Such a potent idea. The pictures all look great, but I really want to hold one and see how it works.

   Posted by: Ryu on April 9th, 2006 at 10:22 am

10. For me, when I came to Australia when I was 9 years old, Transformers were a common interest I had with the local kids here, so they helped me transcend language barriers (the only words I knew in English at the time were “apple” and numbers) and break the ice in making new friends.

    I don’t know if Scott Campbell’s work is art but I do know I found this article very interesting and probably would not have heard of his work until now. While I’d definitely go and check his work out if it was in a gallery/studio near me, I find the whole process of him finding the piece, dismantling them and making them much more interesting than touching or playing with them myself.

    Anyway, just wanted to say another great article, Uleshka and the Pingmag team!!

    Posted by: G on April 9th, 2006 at 1:30 pm

11. …an even funner way to use an already fun toy. That’s great. So many pictures.

    Posted by: Shay on April 9th, 2006 at 3:27 pm

12. Colin - your comment is awesome! Sorry, but it made me smile…. Taking Transformers apart to Misformers is about the most excellent idea someone has had in ages! Well done, Scott!

    Posted by: Luca206 on April 9th, 2006 at 5:28 pm

13. Dear Colin, if your imagination is so weak that you can’t see landscapes or ex-gilrfriends or, as it seems from your comment, non at all here, it’s only your own problem. To me, the names of these sculptures are just notions that are aimed to direct our vision of Scott’s art. Say, instead of Ex-Girl-Friend a vulgarly clad Bitchy-Super-Model with fancy-painted hair easily could be here. Surely it also concerns the rest of Campbell’s creations shown here, to my thinking.

    Such work is highly important to those engaged in creation process of something as it capable of providing an inspiration or some fresh ideas at least. Of course one should have an enhanced imagination to be able to seize this opportunity.

    Posted by: GK on April 9th, 2006 at 11:38 pm

14. I can’t find a reason to leave behind the imagination, the hobbie or whatever… even iF it’s about hot wheels or transformers. this article show a side of the toys, an artistic side, only rest to be satisfied and pleased… or maybe out of this and check other kind of articles in Ping MAg!!! sper ping mag always with a great job :)
    about me: my imagination and art apreciation was here …. wooohhh hoo!!

    Posted by: Jorge on April 10th, 2006 at 3:48 am

15. Maybe Colin can take us all to his magic special world at the end of the high self esteem rainbow so we can dance with munchkins and bathe in pots of gold?
    I am astonished that he can’t seperate artist from artwork and seems to think that the work the artist has made somehow dictates that he hates himself.
    This work is great! it seems like true art to me, especially since it obviously hit one of Colins insecurities and possibly encouraged him to thinkmore deeply about his own obsessive collection.
    Thanks PingMag and thanks Colin! Most of all thanks Scott!

    Posted by: Mathew on April 10th, 2006 at 9:12 am

16. I don’t think it’s art at all.

    craftsmanship maybe, but not art.

    Posted by: mike on April 11th, 2006 at 2:51 pm

17. [...] And then a few days later, Adam (”phooky”) alerted me of another example of Transformers as art. And if you thought the art world was already obnoxiously full of themselves, then you haven’t seen anything till you’ve checked out MisFormers. Hey, its neat and all, but seriously, its the same exact shit that we’ve all done as kids, just with an overdose of pretentious over-analitycal psycho-babble. [...]

    Posted by: FORT90.com on April 12th, 2006 at 10:23 am

18. Colin Get Back In Your Box. Scott Campbell keep up the good work,I would love to purchase and display your work in my home.

    Posted by: Kate on April 12th, 2006 at 3:18 pm

19. Colin, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful comment. But it is precisely that tension between the idealistic didacticism of the toys and show and the frayed edges it leaves that the artist seems to be getting at. Was there a gay Transformer? Why were all their fights so easily battles between absolute good and absolute evil? Why were there not more female bots?

    That with the Transformers there “was more than meets the eye” is true, but that truth isn’t their didacticism — its everything they didn’t say, everything they couldn’t transform into. This is the essence of what the artist is getting at, but he himself doesn’t judge for us, rather leaving each of us to chose which form we think is best to take.

    Posted by: Moses in Marble on April 17th, 2006 at 3:54 am

20. Colin’s comment conveniently and clearly illuminates the use of Transformers as a medium.

    Scott seems to be taking a largely aesthetic approach to his work–ie, choosing pieces for just the “right” balance and color and form for HIS eye and to embody HIS desired narrative/content.

    And yet what Colin’s reaction illustrates is how much these objects can be invested with the corporate/”official” narrative–and how moving and powerful it can be. What he doesn’t appear to realize, though, is how subjective the narrative is, and the value that he places on it.

    Since I missed the Transformer trend by a couple of years, I don’t have the deep, nuanced knowledge of the Transformer mythology. And I don’t have any sense of the otaku collectible frenzy aspects, either; I just know they exist. Scott doesn’t seem too preoccupied with these aspects, either.

    This kind of air-drop/drive-by co-opting of materials is very similar to the way people consume and transform [sic] other cultures as well: like how Westerners surf through Asia, incorporating aspects of local culture that seem–to locals–to miss the point. But the reverse is also true. Just ask some overbronzed afro-wearing hiphop chick in Shibuya.

    Considering where he’s making and showing his work, it’d be interesting to see more of how Scott’s work addresses his own apparent tourist/gaijin status in Transformerland.

    Posted by: greg.org on April 18th, 2006 at 1:19 pm

21. Oh my lord. Such pretentious attitudes! Five dollar words abound! Clearly, we are in the realm of the art snob.

    I must admit that I agree with Colin. I can’t describe Campbell’s work as anything more than “clever.” He’s stumbled upon the miraculous notion that - surprise! - parts of toys from the same manufacturer are interchangeable. Based on this notion of convenience for a manufacturer, he’s assembled a series of hodge-podge “sculptures” which, in all likelihood, could easily be parts which fit together well on that day.

    Now, I’ve done my share of time in the liberal arts community - both professionally and as a student - and I am well aware that ideas like these often arise from the “Oh God, it’s 2:00am in the morning, what the hell do I present for my project tomorrow?” last-minute mindset. Spend about an hour dreaming up some faux, pigslop essay describing the fantastic thoughts and feelings coursing through your head when you stuck a stick in a piece of poop and called it art and BAM! You’re a new and amazing artist.

    …which is, honestly, what I see here. Last-minute necessity, combined with a few years of interaction with the arts community, and you’re ready to churn out pieces of junked-together toy parts from Hasbro and call it art.

    But hey - if it makes you money, then you have clearly won The Pretentious Game. Have fun tearing up Hasbro toys and pretending that you came up with something wholly original and inspired.

    Posted by: A'rn on April 21st, 2006 at 6:42 am

22. Bah! Any Frelling Moron could do that with Transformers! How is this art?

    Posted by: Backscatter on April 21st, 2006 at 8:35 am

23. really not impressive.
    i dont see what the attraction is?
    im sure the factory workers have come up with better during their lunch break or a quite 10mins
    “hey bob look, i put a leg ona shoulder”
    “great. now do summin useful”
    anyone who said they would buy this stuff - look one ebay and get your own for $10.
    carefully selected? looks just like match the colours.

    its not hard.
    its not really creative
    its not original

    A.

    Posted by: AP on April 21st, 2006 at 9:33 am

24. They. are. TOYS. The show used beings of “absolute good vs. absolute evil” because. it. was. a cartoon for kids! No females? 9 year-old boys think females are icky! No gay transformers? It’s not a social/political statement, it’s capitalism! For the luva Primus.

    Posted by: me on April 21st, 2006 at 11:41 am

25. I have just one thing to say:

    Stakeout.

    Posted by: Andrusi on April 22nd, 2006 at 2:31 am

26. I’m…not seeing the attraction or the ‘art’ here myself. All I’m seeing, frankly, is some nitwit who trashed rather expensive and somewhat complex toys (you want to show skill, smart-boy? Take those pieces and put them back together into the original toy… Good luck..), turning them into something that looks like it was generated by a four-year-old. (And I’m being generous here, given that the two-year-old likely wouldn’t figure out how to put the pieces back together randomly after they were pulled apart..). Then again, I’m living a few blocks from a college who’s Art Department’s idea of ’sculpture’ is welding together a dodecahedron, and letting half of it rust, then sticking it out on display on the roadside. Blech.

    Posted by: Chris on April 22nd, 2006 at 4:11 am

27. I like the flower made out of Energon Mirages.

    (Pffft. No gay transformers, he says. Yer lookin’ right at one.)

    Posted by: ItsWalky on April 22nd, 2006 at 4:11 am

28. Just proof that someone could crap on a tomato and sell it calling it ‘art.’

    Posted by: Hugo H. on April 22nd, 2006 at 5:41 am

29. Yeah, I look at these, and all I’m really seeing is jumbled bits of figures randomly reassembled into messes. it’s the transformer version of spalshing paint on canvas, smearing it around into a multi colored mess, and making up how it ’symbolizes your inner rage’ or something else pseudo intellectual in order to sell it for $$$.

    I gotta agree with colin’s comments, it’s a dissassembling of our youth.

    and yes, there have been gay transformers, the japanese beast machines, Airrazor was a guy, but still had a relationship with Tigatron (also a guy. so that answers at least that part of your question Moses.

    Posted by: D on April 22nd, 2006 at 3:50 pm

30. Shitting on a tomato. There’s an idea for my next installation…

    Posted by: PedroElDiablo on April 22nd, 2006 at 7:53 pm

31. I’d like to see someone do the same idea with a bunch of classic paintings, ripping them in pieces to place them as their own ideas see fit, and then the traditional art collectors and specialists scream in a fit for what that person has done with the masterpieces. Or, if one was mechanically inclined, to take pieces from a Ford Mustang, a Porsche and a Ferarri and then mix it with parts from a Chevette and a new Kia to make a completely useless chunk of metal and other material and put it in front of motor enthusiasts to critique. I’m sure a lot of wouldn’t be very nice.

    Posted by: Glen on April 22nd, 2006 at 9:04 pm

32. Interesting. They remind me of the pictures that online shops use when showing TF’s, usually they mistransform them because they don’t bother to read the manual.
    A weird idea.

    Tony.

    Posted by: Tony on April 23rd, 2006 at 1:04 am

33. you know what is real art the people that drew and made these great toys.
    lots of kids take apart gi joe’s,transformers and other toys and put the peaces togather in new ways it’s what kids do.
    but hey your makeing money off of other peoples pre-made and mass produced art, so more power to you.
    I should have my kids take there toys apart there toys put them in odd ways and see if i can make money off it.

    Posted by: Anonymous on April 23rd, 2006 at 5:53 am

34. This…Is…Not…Art. If this is art, then I’m the fucking king of Atlantis. All this is, is a monkey throwing semi-expensive toys at a wall and piecing them back together. There is no meaning. The only one that actually looks decent is the flower, and even then that makes me want to barf. This is just proof that someone could break a cd in half, take a picture of it, show it on E-Bay, and have every art snob on E-bay at the time pay 500 million fucking dollars. Hey, I have some dirty underwear. Why don’t I take a picture of it and sell it? Because I’m not a brain dead, money hungry, unoriginal slob that throws toys at the wall. And to restate in a better way to all you art snobs out there-

    This not art. Does art snob understand now? Of course you don’t. You’re gonna get all uppity and shout at me for some political bullcrap and say I’m stupid our some other crap. Hey, I respect your opinion, but listen to me. You look in a mirror and tell yourself that this is art with a straight face. Don’t look away. Look straight at your fucking reflection’s eyes and tell yourself this is art. This is not art. This is just another piece of proof stating that anything and everything that is randomly thrown together is now “art”. This is not art. Art has meaning, looks good, and actually touches a nerve somewhere in the thing people call the brain. This has no meaning, does not look good, and just makes me sick.

    Posted by: Hypno on April 23rd, 2006 at 6:43 am

35. I think Scott’s work is awesome. I first became acquainted with him and the fantastic notion of “MisFormers” when he purchased a lot of junked up TransFormers from me off of eBay. I love TransFormers and so was naturally pleased to know that these old toys which had seen many years or wear and play were going to be put towards such an interesting project. I’ve no doubt they wouldn’t have been good for much else at the state they were in!

    Somebody needs to go look up “art” in the dictionary so that they can get a clearer idea of the meaning. It’s very broad.

    art (n.) “The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.”

    Whether or not Scott’s works are “beautiful” is simply a matter of opinion. I love everything having anything to do with TransFormers so Scott’s works appeal to me. I know if I was ever in his neck of the woods during an exhibition, I’d try to purchase one of his pieces.

    I’ll bet it’s a little more difficult and time-consuming than some may think to create such intricate sculptures and keep them completely versatile. These are not just plastic and Super-Glue.

    Besides, all Hasbro and Co. are churning out these days is junk and repaints. I’m a completist, but I’m getting a little tired of blowing money of the same figures over and over with a different paint job slapped on. Scott has discovered just about the only useful thing to do with all these extra toys!

    And $5,000 Optimus Prime, my foot. Better to be enjoyed by hundreds, thousands, in a museum than gathering dust on some die-hard’s shelf somewhere, probably still in the original packaging. And I can talk, ‘cuz I have a lot of rare, unopened TFs sitting on MY shelves.

    Posted by: KK on April 23rd, 2006 at 10:23 am

36. Artform - lacking
    Creativity - weak
    Interpretation of your thesis - terrible

    Get some kitbashing lessons.

    Posted by: Jasper on April 23rd, 2006 at 4:23 pm

37. What’s up with the copyright infringement going on?

    Posted by: Colorado on April 23rd, 2006 at 4:26 pm

38. When I first read Colin’s post under this article I found it rather well written and
    appreciated his insight, if not his conclusion. Colin seemed to me, to be making a
    great argument for what is so affecting and what is so wonderful about Scott’s art.
    Does Scott preach in “piecemeal convocations”? wow! Awesome Colin, what artist wouldn’t want to!
    Does Scott talk about “disparate functionlessness” ? I think so, and he does so wonderfully.

    Colin. Much praise for your ideas, I think Scott would be happy with your words.

    That said, this ridiculous continuing fling of “Is it Art?” is really unfortunate. Its hardly even an opinion, and certainly not well reasoned at all.
    The folks posting this way have hardly done much to state what they think art is, nor add anything constructive to the PingMag environment.

    What Scott’s art represents really is a break down of a symbol both of youth and Manhood. Many of the posters on PingMag were no doubt raised on a steady diet of Transformers, GI Joe, and perhaps Robotech. All of those shows were myths, but more than that they were a commercial assault on our youth. The goal of the cartoon for the creators wasn’t exactly the betterment of people, but improving sales of a product line.

    When Scott takes these creations apart, he essentially declares ownership and through manipulating the toys as components of his sculpture he
    creates something in line with a personal vision. On one level, choosing the component parts from toys is no different then choosing a pigment to smear on a canvas. Except that how many people posting to this page -or even actively involved in the art world for that matter- have any understanding of the value, history and symbolism of a chosen pigment? Now the arm of Optimus Prime takes on a much greater significance if we look at it as a pigment chosen to add a layer of meaning to an abstract work of art. Ex-Girlfriend featuring limbs from an insecticon is a wonderful play not only as a portrait but as a response to the feelings, Best-Mate featuring Hot Rod…Thats wonderful and neither pretentious or just a thrown together idea.

    Simply, Scott’s work seems to resonate with a tremendous level of symbolism that is readily accessible (even from the photos posted here). I haven’t touched a Transformer in years, but seeing them here I recalled a great deal. Certainly the cartoon was a big part of my youth. To confront something like this with an open-mind is to see how someone is reworking ideas from pop-culture into something, new and personal.

    Beyond those associations though, and on a purely formal level the work just plays out so well. The Donald Friend and Cherry Blossom piece is an awesome use of color. In the photograph, the transformers seem to disappear, and what appears could be any number of things, but the color creates the form and crafts the object into something more.

    I feel there is much more I could say about Scott’s great work, but I don’t have the time. I just hope that if people do have the time to post they will use it to consider the work and the interview at length.

    Posted by: Ryu on April 24th, 2006 at 8:12 pm

39. He must spend hundreds of dollars on this pieces. I must admit even thou I’m an art student I’m also a collector and I almost fainted when I saw some of the pieces. Not because I thought the pieces were powerful, but because I was looking for some of those Transformers. However when I come across the picture of Landscapes & Botanicals collection I did like what he did there an saw more than just a pile of plastic slap together.

    Still I have to agree with Colin’s comments on some aspects. I think Ryu also have some good points. The cartoon was nothing more than a 30 minute commercial for the toys.

    Still the image of Transformers pieces put together and name Dad disturbs me.

    But hey when it comes to art everything has been done so I guess this something new.

    Posted by: Dave on April 25th, 2006 at 4:13 pm

40. …..What is Art? do you think?
    To the people who say “this is not Art”…

    Because they are made of the toy that you loved? because you believe your hero is forever?
    I am sorry but I think, some of you have very small view about the Art.
    The most interesting thing that I felt from here is how many poeple talk about “Transformers” or “Toys”.
    I haven’t play Transeformers in my childfood so I am amazed about your reaction which you can’t see these sculputures are something else. For me they are not toy. No one could make like this except Scott Campbell.

    I see these works re-birthed your history of childfood and it makes you start complex or hasitate relationship between a child and an adult which Scott may wants to say through this his project.

    I think Scott’s works are well planed and fine touch and cartein balance. Try to look colser! Must be taken long time to finish each one.

    I respect his ideas of “Misformers” as art.

    Posted by: Kay on April 28th, 2006 at 12:58 am

41. I will admit to never being able to understand “modern art”, and much prefering clasical landscapes, but I can see a lot of style from other art pieces in Scott’s work.

    I quiet like the organic (or techno-organic) look of the botanical pictures though

    Posted by: Jack on April 30th, 2006 at 3:16 am

42. What a waste if you ask me

    Posted by: Daniel Bond on April 30th, 2006 at 3:33 am

43. WTF??? GET SOME PUSSY AND MAYBE U WOULD HAVE A LIFE!!! YOU HAVE TO BE BORED TO MAKE CRAP LIKE THAT!! LOL.

    Posted by: mojo on April 30th, 2006 at 3:44 am

44. Really the only thing I found of any artistic creativeness was the flower. That was rather interesting and I will give props on that, but the rest I think is a waste of time and money. The transformers that could be put to better use to children who don’t have play things are spent in disrespectful jumbles. Not to mention that anyone can slap together about 6 ball joint arms and legs and call it art. Like I said, this lacks creativity and just screams “Look how pathetic the art world has become.”

    Posted by: Jack Raven on April 30th, 2006 at 4:18 am

45. Just one thing:I HATE YOU,you are making shit from lots of transformers i´d love to have.

    Posted by: Atem on April 30th, 2006 at 4:31 am

46. Colin fell right into Scott’s setup perfectly. The glorious thing is Colin still doesn’t get it. Isn’t that the point?

    Scott, please take this step further and touch on the irony that Asia is poisoning its envronment so us Weasterner’s can have our toys.

    You can’t make Transformers in America Colin. Where’s your Super_Megatron now?

    Posted by: HasTaste on April 30th, 2006 at 4:32 am

47. now thats art i like, very brutal to the toys, but the balence and contrast of each sculpture is simply amazing, hope to see more and nice to see something new

    Posted by: adi on April 30th, 2006 at 4:48 am

48. appalling! how could this be done to poor innocent toys!

    Posted by: justin on April 30th, 2006 at 6:26 am

49. who would buy that shit?

    fucking trash for $100000 yen?

    Posted by: Anonymous on April 30th, 2006 at 7:49 am

50. for my next instalation i am going to puke and shit on g1 transformers and then proceed to put them in my ass.

    Posted by: misformersareshit on April 30th, 2006 at 7:52 am

51. Monsieur Stravinsky the Parisians are throwing a riot about your ballet!

    Posted by: Anonymous on April 30th, 2006 at 8:45 am

52. This guy needs to find a real, legitimate medium to cobble his “visons” out of. I would suggest taking a note from the millions of 5 yr. old children who are smarter and more creative than you by getting some finger paints or perhaps a sandbox. You see, in their infinite artistic brilliance, they have devised a way to make mindless, throw away art without destroying their toys! Maybe you should try it. And SO HELP ME GOD IF YOU LAY A HAND ON THAT SKORPONOK!!!

    Posted by: Starscream513986 on April 30th, 2006 at 8:49 am

53. Looking at what Scott has done here fills me with the sudden, intense urge to harm him. Those of you “art” snobs who are unfamiliar with collecting or playing with our beloved childhood friends the Transformers cannot possibly have an appreciation for what this represents. Imagine somebody you love dearly. Picture them. Now picture some gangly moron ripping them apart, disembowling and re-assembling their dead components in the name of “art”. If you feel sickness tinged with a sense of overwhelming rage at the person who did this, that’s akin to what this makes us feel. So, to Scott and those who approve of this sort of garbage, may you rot in hell.
    Thank You.

    Posted by: bERT on April 30th, 2006 at 9:44 am

54. well I can add one positive thing to my last statement…the manuals are pretty cool. THAT is art… I can understand that but not the genocide that you have layed upon the countless, defenceless race of Transformers…please stop before it’s too late to fix what you have done.

    Posted by: justin on April 30th, 2006 at 10:40 am

55. I TRULY, DEEPLY HATE YOU WITH EVERY FIBER OF MY EXISTENCE.

    Posted by: blitzwing on April 30th, 2006 at 12:35 pm

56. I like to think of myself as understanding of pretty much all forms of art, because art to me requires no explanation, whereas these pieces do require an explanation. In my opinion his best work shown on this page are “Japanese Wallflower”, and “Three month rice and Coca Cola scarecrow”, and the sad fact is that they required an explanation before I got it. If he wants to be considered an actual artist, perhaps he should move onto a different medium, one that perhaps will convey something to the viewer without needing a detailed explanation. I can assure you true artists don’t need to explain their art for the viewer to see it.

    Posted by: Luis on April 30th, 2006 at 2:06 pm

57. But see that’s just it, the whole “Asia is suffering” is a ploy. If you really wanted to say something it’s called activism.
    When doing something through abstract art, it could be so much more beautiful and thought out. I mean dear god, look at Salvador Dahli, the many made images that no one could tell what they were and somehow they got his message, this to me reminds me of what happens when children are careless, so unless that’s the point of the art, I don’t think this really the whole socio politcal message. And see this is the great part where we pull into Darwinistic ideas, America is better so it’s surviving. Now in all aspect, definitely america’s not better and somehow America has managed to get to the top, god knows why because I sure as hell don’t, but if China wants to pass the buck, then they’re going to make action figures, it’s china’s choice because if america boycotted action figures because of something as abhorrent as misformers, someone else would want them, conflict and demand are on both sides of the tree, conflict creates interests which creates specialization and if “Poisoning Asia for action figures” was that bad, it’s called revolution, but I can almost guarantee you no one in china really goes “Look at this nicely sculpted transformer, sad to think this killed off my nephew.” Why? Because it didn’t. So in short, this artist is more like what I like to call a con artist, it’s just a ploy, it’s like Michael Moore, saw something, made and excuse and called it good.

    Posted by: Jack Raven on April 30th, 2006 at 3:55 pm

58. HasTaste uhh you can make a transformer anywere you want. Some fans even sell some online. So please STFU before speaking. Also I bet half of the items in you house were made in aisa

    Posted by: Starblazer on April 30th, 2006 at 4:07 pm

59. Altough some of these are intersting and looking nice, I don’t like what you are doing. I mean, of course any one can do what he wants with TFs, but when dealing with older ones, it’s jus a waste of TFs, that many collectors (including me) wish to have. They don’t make any more most of those TFs, so the more you destroy like this, the less people gets a chance to have one of their own…

    Posted by: Wallas on April 30th, 2006 at 5:26 pm

60. gay

    Posted by: Anonymous on April 30th, 2006 at 5:51 pm

61. I can see where you call it art and how your work is pulling on our emotions. Either it be joy or anger. I’m a transformer collector and in the process, a scratch-builder. I see people kitbash transformers a lot on web sites. But they usually do this to recreate another figure from the toy line in homage to it. I’ve bought figures and thought If I changed these parts and added this color it would look great. But, I can’t break myself to do it. So, I would begin creating my own figures from scratch. To me, that’s what art truely is. So to voice what feeling your stuff is making me feel is unhappiness and anger. I see the one I think called Mum as a six fingered hand, the three month rice as a small patch of grass (maybe rice, sorry don’t see the scarecrow) and the flower one. Now to vent a little anger, like some TF fans already have. Your ripping apart maybe one of my favorite characters to create your art. For us TF fans we see the characters as indivduals with their own personalities. You see them as bits of plastic that can be formed into something else that reflects your feelings and maybe others as well. I wonder if you started taking Barbies apart, how would the Barbie fandom take it. In a way I think what you’ve done is original. But, I wouldn’t let you near my collection, nor would I buy anything you make. I plan on passing my toy collection to my son one day. And he’ll be able to change it from vechile to robot and back. Not forced to sit and look at it and wonder why it can’t change and why the other kids don’t want to play with his misformer or him. Yea maybe I live in the box and your outside it. But the box was built for a reason, to contain the vast Transformer universe that is, and I’m happy to be part of it. Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame.

    Posted by: LesserZ on April 30th, 2006 at 7:12 pm

62. Might I suggest a familiarity with the age and construction of the material Campbell uses to create his work, before championing his work as a “break down of a symbol both of youth and Manhood” eschewing the “corporate/’official’ narrative”. Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with Transformers should recognize that the vast majority of pieces used in Campbell’s work are culled from the more recent Beast Wars / Beast Machines / Robots in Disguise product lines, not the original Transformers of Campbell’s youth. In their use, Campbell is essentially co-opting symbols of today’s youth to comment on his own transition into manhood.

    Whether Campbell eschews the “corporate/’official’ narrative” in disassembling these models is vague. In conformance with tightening child safety laws, toys are designed so that when excessive force is placed on a joint the toy does not break, but comes apart. The parts of today’s Transformers are engineered to be disassembled and the ball joints used in their construction allows heads, arms and legs to be interchangeable. How radical is Campbell’s work when it is enabled by a construction forced upon toy companies by tightening government regulation?

    So please let’s not celebrate Campbell’s work as an attack on Capitalism, companies marketing to children, American / Japanese manufacturing legacy in Asia, et al. when it employs its own Colonial impulse. Widely available models, easily disassembled and then reassembled into some expression and sold to a small circle (notice I do not use the term “art world”, entering Misformers into Yahoo I found only a small handful of Transformers sites and blogs which invariably linked back to this article). “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?” indeed.

    Posted by: Anonymous on May 1st, 2006 at 1:03 am

63. As a long-time fan and collector of Transformers myself…. I cannot help being amused at the number of comments here by people who are reacting as if the actual, fictional character is being destroyed in the creation of these works. Okay, sure, he chopped up Silverbolt there… one of like, a million identical Silverbolt toys that were manufactured. How many more met their end in a landfill when Junior decided that toys were no longer cool? None of this affects the existance or survival of Silverbolt, the fictional character, or of Silverbolt, the hunk of plastic sitting on your shelf.

    As for the sculptures themselves, I think they’re pretty hilarious. I find myself more appreciative of the more literal ones, such as the Mirage flower, but some of the totally abstract ones are visually interesting as well.

    Is it art? What kind of question is that? It is what it is: rearranged artifacts of consumer society; abstract arrangements of color and form; a bunch of torn-up and stuck-together toys. If you find aesthetic beauty or societal commentary in it, more power to ya, I guess.

    (side note: I think people tend to confuse “art” and “craft”. People look at some abstract painting, Jackson Pollack or whatever, and go “THAT’S NOT ART”; yet what they often mean is “That involved no learned skill and craft.” But, at times, something that took 5 minutes to create can be just as beautiful to behold as something that took 5 years… unfortunate but true in an era that has devalued craftsmanship.)

    Posted by: RP on May 1st, 2006 at 2:30 am

64. This comment thread is a goddamn work of art in and of itself. In addition to trolling the art world by positioning cobbled together frankenstein toys (like I used to make in the backyard as a kid) as works of art, Campbell has also trolled a particularly fierce and devoted internet fandom.

    I just wish I’d come up with the idea first, honestly.

    -hx

    Posted by: Hooper_X on May 1st, 2006 at 2:32 am

65. You know the only one that looks the least bit good is the mirage. The other ones look like crap. Also hopefully these were found at resale shops and junk dumps, not brought just so someone could make their art to get back at someone.

    Posted by: Anonymous on May 1st, 2006 at 4:05 am

66. This is ridiculous. Whatever it is, it ain’t art. I agree that the real artists are the ones who designed the original toys that entertained and brought joy to millions of children over the years.

    The idea that you can take a bunch of Transformers apart and make their parts into sculptures that resemble whatever you say they resemble is hilarious. But it’s not surprising. After all, we live in a world where people have paid $300 for a Tupperware container full of shit on eBay. Whatever sense of satisfaction you art snobs get by looking at this and pretending to see meaning in meaningless crap, I’m glad you have to pay through the nose for it like the suckers you are.

    Posted by: Ben on May 1st, 2006 at 5:06 am

67. I was ok at first after seeing the ones that were being used were the ones from Japan’s TransFormers series, but when I started seeing the Generation 1 being used, my heart sank to see such awesome collectible toys being used for things that look like a 3 year old took apart and reassembled them not knowing what was what.

    Posted by: Anonymous on May 1st, 2006 at 10:03 am

68. these arent masterpieces…they are masterpieces of shit

    Posted by: Anonymous on May 1st, 2006 at 11:28 am

69. i c this has attracted all of the internets biggest losers including pooper rex

    i wish i was famous

    Posted by: wopadoogle win on May 1st, 2006 at 12:43 pm

70. Apparently ANYTHING can be art to some people. This guy needs to trade in his Transformers for a crate of Lego’s.

    Bolting together hundreds of toys and seeing how many appendages can stick out at once is called boredom, not art. The figures in their ORIGINAL state are more artistic. A lot of thought and engineering goes into creating a new Transformer (granted some are better than others), and here he’s taking someone’s established work, and fuglyfying it into pieces of junk. If becoming an artist is really this easy, then I’ll go dig out some old He-Man figures and a bottle of glue.

    Posted by: Anonymous on May 1st, 2006 at 4:21 pm

71. Cheers Scott you have really broke it open with your work! So much chatter from so many internet folx, you have elicited such intense reactions from so many folks. Its a testament to what a powerful medium male pop culture. Great!

    And really people collecting a childrens toy, have no ground to stand on to call people involved in the art world, snobs!

    Posted by: Ryu on May 1st, 2006 at 11:35 pm

72. I guess I can call the mized up contents of my dusty old lego box and call it art. Christ what people pawn off as art today. I’m an art student and I tried with every fibre of my being to rip apart anyone who created “New Age” art for class projects. Taking black paint and dripping it on a brown paper bag is not art, and neither is screwing a bunch of transformer limbs together into something that somewhat looks like a flower. We in the art community seriously need to take a look at what we consider art. Because people who are actually talented are living in shacks when hacks, like Scott, are making money because pseudo-intellectuals and people who think they are artists love this crap. It’s bull. I think I’ll start flicking boogers on a piece of dry-wall. Anyone wanna buy it? It’s very deep and meaningful are open for interpretation. $25000.

    Posted by: Robtimus Prime on May 2nd, 2006 at 1:05 am

73. Thanks for creating a 2000s version of “signed snow shovel on a wall”. However, it is people like you that make real illustrators and artists look even better by comparison.

    As for using our Transformers, get bent. Why don’t you go raid into the Star Wars market and see if those people like you messing with their collectibles. I know people that would have paid a lot of money for some of those before you made them into your crap. Make your crap creations with store bought goods and leave the rare pieces alone.

    For all of the Cremaster pieces, piles of broken glass in corners of rooms, and splashed paint on canvases, you guys need to take some drawing lessons.

    Posted by: srlalves on May 2nd, 2006 at 2:21 am

74. Ryu please. Theres nothing wrong with collecting toys at all. Please think before you post insults.

    Posted by: Anonymous on May 2nd, 2006 at 5:37 am

75. If they actually “formed” something I’d understand, but these are just a mess.

    The idea would work if they looked like patchwork robots or vehicles, a mentally-retarded chimp could make one of these heaps of junk.

    Art? You stooopid!

    “Mis(doesn’t)form(f***all)ers”

    Posted by: siburke939 on May 2nd, 2006 at 6:30 am

76. the artworld is officially full of art fags and pieces of shit such as these mispieceofshitformers…anything is considered art these days and these pieces of shit are no different…i wouldnt buy these for .50 at a garage sale…maybe just to burn them.

    your a pure art fag

    Posted by: scottcambelisafagget on May 2nd, 2006 at 12:35 pm

77. I am a diehard Tf collector and i almost cried when i saw how many Tfs Scott has (envy) and then what he had done to them (stupidity).
    Those things he has created are shite!

    Posted by: wiggety on May 2nd, 2006 at 2:29 pm

78. And this is one of the reasons why a jet landing gear costs collectors 10 bucks.

    Posted by: TFcollector on May 2nd, 2006 at 6:54 pm

79. [...] I stumbled upon this rather nifty article about “misformed transformers.” An an old animated series (and comic I believe), the Transformers were robots who could change shape depending on need. In some respects, the ultimate in adaptability. Scott Campbell has taken that a step further, breaking transformer toys apart and remaking them such that they can be made into any shape or purpose. In addition, he also encourages visitors to his gallery to change the misformed transformers. Check it out! Click here. [...]

    Posted by: U R Glu » Misformed Transformers on May 3rd, 2006 at 12:34 am

80. i stumbled accross a nifty article that says scott cambell is a fag.

    check it out! click here:

    http://www.menshealth.gr/id/files/5636/Gay%20Speedo%20Muscles.jpg

    Posted by: scottcambelisafagget on May 3rd, 2006 at 5:54 am

81. my name is pooper rex (cool huh yea players holler at your boi what what) my face look like bloody burnt hairy feces and i take it in the butt with my paintball gun nozzle while i eat falafels

    u art is not cool in my world player please i had a picnic w barbie dol 1nce best sex i had outside paintball

    -pr

    Posted by: pooper rex on May 3rd, 2006 at 6:17 am

82. There was a Masters of the Universe figure this guy should have liked: Modulok. It came with lots of pieces that you could rearrange in thousands of different ways.

    I guess it’s art since people can clearly discuss it’s viability as art. It’s bad art though.

    It IS possible to create art with Transformers, just look at the creative and detailed work at http://www.tfmaster.com

    Posted by: Mikael on May 3rd, 2006 at 6:51 am

83. These Misformers are interesting pieces of art. They are a re-imagining of a popular toy (of which I am a collector of), showing us, as humans the disfunction that society has fallen into.

    Whereas the Transformers, themselves are functional toys, representing the ideal of society, these Misformers are disfunctional, representing the reality of society. Things don’t work perfectly in the real world, and what does can be broken!

    The giant flower that folds and unfolds, made from the Energon Mirages and Dreadwings is amazing! Who knew the toy could be used in such a way.

    The idea of having an exhibit in which people can twist and turn the sculptures is unique. I have over 200 Transformers, and I’m afraid to let even my wife touch them. The great thing about these sculptures is that they are unlikely to break, because they have no functionality; they don’t change from one form to another. Move one piece, and it, in theory is “misformed” into something new.

    Posted by: Jason on May 4th, 2006 at 2:51 pm

84. I find the destruction of transformers offensive. But nobody forced me to look. If you only knew the effort I go to in stopping transformers getting damaged with buble wrap etc.

    I would love to stop working and get paid to play with transformers like you do.

    Posted by: ORD on May 4th, 2006 at 11:47 pm

85. These things are beautiful!
    I loved the Transformers when I was younger and these artworks just make me want to touch them.
    I love the way the aesthetic I loved when I was a kid has become something I can appreciate in a different way as an adult.
    Great work. Don’t stop till ya get enough, c’mon!

    Posted by: Jacob on May 5th, 2006 at 12:18 am

86. Does anyone remember the Spitting Image cartoon featuring “Brokenbyboxingdayobot”? I was a bit too old for Transformers when they came out but I used to make puppets and I’ve always been intrigued by the witty engineering of the figures.

    I’ve got to say that I like Scott’s work here a lot. The figures refuse to resolve completely and remind me of Picasso’s late etchings where the anatomy pops and dislocates as you try to make sense of it. The “Mum” and “Dad” constructions are brilliant autistic puzzles. It’s like trying to divine the cues in the drawings presented by a two year old, you have to take them seriously. It’s the difference between watching someone playing with toys and becoming-toy, being populated by toys…

    “It was not to play dog, it was to be populated with dogs. To play dog, it is not enough to go “woof, woof, woof,” one has to pass through other experimentations.”

    Gilles Deleuze, A Thousand Plateaus

    Posted by: Simon from Doodleblog on May 5th, 2006 at 6:51 pm

87. Ponce.

    Posted by: siburke939 on May 7th, 2006 at 2:42 am

88. TO ADD ANOTHER NEGATIVE COMMENT TO TEAR THIS LOVEFEST ASUNDER, I HAVE ONLY THIS TO SAY: I DESPISE YOU AND YOUR WORK SCOTT CAMPBELL. YOU HAD BETTER PRAY TO WHATEVER YOU WORSHIP THAT I NEVER SET FOOT IN JAPAN, BECAUSE IF I EVER SEE YOU IN PERSON, YOU CAN CONSIDER YOURSELF AS GOOD AS DEAD. I DOUBT YOU WILL BE MISSED.

    Posted by: blitzwing on May 7th, 2006 at 5:21 am

89. This Art, as with any Art, is in the eyes of the beholder.

    The question arises, what IS Art? Is Art the works of Picasso, Dali, and Matisse? Or is it the romantic style works of Remmington, Renoir, and the Hudson River school?

    Does a pretty picture really Art make?

    At the most basic level, Art is simply a person’s attempt to show some grand ideal or inner feeling in a visual mediumn.

    So really, we have no right to judge something as Art or not, since “Art” itself is a subjective concept, decided by the point of view of the audience.

    For example, I find performance Art to be sort of “gay”. Some love it. Who is to say whether it is Art or not? I love Picasso and Dali, but hate Jackson Pollack. But im not willing to say that just becuase it doesnt move me, that it isnt Art.

    I find Scott’s Misformers to be Art. Brilliant interpritations of popular culture bent and twisted as society twists everything.

    But thats just me. We all dont have to agree. But we all could at least be civil about it.

    Posted by: twfkak on May 8th, 2006 at 10:33 am

90. part of me just died inside

    Posted by: berserk on May 9th, 2006 at 5:37 am

91. and i hate you

    Posted by: berserk on May 9th, 2006 at 5:38 am

92. that is all

    Posted by: berserk on May 9th, 2006 at 5:38 am

93. Calm down, people. The death threats are silly. Worse, they’re elevating this to some sort of importance. Frankly? I just find this whole thing silly. The botanicals are good, but the others are just gibberish. And don’t even get me started on the pretentiousness of the maunuals. Is it art? Yes, I suppose. Is it crap? Yes, those two things are not mutually exclusive. It’s art, but it’s pretty crappy art.

    Posted by: Nemesis Primal on May 12th, 2006 at 10:39 am

94. You have too many transformers lol

    Posted by: Ryuubu on May 18th, 2006 at 8:47 am

95. Wow, some people are really scared of this artwork!
    These people directing death threats toward the artist are truely sad.
    Artists are merely the vessels for small ripples of the divine, making art is a gift they give us all.
    You can’t destroy water by breaking the cup.
    Campbell has made a window through which you can see the reality that hides behind the wall of toys you have built around yourself.
    You should all be praising this, not trying to resist it.
    It’s not easy to reappraise your own life but this work has certainly made me think more deeply about my own obsessions.
    You insecure boys in mens bodies should do the same.

    Posted by: Samantha on May 19th, 2006 at 11:20 am

96. for anyone who says this aint art - go and buy yourselves that crayola six-pack and get back to what you do best - biting on ken done’s style.

    Posted by: rachelle on May 24th, 2006 at 9:33 am

97. Reading thru these diatribes just proves to me that art is an ever evolving organism - turn the pages back a few decades and you’ll see people who we now deem as innovators (think Warhol and Duchamp) were massively criticised and denounced when they first made their marks… Scott, these reactions to your artwork show that you are definitely contributing to the evolution of art.

    Posted by: nicholas_hope on May 24th, 2006 at 11:12 am

98. I just got sent this link. Who would have thought?!

    Posted by: marcus on May 24th, 2006 at 12:08 pm

99. What a waste of some old toys…

    To be honest this just seems like vandalism under the guise of art. Taking something that is prefectly functional and reasonably valuable and turning it into an abomination is just plain wrong…

    Posted by: barcrest on May 25th, 2006 at 7:46 pm

100. To the artist: You, sir, are a dick.
     I can understand you doing this with the new stuff, but that’s Generation 1 you’re friggin’ around with. Give the good stuff to someone who’ll love it and pet it and make sweet, sweet love to it… like me.

     Posted by: Erotimus Prime on May 25th, 2006 at 11:33 pm

101. this is utter crap. seeing both bots and cons being twisted beyond recognition is just…. disturbing…

     i regretted popping by here.

     Posted by: jason on June 7th, 2006 at 7:29 pm

102. anyone wanna see me suck myself off

     Posted by: pooper rex on June 13th, 2006 at 8:33 am

103. ever take a 2 hotcakes and put syrup in between them? they make a great sex toy when u cant get any except from oxen or water buffalo

     i luv hotcakes

     Posted by: pooper rex on July 12th, 2006 at 2:27 pm

104. I’m a Great fan of Transformers and i have to say the “MisFormers” are a gigantic insult to the Transformers.

     Posted by: Sturmvogel Prime on July 20th, 2006 at 6:21 am

105. Truly beautiful art is what the toys in their original toy were. Now they have become horrible misfigured parts. Leave the toys alone. If you want to convey your message, why don’t you use human parts instead? Yeah, now that’d be art.

     Posted by: Anonymous on July 21st, 2006 at 7:05 pm

106. Wow I really want to get my old Transformaers out now and make them into crazy malformed monsters!

     Posted by: Badger on July 30th, 2006 at 8:20 am

107. [...] Avevate mai pensato di ricomporre i robot Trasformer? Scott Campbell crea, anzi ricrea gli oggetti culto degli anni ‘80 ( per quelli che ogni natale non era natale quel pezzo di plastica snodabile). Questa volta però la trasformazione è da camion a arte, da aereo a concettualismo decostruzionista postatomico ecc… Si potrebbero definire sculture? Link Tutti gli articoli di Jan | Tags: wtf!!? [...]

     Posted by: Suite 105 Kindergarten » Blog Archive » Arte trasformabile. on August 1st, 2006 at 7:24 pm

108. I agree with him about the sounds they make. It’s a really…genuine…noise…I guess. Hard to explain. They look pretty cool as well. I didn’t grow up with Transformers, really, so my heart isn’t breaking or anything. That probably helps.

     Posted by: Duck on August 3rd, 2006 at 11:32 am

109. I like this genuine and original idea very much. I feel misformers is a new kind of observation of world.
     However I feel the 2D pictures don’t show the art well enough as the concept is so depending in third dimension - misformers are such objects with dimensions.

     Posted by: ヤーッコ on August 10th, 2006 at 4:20 pm

110. What I love about all the haters, preachers and admirers in this dialogue is that they’ve got one important thing in common: they’ve taken the time out of their lives to examine the thoughts of others. The result is a fantastic work of art completely apart from MisFormers, if only because I think of it as being that.
     Scott wins! We all win!

     Posted by: dorkball on August 10th, 2006 at 6:33 pm

111. I love Scott’s work!In fact I purchased one for my private collection during one of his first Australian exhibitions.This sculptural piece attracts more interest (and controversy)than any other piece.Keep up the great work Scott - the value of my investment is fully justified a hundred times over.

     Posted by: jojo on August 13th, 2006 at 8:52 am

112. Scott Campbell is a conman. Anyone who buys his work is a mug. Come on people! This isn’t Art! More than likely, twenty years ago, some kid did the same thing and it looked better. If only he’d been able to talk it up with with grade A horsesh*t; “These works have no moral value. They are observations and documentations … Yadda, yadda, blah, blah”.

     Posted by: Pual Roymond on August 14th, 2006 at 5:47 pm

113. i put my finger up my ass then licked it, does that make me a loser

     Posted by: pooper rex on August 16th, 2006 at 7:40 am

114. As a graphic designer, I have mixed feeling about the art world and what art should be.

     But ultimately, art is and has always been subjective to the creator and the viewer, and art as a concept is constantly evolving. I think Campbell makes that point when he says that he is not trying to tell people what is “right, wrong, good or bad”, it is up to us to decide. The fact that his art has enraged so many Transformer fans and toy collectors is a testament to Campbells success in making his Art a dialogue. Sometimes, controversy in itself makes what might have been shoddy forgettable art into fantastic highly-sought-after art. I think it is every artist’s dream to evoke extreme emotions in his/her viewer through his/her art, particularly for Campbell who likes his art to be interactive.

     The concept of art has changed with Duchamp amd Warhol. Art is no longer limited to the highly excuted and well studied anatomy depicted by Michelangelo, or the beautifully lit subjects painted by Vermeer. A successful artist today may not even have to draw very well (A shame, I think!), as long as he/she has the conceptual strength to push the comfy boundaries of what is considered art. I think it is a failure of the educational system, that so many people remain ignorant to art history and contempoary art (I mean- weird disturbing art that have been around for decades, and yet many people still think art is limited to a wall painting). Without understanding art history, its hard to understand what made Pollock’s work revolutionary. I mean- yeah, a kid could have painted a Pollock. But the thing is, Pollock changed what a painting could be, for now a splatter of paint on glass could be considered “high” Art. So the question is, if my ten year old can take apart toys and put them together wrong- does that make him an artist? Maybe if he had the intellectual ability to discern why he did it. But unfortunately, most kids don’t, and even if they did, who would take them seriously enough to call it “high” art? It would simply be child play.
     For those who argue that Campbell should have given those toys to the needy (so they can be suckered into the materialistic capitalistic stronghold that seems to still have many in it’s grasp!), or the collector who has been searching for that particular Transformer: Consider the Transformer transformed. Transformed, not just into a new form, but for a new purpose. And I think given all the time Campbell spent with those toys, could they not be considered child play as well? Why can’t a fully grown adult play with Transformers? even if his ultimate purpose differs from that of a child? Status quo is hard to break from. I think Campbell appreciates Transformers… he just appreciates it for different reasons.

     This quote from Brancusi has always stuck with me: “When an artist stopped being a child, he would stop being an artist”.

     Yes- any of us could have easily disassembled and reassembled Transformers incorrectly and concocted some lame argument to back it up. But the fact remains: None of us did. None of us had the balls to do the “obvious” and put our creations out on the public stage and recieve the inevitable onslaught of diatribe, abuse, castigation and criticism.

     So I guess what makes a successful artist? Its a vulnerable position to put your brain-child out for a notoriously snobby industry, and even more so- the widely diverse taste of a public audience. Yes- some art is as obvious as “shitting on a tomato”. Well- if you can do THAT, and successfully convince a gallery to exhibit it, I’d say you’ve found yourself a new career! But until you are willing to make yourself vulnerable to public and industry opinion, I think very few of us have the right to say we could make better art. Maybe you could have…but the fact remains: You didn’t.

     Posted by: CloudRyder on August 16th, 2006 at 12:00 pm

115. ” Yes- any of us could have easily disassembled and reassembled Transformers incorrectly and concocted some lame argument to back it up. But the fact remains: None of us did. None of us had the balls to do the “obvious” and put our creations out on the public stage and recieve the inevitable onslaught of diatribe, abuse, castigation and criticism.”

     Well if that’s the case then why don’t we all go out and humiliate ourselves? It’s not about being obvious. There’s billions of obvious ideas out there, but what stops us calling them art and sticking them in galleries? Well, they’re just plain bad ideas! Misformers is one such bad idea, badly executed and backed up with a healthy dose of verbal tripe.

     Ideas for exhibitions:

     Crabformers: A mix of the shells of real crabs and transformers.

     CarrotZoids: A mix of real carrots and Zoids.

     Cheeseformers: Transformers recreated in cheese.

     Crabwars: Starwars figures glued to the backs of living crabs and left to roam the gallery. When the exhibition ends they are released back into the wild WITH THE FIGURES STILL ON THEIR BACKS.

     If I see anyone copying any of my ideas I’ll stick a Generation One mint condition boxed Ultra Magnus up their ass and lock them in a cupboard full of Transformer collectors.

     Posted by: Pual Roymond on August 16th, 2006 at 6:37 pm

116. Pual, following such a well written and considered post with your childish response strips away any respect a reader could have for you.
     Do you really think trying to compete with the intelligent writing CloudRyder posted before you was a good idea?

     Posted by: Samuel on August 18th, 2006 at 10:32 am

117. You fucking dumbass ruining Transformers like that. You make me sick.

     Posted by: Jeremy on August 19th, 2006 at 4:49 am

118. More ideas for exhibitions:

     Gravy: An exhibition that encourages visitors to swim in a swimming pool full of gravy and think really long an hard about art and what it means to them.

     Cutting Edge: An exhibition that encourages visitors to cut off their limbs with a rusty spoon whilst thinking really hard about art.

     One useless Degree: An exhibition featuring video installations from Art graduates showing their dismal lives now they realise their degree is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

     Suey Side: An exhibition featuring the handwritten suicide notes of Fine Art graduates who killed themselves after learning they didn’t have to do their degree, they just had to stick some old toys together and talk b*llocks.

     P.S. I suspect ‘Samuel’ is in fact CloudRyder patting himself on the back for being so clever.

     Posted by: John T. Baptist on August 23rd, 2006 at 1:53 am

119. i am a colloector who
     buys trades and sell to people all over the world

     form what i see of mr campbell’s work most of it is the newer stuff which can be bought for pennies on the dollar on ebay by anyone, and from what i see of the originals they can also be bought for dirt cheap if also broken or sun faded, or just the core body, what is expensive form the original toys is not the toy itself but the weapons/ parts/ accessories that came with it , even the original plastic bubbles/ foam inserts and boxes are just as expensive

     the scorponok pictured is nothing more than just pose

     yes art is as they say in the eye of the beholder

     and if he can get $100’s for the pennys he spent on ebay, he is smarter at bussiness than art

     my advice to all is
     u can make these your self for dirt cheap just buy junker lots off ebay

     same goes for the the original G1 die hards, i have a tub of 40 puonds of broken,sunfaded battle scared transformers for free to who ever wants them, just pay for the shipping and there yours….

     Posted by: zap dragon on September 7th, 2006 at 4:34 pm

120. I think the funniest thing about this thread is the series of bizarre flames against Hooper Rex.
     Very amusing.
     Oh yeah, and misformers are poor art. I hate it when people use long words to try and give a silly idea some kind of higher purpose. But it does make me laugh, so I guess it’s alright, really.

     Posted by: J on September 7th, 2006 at 11:20 pm

121. You should build something really artistic with them all.

     Like a DESK, and perhaps a CHAIR, or other furnature so you don’t have to be a toad and sit on the floor.

     Posted by: Dave Espi on September 9th, 2006 at 12:56 am

122. You see, it is simple. For some of these people that criticize the art, they probably looked up at TF characters as role models, perhaps because of divorces in their nuclear family, dad on business trips, etc.

     However, they shouldn’t compare the love for a person with the love of a toy, that’s silliness, and they know it.

     In any case, this is all that Scott is doing, presenting the same “role models” as more realistic, dysfunctional personalities.

     Posted by: People just don't get it on September 9th, 2006 at 5:20 am

123. What a pointless “work” Man he and Tracy Emin should go to an island somewhere they would get along perfectly. As deluded artforms go this is perfect, But for fans who spend their lifetimes looking for a particular bot to see that waste? It is an offense!

     Posted by: FREEFALLL666 on September 9th, 2006 at 8:18 am

124. This work sucks. Not art at all, just a sad attempt. My grandmother could glue together my broken toys, it wouldn’t be art.

     Posted by: Brityrell on September 11th, 2006 at 12:54 pm

125. what fantastic comments, i’ve had the best evening reading all these. i think the comments surpass the misformers!

     Posted by: Richard on September 14th, 2006 at 10:45 pm

126. This is not art at all, it’s taking existing toys and manipulating it with minimal effort, a 10 year old can do it better. Lazy and shameless.

     Posted by: Ti on October 15th, 2006 at 12:03 pm

127. Ive seen you make these from years ago when you brought them over to my house and you talked about them over dinner.
     The thing I wonder about is the scale as small objects they are in danger of being fetishized. I would love to see a large scale human size transformer mutant made of plastic or fibre glass. That would be really powerfull.

     I like the instructions on how to make a deformed transformer. Their not robots in disguise anymore their mutants.

     I found the comments by horrified adult collectors amusing. Take care Scott and enjoy yourself in Japan.

     Posted by: Luke Foster on October 17th, 2006 at 4:15 pm

128. yeah luke foster,
     that would be POWERFUL, maaaan

     lets have a dinner party and talk about transformers, loser

     Posted by: pauly on November 14th, 2006 at 11:20 am

129. mmm…the results

     ping!

     Posted by: pooper rex on November 14th, 2006 at 3:02 pm

130. These sculptures he makes are not even good. I’d much rather look at the original transformers than this guy’s obsessive compulsive destructive nature laid out. His interview is insulting to children as well. He is taking a toy that he doesn’t even understand, as related by his lack of knowledge of the toys themselves, and destroying them wantonly. Whoever buys them is a chump. Congratulations.

     Posted by: Caitlin on January 7th, 2007 at 3:47 am

131. THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DESIGNED/ENGINEERED THESE TRANSFORMERS ARE TRUE ARTISTS, UNLIKE THIS GUY. period.

     Posted by: Gavrilo Princips on January 9th, 2007 at 4:33 am

132. This is Art, where? I can only see mass f..king session. He must be gay. What a retard!

     Posted by: Anonymous on January 9th, 2007 at 8:35 am

133. Nowsaday, modern arts are so hard to understand. Those artist should know what between art and rubbish.

     Posted by: Anonymous on January 10th, 2007 at 8:48 am

134. guess what, i am penusing again…

     and i just found out i am fat AND ugly

     as well as smelly…………….

     Posted by: pooper rex on January 20th, 2007 at 10:44 am

135. anyone 4 butt cheese?

     a girl mistook me for a caribou today………

     Posted by: pooper rex on February 7th, 2007 at 1:19 pm

136. wait no it was a wildebeast

     Posted by: pooper rex on February 7th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

137. It’s unbelievable that people are paying this guy for something that we used to do as kids with broken toys. He is not an artist! You can’t call this art! I guarantee you that anyone dumb enough could take transformers apart and reassemble them to their likes. People… don’t buy this crap! You can make this yourselves… unless you understand what the real meaning behind the Transformers is. The value for which they were created in the first place.
     I “shat” in my pants when I found out that people are actually glorifying this so called “art”. I pity you. This is so unoriginal and yet people are praising this guy as if he invented the next big thing. Again, don’t waste your money on this. Its a rip-off and, with spare time, could be done by any human being. Show me originality, Scott …originality!

     Posted by: Ruben on February 20th, 2007 at 3:09 am

138. i oughta shoot yo ass, im from the hood yo

     lyric out

     Posted by: brooks on February 22nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm

139. Awesome art! It really looks like something you’d see in a gallery. Don’t pay attention to these other losers, they just hate you because you are successful and they are not. Also, some of you really need to wash your mouths out with soap. Give the guy a break and stop posting about how you look like a caribou.

     Posted by: T Flanagan on April 4th, 2007 at 4:40 am

140. Finally someone else with sense. I agree that this is pretty neat, pooper rex/hooper x, stop with all the bullcrap and learn some respect. It is no wonder so many fans make fun of you and think you are a loser. Grow up.

     Posted by: Benson on April 11th, 2007 at 10:54 am

141. And where do you come off Benson? I’m going to take it upon myself to educate you. Hoop is the man, he is the only one here that is having any fun. Just because you are fat and ugly and have a website, doesn’t give you judgement rights. I have studied things, read things, met people, gone to conventions, bought toys and even memorized the dictionary, so I know my stuff. And I know you are an idiot, and you’d better keep your mouth shut. In a few years, the kids I teach are going to be an army of hellions. I don’t smack them across the face with a yardstick daily for nothing.

     Posted by: Suspsy on April 12th, 2007 at 3:00 pm

142. hey susp, did u kno that at my pancake palace the pancakes are really my fat buttocks cheeks and the syrup is my runny diarhea?

     thats what i think of you, yee. ping, ya m f’er!

     Posted by: pooper rex on April 24th, 2007 at 11:57 am

143. for real, im just sorry most of these people put this guy down because he’s black. i’m black and because of that and not my stupidity and odor, i can’t even get a real job, so i have to make ones up to look cool to my geek following. do you know what it is like to have the police always after you? not because you steal comic books all the time, but because you are a walking mochachino

     (x)

     Posted by: brooks on April 26th, 2007 at 10:24 am

144. ^what in the heck is all that…okay well those scupltures are awesome, i hate transformers but those are cool, too bad art is expensive

     Posted by: thornton on May 7th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

145. A moose once bit my sister.

     Posted by: Anonymous on May 12th, 2007 at 8:26 am

146. This sucks. What the hell is the point? Worthless.

     Posted by: Cobalt on May 13th, 2007 at 3:33 pm

147. Some of you fans really make me sick. All this over a bunch of art. It is amazing how far some of you will go, even making up fake business sites to link to. WTH??? This stuff is cool, not to mention inspiring. I’m now trying to make something similar for my boyfriend.

     Posted by: Aimee on May 15th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

148. forget all u haterz man, im the real artist
     check this…

     i been chillin at the comp
     i b ready 4 a romp
     later when im done
     i know i been had fun

     then fo sho i gotz tha skillz
     that pay any niggas billz
     and i gots tha luv
     from muh sweet hooker dove

     a to the i
     m to the e
     to the other e
     is a slut

     behind the back i m sly
     the meanings pass u by
     i am so clever it hurts
     u like me cuz im a flirt

     i dont expect yall to get tha true meanings, i am just so deep, i lay my insults down all ova but in a way that surely only i get it
     lyric of the x-men out
     (x)

     Posted by: brooks on May 31st, 2007 at 5:00 pm

149. waiting for the new movie ~

     Posted by: kimkei on June 4th, 2007 at 3:56 am

150. All of you people are IDIOTS beyond belief. You can’t even behave when talking about another person’s work. I mean, sure I could do loads better and his stuff sucks, but I’m not rude enough to say things to his face. I mostly like being a troll behind the scenes, pretending to fight injustice against Hasbro wherever I go. PS Sepelak is Clingon for Douchebag.

     M “I think I’m cool because I’m known for this but little did I know several fandom uppity ups make fun of me for it behind my back and think I need to be killed because all I do 24/7 is hate, see this posting” Sipher

     Posted by: siph on June 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pm

151. Ok while I myself both went to school for art and enjoy most anything that is considered pop art or abstrat, this is just uncontionable. This man is destroying toys from my and many others childhoods. While most of what he does uses more recent one I can pick out several original G1s in the mix and even some of the very rare Headmasters. This type of destrution is alowed partially because many people only see them as toys. But to those of us who grew up with them, who idolized Prime or Grimlock or saved up a months alowance just so they could buy all the Constructacons at once… to see them dismantled and destroyed… turned into a pile of nothing for the amusment of one “boy” who probably is as malformed as he has made these toys. This says more about his Phyci than it does todays youth to man progresion.

     I am appauled at this even being called art. It would be like someone takeing a 1956 corvet and a model t, cutting them up and putting them back together so they will never work again.

     You should be ahamed of yourself for doing this to a entire generations heros.

     Posted by: Ninjamonkey on July 28th, 2007 at 2:06 am

152. on another topic, i came here thinking this was pinkmag…my usual stop for porno since im so fat i cant get women (even if one shows up, i always end up eating her out then just plain eating her). isnt that crazy? i thought it was worth mentioning…im not looking 4 attention…i never do that…hey didja checkout my site? im successfull does that bother you? im hoping it does

     i dont care about hard evidence punks, im all about tha front

     xbrooksx

     Posted by: brooks on July 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

153. Did you guys see that movie? It was like WWE SMACKDOWN w/ robuts…it twas awesome…

     time to go fuk my cousin

     -x

     Posted by: pooper rex on August 7th, 2007 at 8:36 pm

154. Ok, time to put my two cents in. First of all this guy needs to be beaten about the face and head. Repeatedly! As a loooonnnng time Transformers fan, I can say that this guy has destroyed toys that collectors like myself would shovel human waste into baggies in order to have. These are not easy to come by, and some of those robots go for hundreds of dollars easily online, sometimes more. This obviously out of touch retartist has shown us all just how oblivious he is to what he is dealing with, and how easy it is to make money off of other peoples’ ignorance without lifting a finger. Why not use Legos? They can be dismantled and reformed an infinite number of times into something new! And you don’t obliterate their value when you do it, either!!! Its nice to know that there are idiots out there like him that aren’t smart enough to transform a robot into a car, so they get frustrated and dismantle them for revenge. Take that, mean toy!!! If this guy is just jealous of we fortunate few who had Transformers as kids, he should take it out on his cheap aed parents, and not the rest of us who love Transformers for what they are, a part of our life! And for those of you cretins who agree that destroying existing art to create st is ‘cool’, art is about creating something from nothing, not nothing from something. Do the world a favor and break Spongebob toys for crying out loud! Its great! Until then, pull your heads out of your aes, and actually learn about the Transformers. And stop buying this guys st! Primus save us!!!

     Posted by: Hellbender on September 1st, 2007 at 3:15 am

155. Wow where did he get that much transformers from?!? Must be a very expensive hobby. I don’t understand why he is doing this actually. I would have rather make totally new corect working transformer, a one of a kind and sell it. And not deform it.

     Posted by: Chung Dha on September 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm

156. Awesome

     Posted by: Optimus on September 27th, 2007 at 11:05 am

157. [...] out the examples here. Posted by Tim Leong on April 14th, 2006 filed in Blog [...]

     Posted by: comicfoundry.com » Tranformers Misformed on October 29th, 2007 at 6:19 am

158. uh wha, i dont get it

     check it fellas, if u cant handle his shiz, then get out tha door

     dont forget to check my major huge business b4 u leave…..its gon make million$…..one way or another

     lyric out

     Posted by: brooks on October 29th, 2007 at 5:35 pm

159. check out my site and let me run yo bizness, ims 4 realz

     Posted by: brooks on November 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm

160. yo, u gotz bad credit? than handin over ur money 2 me will help. ive got experience, i swear! gimme ur money. check out my site, $$$$$$$$$$

     (x)

     Posted by: brooks on January 16th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

161. no, for those of you askin on my blog, i am not a dog, as close as you can get but not quite

     this art is the best though, anyone who doesn’t think so loses an internet. only i get that joke cuz im cool and im part of the cool crowd. its funny though. this proves i have a life.

     when i take your life, mine is enriched

     -x

     Posted by: pooper rex on January 28th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

162. Seems to me the score is: Scott 10/10 for originality and audacity. Materially obsessed Transformer addicts that live inside a cardboard box and worship the plastic of their artificial lives 0/10. Go Scott ……you are worthy of all the dialogue.

     Posted by: jill on February 1st, 2008 at 4:45 pm

163. at collectors like myself would shovel human waste into baggies in order to have. These are not easy to come by, and some of those robots go for hundreds of dollars easily online, sometimes more. This obviously out of touch retartist

     Posted by: kurye on February 22nd, 2008 at 8:16 am

164. all u haterz who b callin the feds on me, pleaze…i got yo money now what u gon do bout it? u didnt recnize who u was dealin wit, huh? buncha damn punks

     i b chillin in my pacifica rollin on 22s dawg

     xbrooksx

     Posted by: brooks on May 5th, 2008 at 12:40 pm

165. Since highschool I have hand sculpted in clay, wood and plaster lifelike bodies, busts, animals, as well as wildly deformed and conjectural creatures and landscapes. Varied from bold impressionistic spatters to painstaking hours of delicate renaissance like tiny brush strokes. This is mass market leftovers assembled in childish patterns, the sort of mind numbing garbage that went on for centuries in grammar school craft assignments brought to mainstream attention by reprobates like Picasso, Matisse and Warhol. This just makes me ill at ease.

     Posted by: Anonymous on May 9th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

166. If the point of art is to make people angry, this stuff gets it done.

     I don’t agree that this is what art is for. I don’t agree that obscurity or in art makes it profound. I believe that much of what “artists” produce to be “profound” or to “question preconceived ideas” is actually just an exercise in producing another set of clothes for the proverbial king.

     I don’t always get along with other artists.

     Putting broken or misassembled toys on a white pedestal in the middle of a well-lit room doesn’t make it art, that makes it a conversation piece (which it definitely has become).

     If Mr. Campbell is an artist, where’s the link to his other stuff?

     Posted by: Cyberpumpkin on May 9th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

167. I don’t care about Transformers, but calling this as “art” is beyond being pretentious. It’s more like nodding to anything being presented as “art” for fear of being accused of not feeling or being intellectual to get it. Emperor’s Clothes much? But I call a spade a spade.

     Those “Mom”, “Dad” and “Ex-girlfriend” pieces are nothing short of meaningless and just as waste of time. Same as with most of the other stuff.

     I’m no Transformer-phile, but I call this whole exhibit a POS.

     Posted by: Emelie on May 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

168. The original Transformers toys, with all the engineering and sculpting required to make them go from believable cars, planes and beasts, into believable robots, qualify as art more than these monstrosities.
     If I clobbered Venus De Milo with a sledgehammer until she was a mere pile of rubble and called it art… well I’d still have people chasing me with torches and pitchforks, because I took a beautiful masterpiece and turned it into a mediocrity pathetically labeled as “art”. I think the same applies for these “Misformers”.

     Posted by: D on May 9th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

169. The real artists are the designers and creators of the Transformers who actually made them functional figures used for the entertainment and joy of children across the globe.

     Posted by: Anonymous on May 10th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

170. What I wouldn’t give to have all the Transformers he ruined for shittastic fake modern art.

     Give ‘em to the kids without anything or something, you fucking hack. And come up with a decent artistic gimmick.

     Posted by: Anonymous on May 12th, 2008 at 8:27 am

171. oh please, like you could make better art? who are you to be a critic? i’m going to critique your critique.

     why don’t you go eat something, you fatass. get a life. anyone who is on here all day clearly doesn’t have one. this is my first post here!

     lulz. ya got OWNED

     -x

     Posted by: pooper rex on May 25th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

172. [...] battles between absolute good and absolute evil? … The show used beings of &8220absolute good vs.http://www.pingmag.jp/2006/04/07/scott-campbell-misforming-transformers/There is no good vs. evil - only male vs. femaleI worry that the title you??ve chosen ?? There is no [...]

     Posted by: good vs evil sculptures on June 4th, 2008 at 6:10 am

173. No sir, I don’t like it.

     Posted by: Optimus Prime on June 8th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

174. That is sick and twisted. Yuo may believe it’s art through some ponsey betnik crap, but all your doing is mutilating toys. I’m sorry if you think otherwise but art does not involve taking a toy, giving it to a retarded chimp, waiting until it gets bored with it then putting it on a stand. I one word I sum up my opinion of your ‘art’: Bull-fucking-shit.

     Posted by: Coyotewolf. on June 20th, 2008 at 6:03 pm

175. Personally I would rather force you to take each and every one of your ’scuptures’ apart and repair/restore them to there original toy structure and grace, then donate them to charities or at least sell them to Fans of the franchise so they may at least be doing something that they where made for: entertainment and enjoyment. Even Kitbashes, while the take them apart, try to improve on the oringinal desing, rather then mutilate a toy in a way no three or four year old would. You are no Artist and you are NO scupture; you are nothiung more than a disgusting little piece of pig-shit that doesn’t that the talent to be an artist, and instead justifies the monstrosities you make with empty ‘Buzzwords’ that are used by wanabe artists the world over, making the work of actual artist seem less important by flooding the market and galleries with you filth and shoddy workmenship, teaching the younger generations the that it is alright to destroy what you buy, it can be called art, when it should be called garbage. I personally hope you some day see that you are only fooling yourself into think you have artistic talent.

     Posted by: Coyotewolf. on June 20th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

176. [...] Very good story about Scott Campbells Misformed Transformers at PingMag  [...]

     Posted by: Misforming Transformers « on July 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 pm

177. If you think that the works themselves look oddly shaped or impossible to derive meaning from,you are probably on the same wave length as most but, more disturbing than the shapes alone are the names given, i.e. “mum”, “dad”, and “ex-girlfriend”.

     In some way or form I feel that Scott Campbell is not really trying to express “Art” per say, rather, maybe trying to cry out and express some rather scary thoughts that might be derived from traumatic experiences. Possibly the deeper meanings hidden in these “Works of Art” are much like the people suffering from mental illnesses who although want to say something verbal, instead refer to “symbolic” representation of their feelings.

     Although I don’t believe that Scott would try to dismember or disfigure his mom, dad, or ex-girlfriend, one has to wonder if he really feels that way inside.

     Many people would probably use a “Flower” to represent their own mother or possibly a hard object like a peice of “Iron” to represent their father, both in which people could derive meaning and mutual understanding but, going to the extent that Scott Campbell has is beyond any type of comprehension at all.

     Perhaps he should be considered more or less mentally unstable rather than an “Artist”.

     Thinking about the major changes that art has taken over this last decade, the so called “Master Peices” which people have come to design have actually taken such a plunge from the true meaning of the word “Art”.

     Almost anyone now a days can do something so absurd like making a room dark and then lighting it up or having a single Item on a stand with some unreal explaination on it and call it art. If this really is art then possibly putting your empty wrapper from your Mc Donalds sandwich on your tray after eating, next to a couple of fries could also be considered art I suppose.

     In short, If you think that an old urinal with some grafitti on it, on display in a museum is a “work of art”, then you will truly love what Scott Campbell has created? or Invented? here with his mis formers.

     I truly do believe however that he should be thought of as someone who could be potentially disturbed more than an artist

     Posted by: Alexendar Hill on August 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

178. sick

     Posted by: Anonymous on August 26th, 2008 at 1:15 am

179. sick

     Posted by: Bo Cumagun on August 26th, 2008 at 1:31 am

180. The amount of vitriol in these comments is quite disturbing. Yes, the artist is taking apart cherished idols from my childhood. No, I don’t mind at all, in fact I encourage him. The spirit of play is what keeps art lively - if you’re not even allowed to play with toys, then things have gotten pretty dreary.

     Having said that - yes, this is art. Yeah, they’re kinda half baked, most of the compositions look shoddy, the subtext may not convince you, it doesn’t necessarily create a feeling of awe and wonder. It doesn’t need to be good to be art, guys. That’s all subjective, and as experiments these have some value.

     And as many apparently completely missed, he’s not just putting them on a pedestal and proclaiming them untouchable works of art - he’s actively encouraging people to mess with them.

     Posted by: Pox Office on February 8th, 2009 at 7:26 am

181. what the f all u honkies and crackers hatin on this mug, he b representin straight artwork yo i knows all bout it, ima artist and a millionaire!!!

     check out my site its fulla sca..er real business opportunities!

     GIM ME YO MONEYS

     (x)

     Posted by: brooks on February 26th, 2009 at 7:56 pm

182. I think the responses of fans here are somewhat predicable. It’s like what would happen if you had a bunch of car nuts observing a sculpture made out of half a dozen 60s Mustangs and Corvettes.

     Transfans revere classic figures like the Holy Grail, because quite simply put 80s Toy companies combined toy commercials with mythology to create not just a market share, but a market share through iconography. To be honest, I was slightly horrified to see Boss/Machroad used to make a part of one of the sculptures.

     And yet in that way, and as much as those of us who are hardcore fans are bound to cringe at seeing that one figure we’ve been searching for for agesturned into an abstract sculpure, is bound to be somewhat confronting for fans.

     Yet it’s because of that enduring mythology imprinted during childhood and the way that it and things like the tween movement (which is the oposite of the retro-80s-movement), that the subject matter here is somewhat appropriate.

     In the same way that the 30-something geek grapples between budgetting for that one rare Japanese only Headmaster of Godmaster figure, or Pre-TF figure and the perils of dating, family life and work; these sculptures combine childhood loves with the metaphorical expressions of issues affecting adult fans.

     If you’re looking for a pretty picture here, you probably wont find one. That said, for sculptures which the artist plans are claimed so meticulously, it would be nice if there weren’t just the instruction manual collages, but an explanation of why certain body parts of certain figures were used, rather than just a case of “well here it is”.

     Posted by: Bowspearer on November 17th, 2009 at 2:21 am

183. shut the f up bowtieer o damn i owned u lulz

     anyone kno of any desperate men lookin 4 a good time in georgia? i cant even get it in the alleyways anymore

     i own this board!!!! i own internets!!!!!! lulz

     come check out my site its like concentrated ignorance 4 the masses lulz say hellows

     go jim jones! lulz!! ping!

     Posted by: pooper rex on November 25th, 2009 at 10:53 am

184. Wow, I used to do this kind of things when I was 10 years old, I must have been a proigy boy!

     pssst its sarcasm.

     Posted by: Code K on February 7th, 2010 at 3:42 pm

Name

Website

• Similar Articles
• » 10 things to do for free in Tokyo
• » Transformers’ Toy Design
• » Robert Henke and Monolake
• » Verbal Identity: the sound of a brand name
• » Monthly short-film-event at the Pink Cow, Tokyo

• Share and Enjoy:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Processing: Maths To Art In One Simple StepCategory: Features Graphics Technology Worldwide
  March 31, 2006
• Incredible inflatablesCategory: Graphics Podcast
  March 30, 2006
• How to prepare for HanamiCategory: Events & Exhibitions Features Japan Products
  March 29, 2006

Notice

As of December 31, 2008, PingMag and sister site PingMag MAKE are both on extended hiatus, and will not be updated for the foreseeable future. We are eternally grateful for your fantastic support over the years.

Search