This building is not actually on fire

Hot Topics:

By Matt Mets
Posted 2011/01/13 @ 6:20 am
Category Art & Design

In the words of Mark Frauenfelder, I think that people people who enjoy getting mad will enjoy getting mad at this art installation by Isabelle Hayeur. Called Fire by Fire, it depicts a building going up in flames. [via curbly]

In the Maker Shed

Cube 3D Printer

BeagleBoard BeagleBone Black

Getting Started with Arduino Kit v3.0

MAKE Rovera 4WD Arduino Robot Kit

14 Responses to This building is not actually on fire

theophrastus on January 13th, 2011 at 11:45 am said:

There is a good reason that shouting “Fire!” in a movie theater isn’t protected speech…

Clearly the artist should be properly employed by holllllywood, nonetheless. (“get off my lawn, old man. all film fires are CG now”)

Reply ↓
Nick Gart on January 13th, 2011 at 12:16 pm said:

” I think that people people who enjoy getting mad will enjoy getting mad at this ”
Perfect preface to troll-bait posts.
Should save that for the next art installation-brutal murder / assault on street corner.
I’m sure those pesky people that love to hate will hate on all that arty goodness.

Reply ↓
- vrandy.myopenid.com on January 13th, 2011 at 1:44 pm said:
  
  Be that as it may, a quick review of few other the posts you’ve made here make me believe that you are exactly the sort of person being described.
  
  Reply ↓
  
  Nick Gart on January 13th, 2011 at 4:26 pm said:
  
  someone has too much free time? I only have one other post on here
  
  Reply ↓
  
  vrandy.myopenid.com on January 13th, 2011 at 5:59 pm said:
  
  Dude, there’s a search box right there. It takes ten seconds to verify that not including this thread you’ve posted twice, both times criticizing the subject matter. (T-shirts, and lockpicks.)
  
  Reply ↓
  
  sindicate on January 14th, 2011 at 11:32 am said:
  
  Yeah,
  Good one there Nick. Your previous posts pretty much sum up that chip on your shoulder. Keep up the good work discouraging learning! Just the kind of person who should be on here. Piss off.
  
  Reply ↓
  
  Nick Gart on January 19th, 2011 at 2:08 pm said:
  
  <3
craig on January 13th, 2011 at 3:12 pm said:

I don’t enjoy getting mad, but I do know a bad idea when I see it. Faking a child stuck down a well and causing all sorts of senseless mayhem for our fire & police especially when REAL emergencies are going on, is the same thing. Besides, I don’t believe getting a fine from the city or fire dept for such a hoax should be a big supprise to the prankster, otherwise complete idiocy of cause/effect is going on in their head.

Reply ↓
vrandy.myopenid.com on January 13th, 2011 at 6:15 pm said:

This installation was commissioned and funded by the city. (Specifically, the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic Games)

Not only that, but this is over a year old and Google can’t find any news articles about it causing any sort of panic.

I think it’s safe to say that they did whatever was necessary to prevent it from causing a problem with the fire department.

Reply ↓
- dokein on January 15th, 2011 at 5:48 am said:
  
  In that case, I imagine the fire department vehicle seen at the end of the video was probably parked off-camera throughout the exhibition to discourage people from calling it in, and just moved in and turned on its lights at the end for a photo op.
  
  Aside from that, I didn’t see any sign that a single passer-by noticed or cared (or was convinced of the illusion).
  
  Reply ↓
ROB K636 on January 13th, 2011 at 10:28 pm said:

I saw something like this a year ago at one of the Kansas City First Fridays.

It was done like a shadow puppet murder mystery that ended with the building being set on fire. Think they used four floors and two projectors.

Reply ↓
Jopper on January 14th, 2011 at 8:14 am said:

I can’t help but think that if this happened in the UK, someone would forget to tell the authorities and hilarity would ensue

Reply ↓
Brick Moon on January 16th, 2011 at 11:16 am said:

Somebody should’ve yelled, “Theatre!”

Reply ↓
- Matt Mets on January 18th, 2011 at 6:43 am said:
  
  Ha!
  
  Reply ↓