I like some of those beautiful old Japanese houses and garden elements that are not maintained. Decomposing and recycling are part of the flow of life and the world.
Never. Because it gives us context, reasons and why things happen. And we learn. That's what it's all about. Not that the current state of affairs bears that out. 😞
Thinking about Jamie Oliver and Australian aboriginals. Book withdrawn by author and publisher because they realise it failed badly and caused offence. No threats I know of. Fair enough.
Be suspicious of any "art" only existing because creator is a "personality".
Recently an artist on FB asked if she should just gesso over her own artworks. I wrote to her immediately to offer her about 15 canvasses I happened to have. Then I thought better of it and also bought two pieces of her art.and friends bought two more.
I wrote a short story and published it with the last of some settlement money. Alpha publishing stole my royalties altogether. Publishing my insight was a positive point in my life. Being that I'm on disability I'll never have 5g for a lawyer. Material so on point they're seething in PA
I agree with both arguments in part. However, it is a powerful image seeing subjects tearing down the image of toppled dictators and tyrannical leaders.
I agree for different reasons though. Should paintings by Hitler be destroyed? I would argue they should because otherwise they become fetish and cult items conferring special status on those who own them.
Rather like the pieces and objects of saints increase the status of the churches owning them.
From what little I have read, most of those who own these paintings are reluctant to be identified. Rather than achieving status, for most of us, the owners would seem to be cranks and weirdos. A public act of destruction might be seen as imposing martyrdom. Keep them in a basement.
Any student of history knows that far more art has been destroyed, lost to the ravages of time, than the smaller portion that has survived. The performing arts are especially ephemeral. As to the question of deliberately destroying art, that’s a tricky one. Are we better off holding up that mirror?
Art always served two purposes. It was admired but also made as food for thought. I believe everyone has right to express themselves. Awe all cherish free speech after all. Art is yet another form of that. Destroying art would be equivalent to silencing an artist, and common people are next in line.
I have a conversation topic for my students with a similar consideration: "Should art be a top priority to rescue from disaster? (ie fires, war, etc)". Depending on the type of art, it's interesting to see how our ability to digitally replicate can influence our opinions
Recently I visited Memento Park on the outskirts of Budapest. It is a gallery/park full of the gigantic sculptures from the communist era. The people of Budapest didn't destroy the art they put it on display and used it to teach others about the dangers of totalitarianism.
You can't say art shouldn't be destroyed and then when something disagrees with your personal politics then decide that it isn't art. How do we decide what is art? Clearly the Mona Lisa is (some may disagree), but what about my paintings?
In college I was taught "if you think it's art, it's art", art collectors and so it's subjective to the person. Perhaps hoarders are just avante guarde we are simply too unrefined to realize
Indeed. Even "bad" art, or art made by assholes, is worthy of preservation. If only so we can learn from past mistakes.
An exception could be made for inflammatory political monuments in public spaces, but even then it's usually better to move the object rather than destroying it completely
Bad art serves as inspiration for "I can do better than this."
Offensive art serves as inspiration for "I need to prove this wrong."
Differences comes into the realm of pure hate speech of course, but take WW2 propaganda. Its important to recognize it, to prevent it from coming again.
Interesting piece, thx for sharing. I'm with you on this one. Not least because I don't believe Tomiwa Owulade made a particularly good counter argument.
I’m an artist, and while I don’t want my art destroyed, you’ve written some very insightful ideas I had not considered. I will continue to ponder this in the long term. However, my initial reaction to your words is that I agree.
here is my persistence of laundry from an old calendar I did, and a paper mache toaster and toast from a kitchen art show. I wouldn't mind selling either, but I kinda don't want them destroyed, either.
so like, what if the art in question just...sucks lol like is that considered acceptable grounds for sending something through the shredder? Because I can think of some really lame, bad art I've seen that would honestly be put to better use as kindling for the stove
To say “depends on the criteria” dodges the issue. How are they chosen? Religious iconoclasts never fare well in the eyes of history but to those destroyers there are no better criteria than their religious beliefs.
your argument is not strong tho. especially at the end. if you destroy the art that makes you angry, you stop being angry I guess until you find more to destroy. advocating for violence in these times, hotte take
Art is speech but, like speech, art that perpetuates hate doesn’t deserve the same weight to all art and yet you don’t want to erase the impact of that art. Storage is a good idea with occasional unboxing to have the important conversations that should be had.
Some art is meant to be destroyed though. Meant to rot, or fade or to be dismantled. Its destruction is as much a part of the story it tells as it's construction is, I'd think. An interesting question, thank you.
I agree with your assessment, canceling art in any form is much more than destroying a particular work for reasons of subjective censorship ; it’s an oppressive attack on individual creativity , a sacred freedom we all should honor - the right to express ourselves in a certain form .
I've long argued that the 'art' of Adolf Hitler should be disposed of, because certain people are attracted to it precisely because of who and what he was.
There's an episode of 'Justified' where a character played by Robert Picardo did that. I've never seen the whole episode, but that part was on YouTube.
Not necessarily. If you have an intelligent/educated society, preserving such art allows people to question why any of Hitler’s misdeeds were committed/enabled.
Forgot who said it, but the main issue of treating ideas fairly is that intellectual opinions are given the same weight as ignorant ones.
It is transient anyway. But it depends on the concepts as to if anyone but the artist does it. I threw all my art except just a few away over the years. Some art is also history, political commentary, a statement on humanity, etc. So maybe Geurnica should never be tossed.
I make films (Machinima) in virtual worlds, mainly Second Life. Everything there is created by the residents, and everything is ephemeral. There are art areas that last no more than a month, stunningly beautiful lands to explore that last just weeks - to live on in people’s memories, films & photos.
There’s a reason we feel a bit sad when art is destroyed by fascists or in pursuit of war. When human expression somehow feels under attack it speaks somehow of thuggery. But then there’s sand art which is washed away daily - purposefully so…thought-provoking stuff. I don’t know…
For some art pieces, musing on impermanence is (at least part of) the point of that particular piece.
But not all art is foremost about impermanence. Art can communicate many things.
IMO impermanence isn't "deeper" or better than other themes, so retroactively ascribing something like "It's better in our memories"/"That says something[what?] about memories" or a nihilistic "nothing lasts forever so it doesn't matter if it's destroyed now or later" can be IMO objectionable.
I think that the history of art is the history of patronage. Now, there are only really commercial patrons and government. Government justifies their funding through social utility, meaning art produced has some noxious flavour of the 'social good' at the heart of it. Commercial patrons? Vulgar.
Depends on who is defining the art. Elephant dung on canvas is questionable. Jesus Christ on urine specimen jars is in poor taste & when it breaks because it is glass it is going in the trash bin. If a monkey poops on a beautiful self generated abstract, it is going to be burned for posterity.
Never. To preserve art is to preserve history. The issue is media literacy and how to intelligently break down a piece. Stupidity and ignorance is why we’re in the exact position we’re in today
Achieve, certainly- destroying something well-known is a very effective way to get attention. But to effect meaningful change you need to persuade the specific people with the power to make change happen, which is not at all the same thing.
Burningman has thoughts.
I once sat my daughter down when she was a child and explained that burning can be one way to honor art. Then we chose a few to keep from her already distressingly vast portfolio, & fed crayon and paper to the wood stove, until there was room in our house for the next wave.
We’ve had a dilemma with daughter’s college art work. She moved out several years ago and left it here. We’re now moving and it’s not coming with us. Maybe a burning at Yuletide with some mulled wine to send it on its way.
Its something I battle with
What if beautiful and wonderful art is created by a really terrible person who commits unspeakable crimes?
I cant like the artist, but can I still admire and recommend their work?
Art is already heavily controlled vis a vis the mechanisms of capitalism and hero worship. To further destroy what little remains that can be called true art seems a bit over the top. Art is the conscience of culture. Culture needs it. Not to just to exist. We need to listen to it for direction.
I get what you mean, in that everything must end, and all that, but if you argue that art should be allowed to be destroyed, you're saying it can be wiped away with a change of culture. This is the argument that one generation can pass and they can destroy the art because it does not suit them.
Comments
Be suspicious of any "art" only existing because creator is a "personality".
Just opened the magazine.
My bedtime reading now sorted 👍
Rather like the pieces and objects of saints increase the status of the churches owning them.
We need to protect and honor it as much as possible in this world. 🤍
It's not even up for discussion.
Which is an example of art I hate, don't consider art, but a % amount of people do.
So in short, No.
Not even then.
An exception could be made for inflammatory political monuments in public spaces, but even then it's usually better to move the object rather than destroying it completely
Bad art serves as inspiration for "I can do better than this."
Offensive art serves as inspiration for "I need to prove this wrong."
Differences comes into the realm of pure hate speech of course, but take WW2 propaganda. Its important to recognize it, to prevent it from coming again.
art now?
Forgot who said it, but the main issue of treating ideas fairly is that intellectual opinions are given the same weight as ignorant ones.
But not all art is foremost about impermanence. Art can communicate many things.
Yet, the… not so good John Lennon song “Women is the n*igger of the world” is still up.
I think we worry about it being done for spite or censorship, like the Bonfire of the Vanities.
What do you do with it when its in disrepair and beyond saving?
What's the intention?
Destroying art can simply be done by rewriting/reinventing it, puncturing the sacred cow rather than simply grinding it into hamburger meat.
I once sat my daughter down when she was a child and explained that burning can be one way to honor art. Then we chose a few to keep from her already distressingly vast portfolio, & fed crayon and paper to the wood stove, until there was room in our house for the next wave.
What if beautiful and wonderful art is created by a really terrible person who commits unspeakable crimes?
I cant like the artist, but can I still admire and recommend their work?