Upon art: creation from destruction.

[Simalacrum]

I dunno if this will be a particularly popular subject considering this is a gaming website, but I think its an interesting thing to consider nonetheless.

So, recently a beautiful oil-on-canvas portrait of the queen was defaced [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22895311], a man having spray painted over it. Reportedly, he was trying to spray the words "help" over it.

Lord Harris, who donated the work to Westminster Abbey, said he was "devastated" about the destruction of what he considered "one of the best pictures ever painted of the queen".

But I can't help but take a different stance on this matter; I feel like the act of a normal man calling out for help, on the work of what is arguably a symbol of the pinnacle of elitism is very poignant, artistically speaking.

Just like Ai Weiwei's work 'Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn' [http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01716/Ai-Weiwei-Dropping_1716506i.jpg], a trio of photographs in which Ai destroys a priceless Chinese vase, this is the creation of new art from the destruction of the old. Yes, the creation was unexpected, but I think this does not detract from its artistic value.

This act means the piece now poses valuable questions to the us: how do the emotions portrayed in the original work - that of the queen standing upon the spot she was crowned 60 years ago - and that of the man's attempt to write "help" - differ? Is one any more or less important than the other? What truly separates these two individuals, other than arbitrary ideas of wealth and stature?

I think it would be very interesting if the piece was not 'repaired', and simply displayed as it is. Though, of course, this is extremely unlikely to happen.

This is my take on this whole shenanigans? what do you peeps think? Should the act of a single normal man be considered art, or is it simply a criminal act and a ruination of art? Is what happened creation, or destruction?

 

[Axolotl]

Defacing something beautiful isn't making art, it's just being a shithead. Saying that Ai Weiwei's work doesn't lose it's "artistic value" because it's based on destruction is profoundly stupid. The work only makes sense if one assumes that there's no such thing as artistic value of a work. You don't have the right to deprive the future of a thing of beauty just because you think you can do better than it. The man who created that vase didn't need to deface anything to make art.

It's bad enough that these cunts have killed art, there's no need for them to desecrate the corpse.

 

[Nouw]

I can appreciate what he was trying to do and the message he was trying to send but can't help but wonder why he had to deface someone's hard work in the process.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Vandalism is art now?

I'm sure that will stand up in court.

It wasn't his picture to deface.

 

[piinyouri]

Yup, another art discussion on the Escapist.

You know, I'm at a loss for guessing where this will go next.

OT: I have my own opinions on the matter, but to be honest I'd rather not bother posting them as I'm not in the mood to be jumped all over like a badger in a meat eating contest.

 

[Smeatza]

Vandalism is art now?

I'm sure that will stand up in court.

It wasn't his picture to deface.

Spoiler: Yes, vandalism can be art

It's always been that way.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Vandalism is art now?

I'm sure that will stand up in court.

It wasn't his picture to deface.

Spoiler: Yes, vandalism can be art

It's always been that way.

That's a wall, which had no artistic merit to begin with.

In this case, someone has taken someone else's art, and defaced it.

Essentially, that would be the same as me walking up to the picture you've just shown me, and drawing a huge penis on the girl's head.

 

[Smeatza]

Vandalism is art now?

I'm sure that will stand up in court.

It wasn't his picture to deface.

Spoiler: Yes, vandalism can be art

It's always been that way.

That's a wall, which had no artistic merit to begin with.

In this case, someone has taken someone else's art, and defaced it.

Essentially, that would be the same as me walking up to the picture you've just shown me, and drawing a huge penis on the girl's head.

If I was trying to express the thought that Banksy's work is childish then that might be entirely appropriate.

In any case, how can it be that vandalising a blank space with your own artistic message is art, but vandalising an piece with a pre-existing artistic message, in order contradict it, or accentuate your own message, not be art?
You can say you like it less than the original piece, you can say it?s lazy or wrong. But it?s still art.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Vandalism is art now?

I'm sure that will stand up in court.

It wasn't his picture to deface.

Spoiler: Yes, vandalism can be art

It's always been that way.

That's a wall, which had no artistic merit to begin with.

In this case, someone has taken someone else's art, and defaced it.

Essentially, that would be the same as me walking up to the picture you've just shown me, and drawing a huge penis on the girl's head.

If I was trying to express the thought that Banksy's work is childish then that might be entirely appropriate.

In any case, how can it be that vandalising a blank space with your own artistic message is art, but vandalising an piece with a pre-existing artistic message, in order contradict it, or accentuate your own message, not be art?
You can say you like it less than the original piece, you can say it?s lazy or wrong. But it?s still art.

Level of effort involved?

Anyone can walk up to a painting that took possibly hundreds of hours to make, and write 'help' on it.

People are well within their rights to argue it's standing as art, but to me, it's just defacing someone else's hard work.

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

My shitstorm senses are tingling...

OT: Although personally I wouldn't be one to promote that sort of art, I can see where you're coming from.`Vandalism, in many different forms, can be beautiful and breathtaking art. However, I think I'd appreciate the message the artist was trying to get across more if he had used something that did not ultimately destroy the original.

Like if someone painted the statue of Abraham Lincoln as Ronald McDonald with watercolors. It has lots of symbolism, and really gets the point across, but doesn't destroy the original canvas...

 

[kailus13]

Was it meant to be art? You can find it artistic if you want, but if the man didn't try to make art then it's just vandalism. People can find anything artistic so that's not really much of a plus point.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

snip

I'm not against destruction as art. There is an artistic angle one can take regarding destruction as a concept and in destructive forces such as fire, storms, etc. But when a person destroys/permanently defaces someone else's art (such as in the examples you listed), the questions regarding the artistic value of the act of destruction take a far, far, far, backseat to these issues:

===

1) That person is worthy of contempt for destroying someone else's property, and they should be punished in accordance with the applicable laws regarding property destruction. Note: I specifically said "destruction." DEFACEMENT of someone else's property (such as the graffiti example in post #6) is a different issue, especially when the original property was not art and said defacement can be undone relatively easily (again, such as the graffiti example in post #6). (EDIT: They should still be prosecuted for the defacement, but it isn't as contemptible)

This issue is, of course, nullified if the property in question is theirs. If they buy a priceless Chinese vase and then decide to destroy it, that's their decision. If someone wants to buy a priceless painting and spray graffiti on it, that's within there owner's rights and power. Of course, it doesn't save them from issue #2.

===

2) That person is worthy of contempt for destroying someone else's art. Yes, you can make a profound and effective artistic statement in the destruction of someone else's art, but at the expense of the artistic goal of the person whose art you are destroying. And that's a dick move. Robbing someone else of their artistic voice so that you can have your own? That person, as an artist, is comparable to a parasite, and, IMO, is not to be respected in their artistic statement.

This can, however, be nullified if the destruction-as-art statement being given to the world is exponentially greater than the one being taken away from the world. Example: a group of people pulling down the statue of an overthrown dictator; the artistic statement of freedom and "our land is a better place without this dictator" is worth so much more than the artistic effort and statement that went into making that statue.

===

And, for the record, (in case you didn't already infer) I don't believe that the examples you listed are respectable examples of destruction-of-art-as-art.

 

[Foolery]

Nah. That's not art. That's just being uncool. Why not get a replica and deface that? There's no good reason to destroy the original.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

I can't get behind this type of art.

Why? Because it is essentially a big "Fuck you!" not just to the artist, but any future appreciator of art that now doesn't have the chance to fully experience it. It's essentially these people (who I wouldn't call artists because that gives them too much credit in my mind) thinking that what they're doing is so great that not only does it deserve to use past art, but to essentially replace that art as the new thing that people all through history should pay attention too.

As such, I can't say what this man (or Ai for that matter) did is art, because it honestly isn't. If any of these people wanted to do this with say replicas of a piece then fine, go for it, but to actually use original pieces just comes across as pompous in my mind, if not arrogant. None of this looks like it's coming from a place of true inspiration so much as it seems to come from a place of trying to one-up someone, and at best just comes across as trying to seem "edgy" by going for the lowest common denominator rather than actually creating something that evokes those feelings

 

[the December King]

Art is an unfair label. One person can see the artistic merit in something while another can see vandalism (or, in the case of a chicken being slaughtered as an art piece, murder) I cannot say that the work is not art, but I can say that the man should be prosecuted like a criminal for his actions, as he destroyed/damaged property that was not his.

My two cents!

 

[MysticSlayer]

There are plenty of things I can say about someone taking someone else's work and making it their own, and none of it is flattering. It takes minimal effort to deface someone else's work which they potentially spent dozens to hundreds of hours working on, and there aren't many ways to more of a jerk while saying, "Your art, which you put hard work into, is nothing compared to my art, which I just put minimal effort into." Even if the artist is dead, you have essentially robbed society of an opportunity to further appreciate a historic piece of art, simply because you're incapable of sending your message in a more thoughtful way. If the artist is still alive, as I've already said, there is no better way of being a jerk to them. Not to mention, in either case, you have robbed numerous people of a work of art they enjoy, simply so your minimalistic effort at art could be appreciated by yourself and a comparatively few number of people. Even if you can't argue against it being a form of "art", the price society pays in order to "appreciate" it is hardly justifiable. In short, it is little more than a self-centered jerk being a self-centered jerk.

Now, if these people were to put in some effort to create their own piece of art that took a classic piece of art and gave it a less-than-flattering twist, then I'd be perfectly fine with that, so long as they haven't destroyed the original in any way at all. It allows them to get their message across with a similar piece of work while allowing people to continue appreciating the other piece of work as well. If you're talented and people prefer your message, then your work may become more popular, and you didn't even have to deface the original to do it.

 

[fletch_talon]

You want to make art? You want to make a statement?
Great.

Just keep it the fuck off of my art and my property. Any message you try to send is worth fuck all when you send it via vandalism, the only people swayed by your message are the ones who already agreed with you, everyone else just thinks you're a dickhead for causing someone else grief/hassle.

 

[Smeatza]

Vandalism is art now?

I'm sure that will stand up in court.

It wasn't his picture to deface.

Spoiler: Yes, vandalism can be art

It's always been that way.

That's a wall, which had no artistic merit to begin with.

In this case, someone has taken someone else's art, and defaced it.

Essentially, that would be the same as me walking up to the picture you've just shown me, and drawing a huge penis on the girl's head.

If I was trying to express the thought that Banksy's work is childish then that might be entirely appropriate.

In any case, how can it be that vandalising a blank space with your own artistic message is art, but vandalising an piece with a pre-existing artistic message, in order contradict it, or accentuate your own message, not be art?
You can say you like it less than the original piece, you can say it?s lazy or wrong. But it?s still art.

Level of effort involved?

Anyone can walk up to a painting that took possibly hundreds of hours to make, and write 'help' on it.

People are well within their rights to argue it's standing as art, but to me, it's just defacing someone else's hard work.

So would you say that the entirety of the minimalist art movement wasn?t really art? Because most of those pieces consisted on an idea and a few minutes work.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Vandalism is art now?

I'm sure that will stand up in court.

It wasn't his picture to deface.

Spoiler: Yes, vandalism can be art

It's always been that way.

That's a wall, which had no artistic merit to begin with.

In this case, someone has taken someone else's art, and defaced it.

Essentially, that would be the same as me walking up to the picture you've just shown me, and drawing a huge penis on the girl's head.

If I was trying to express the thought that Banksy's work is childish then that might be entirely appropriate.

In any case, how can it be that vandalising a blank space with your own artistic message is art, but vandalising an piece with a pre-existing artistic message, in order contradict it, or accentuate your own message, not be art?
You can say you like it less than the original piece, you can say it?s lazy or wrong. But it?s still art.

Level of effort involved?

Anyone can walk up to a painting that took possibly hundreds of hours to make, and write 'help' on it.

People are well within their rights to argue it's standing as art, but to me, it's just defacing someone else's hard work.

So would you say that the entirety of the minimalist art movement wasn?t really art? Because most of those pieces consisted on an idea and a few minutes work.

When a single black line on a piece of white paper can be considered 'art'?

Yes, I think the minimalistic movement is bullshit

 

[Smeatza]

When a single black line on a piece of white paper can be considered 'art'?

Yes, I think the minimalistic movement is bullshit

Fair enough.
See I've always been of the opinion that it's not what the art consists of that's important (in fact I would say that is the least important part of art) but the message that is trying to be put across and the kind (and level) of response it receives.

For example, the original piece of art, while being aesthetically pleasing had little to no message outside of the ancient "This is your monarch, look at them and appreciate them." The response was muted.

The vandalism however (help written in spray paint over said painting) has a clear message, one that I think is more relevant to the country today. The destruction of the painting is a key and poignant part of this message. The response has been much more enthusiastic and is much more notable, culturally and topically than the original painting.
And this is bearing in mind the fact that the vast majority of people haven't even seen the vandalised painting, only heard of it.