Upon art: creation from destruction.

[DrOswald]

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?

I cannot make a good argument that what this man did was not some sort of art. I can, however, say that he was absolutely in the wrong and deserves to be punished for what he did. I will also say that any art he might have created in so doing is of significantly less value that the art destroyed.

The first reason is that the art destroyed had great technical artistic merit. A great deal of skill was required to create the piece, while virtually no skill was required to spray paint "help." Besides, the vandal didn't even manage to write "help" correctly, which greatly dilutes the effectiveness of the message.

Second, it is my understanding that the intention of the individual was not art but protest by vandalism, meaning he was not making an artistic statement at all but a political one.

Third, even if the individual had been making a artistic statement the act of destroying art over which you have no claim is deplorable. It is selfishness and arrogance in the highest degree to think that your artistic statement is so important that it merits the destruction of another's property.

Fourth, when that artistic statement is supposed to be commentary on perceived injustices committed the weight is lost when the art consists of a further injustice. The message degrades into nothing more than a petty and vulgar act of revenge.

So while I cannot say this is not art, I will readily say that it is bad art. Good art uplifts, enhances or enlightens. This "art" does none of those things.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Yeah its art. Offensive to many no doubt, but that fact doesn't make it less artistic, rather its the entire point. To shock people, forcing them to analyse the meaning behind both the act and the perpetrator. I actually think it's quite poignant myself. I don't appreciate the methods, but I do appreciate the message.

I suppose an interesting subject that can be brought up from this is Ethics in Art. I've seen some pretty hard to swallow stuff in the name of art, but art which comes from the desecration of something with prior meaning/ownership or degradation of someone who is not a willing participant, while pretty callous (not to mention potentially illegal), is still art.

My own personal sensibilities might be rustled from such pieces, but that in and of itself is a personal reaction to a piece, causing me to not only analyse the act itself but the reasons why I feel that way towards it. Therefore that piece can be considered Art in its purest sense.

So while I cannot say this is not art, I will readily say that it is bad art. Good art uplifts, enhances or enlightens. This "art" does none of those things.

Arts value is in the eye of the beholder. It's entirely subjective. There is no good or bad art. Just art you like and art you don't.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Well, this certainly isn't the first time something like this happened. the most recent event like this I recall is this one.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/yellowist-rothko-vandal-jailed-for-two-years-8412813.html

Yes. I think destruction can be classified as a form of art, like a sculpted figure of man carved from marvel can be classified as a controlled destruction. I also happen to love the explosion of priceless architectures.

However, usage of other's possession to create art is vandalism at best. I wouldn't give a damn if Jackson Pollock came back to life and splash the paint all over his living room, but if he does the same thing in my house I would bash his head with artistic, elegant carved wood I got in the wood workshop.

So in conclusion, I think he should've painted the priceless painting of the queen himself, then paint "Help" or whatever he wanted to write. Otherwise bash his skull with nearby object.

 

[ILikeEggs]

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.

Ayup. Having an idea does not make someone an artist, not even when they scribble a few lines on canvas, put down some squares and triangles, or place a glass of water on a shelf. To be an artist, you must possess skills, knowledge of techniques/medium/subject matter, and must be able to execute said techniques or apply said knowledge with the medium of your choice.

Picasso was an artist, in the true sense of the word, but his later work was not art.

Yeah its art. Offensive to many no doubt, but that fact doesn't make it less artistic, rather its the entire point. To shock people, forcing them to analyse the meaning behind both the act and the perpetrator. I actually think it's quite poignant myself. I don't appreciate the methods, but I do appreciate the message.

You seem to be confusing art with political/social/economic propaganda.

 

[Tanakh]

To participate in the thread I would like a definition of Art from the Original Poster or someone else that shares the "that is art" opinion; and the theoretical frame of aesthetics he works within.

Have the impression that OP consider "everything that expresses something" to be art. Which in my view is a bit retarded even if it's totally acceptable, that's why I didn't went into philosophical disciplines.

Thanks OP

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I would say that while it is technically art, it's boring, lazy, and highly derivative art. Worthy of all the scorn which might be heaped upon it, and not justified by the cost at which it was brought into the world. First off, the "idea" (if it deserves to be described as such) of painting over someone else's painting in this manner is well tread territory. This guy's doing something new and exciting by vandalizing a portrait in the same way that I'm doing something new and exciting by breathing.

Secondly, what questions exactly does this raise? None which I can say I find interesting, and none which haven't been asked before and asked better.

Now don't get me wrong here. I don't think that street art (and various other pieces of "vandal art") is bad. There are some really interesting things that it does. But in this case, it seems more like it's just someone who was too lazy to come up with an actually engaging idea, so he took the easy way out in an attempt to draw attention to his "work". Instead of doing the hard work which an artist is supposed to do in order to create something of note, he chose to destroy something which someone else put hard work into. His efforts don't deserve the notice he's attracted with them, and in the long run he'll be forgotten as just another impatient fool who couldn't be bothered to put in real effort.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

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.

Ayup. Having an idea does not make someone an artist, not even when they scribble a few lines on canvas, put down some squares and triangles, or place a glass of water on a shelf. To be an artist, you must possess skills, knowledge of techniques/medium/subject matter, and must be able to execute said techniques or apply said knowledge with the medium of your choice.

Picasso was an artist, in the true sense of the word, but his later work was not art.

Yeah its art. Offensive to many no doubt, but that fact doesn't make it less artistic, rather its the entire point. To shock people, forcing them to analyse the meaning behind both the act and the perpetrator. I actually think it's quite poignant myself. I don't appreciate the methods, but I do appreciate the message.

You seem to be confusing art with political/social/economic propaganda.

Where's the distinction? Art isn't without agenda. There are tons of works that can fall under propaganda, depending on what side of the fence your on. Look at all the monuments erected in the name of various political, sociological and even religious influences. The Staute of Abraham Lincoln, the Arc de Triomphe, the Sistine Chapel.

If you say they aren't works of art, your a fool. If you say they don't prominently perpetuate a specific notion and image that some could consider propaganda, your an even bigger fool.

 

[ILikeEggs]

Where's the distinction? Art isn't without agenda. There are tons of works that can fall under propaganda, depending on what side of the fence your on. Look at all the monuments erected in the name of various political, sociological and even religious influences. The Staute of Abraham Lincoln, the Arc de Triomphe, the Sistine Chapel.

If you say they aren't works of art, your a fool. If you say they don't prominently perpetuate a specific notion and image that some could consider propaganda, your an even bigger fool.

Except the agenda isn't what makes it art, it's the execution/effort. The problem with conceptual art(not to be confused with concept art), abstract art, surrealism, minimalism and their ilk is that everything involved revolves around the agenda or idea, while the visual aspect is more often than not completely unrelated or superfluous.
When the visual aspect is at least developed enough to be related to the agenda, or be called symbolic/representational by any definition, it may meet the standards of being called art; it most often, however, is not even close to worthy of being called "good" art, by objective standards.

 

[Smeatza]

ou seem to be confusing art with political/social/economic propaganda.

Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities; this article focuses primarily on the visual arts, which includes the creation of images or objects in fields including painting, sculpture, printmaking, photography, and other visual media. Architecture is often included as one of the visual arts; however, like the decorative arts, it involves the creation of objects where the practical considerations of use are essential?in a way that they are usually not for a painting, for example. Music, theatre, film, dance, and other performing arts, as well as literature, and other media such as interactive media are included in a broader definition of art or the arts.[1] Until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts or sciences, but in modern usage the fine arts, where aesthetic considerations are paramount, are distinguished from acquired skills in general, and the decorative or applied arts. - That's one description.

I've also heard art described as "Anything that has no purpose outside of being itself."

I think there's some leeway for interpretation here.

 

[chikusho]

The action by itself, even if the truth is never defined, is worthy of analysis. The resulting image carries with it significant meaning and important contrast separated from what caused it.
Yet, the person who performed it should definitively be punished for his crime.

 

[DEAD34345]

I like it, personally. A picture of the queen is just boring to me, whereas a picture of the queen which someone has partially written "help" on is far more interesting. It raises questions and it invokes a response from me, and that makes it a far better piece of art in my mind than one that makes me think "Oh look, it's the Queen.". I won't try to claim that it wasn't wrong for the guy to deface someone else's priceless property, but that doesn't change the fact that I much prefer the art created from that to the original.