I created it, I can destroy it if I want to!

[Aeson]

Art's "destruction" can be art itself. The process of creation or destruction can be the art, rather than the end state of the material. Art is about expression, and if the artist feels that the destruction of a material piece aids in that expression or is that expression, it would actually be destroying the art if it were not allowed.

I don't pretend to be a very good artist, but I make sandsculpture down at the beach as a hobby. On a crowded day at the beach thousands of people will see it, and most people passing by seem to find it interesting if nothing else. I'd hope it adds something to their day, even though it's transient in nature. What I like most about it though is watching while the tide comes in and washes it away. A lot of people don't seem to understand that. One of the more common comments I get on it is along the lines of, "It's too bad you can't save it." They see something being destroyed, but to me it's a process that's fascinating. Far more-so than the form of the piece when I've "finished" it.

Nature is the greatest artist of them all. It's not even close.

Wanton destruction of something with intrinsic value doesn't make sense though. But in the end, an observer's right to enjoy the creation is trumped by the right of the creator.

[Lorizael]

Thread's done. Move to Cap/Com subforum.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Thread's done. Move to Cap/Com subforum.

Don't start things like that.

[Patroklos]

Wiki is your friend

Kaliningrad was to be rebuilt as a model town on the remains of Königsberg, without a reminder of the German past left standing. Leonid Brezhnev consequently ordered that the remains of the castle be disposed of so they would no longer be seen as a vestige of Prussian militarism in the eyes of the Soviet Government. Despite protests from students and intellectuals from Kaliningrad, the ruins of the castle were destroyed in 1968.

"I'm sure they removed the art."

And that excuses bulldozing a 1000 year old historic site for political reasons how?

"And the castle was already in ruin."

I see, lets go bulldoze the coliseum while we are at it, that decadent monument to Roman cruelty

Thread's done. Move to Cap/Com subforum.

Nah, no capitalist faction here. Just pointing out to our brain-dead commie friend here that his quip about "religionists" was stupid. It just so happens that our friend Kid is a zealot of an indefensible political position that always leaves him on the losing end of any argument.

I go for the jugular

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm sure they removed the art. Stop making caricaturations.

[Kuciwalker]

And to mirror spiky, the answer is 'yes' IF SAID ART IS NOT THE BTS AI.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by JulianD
If artist completely owns piece in question, yes they can destroy it. But, if they have sold it / given up rights etc etc they can't.

+1

[Spec]

Sure, if he didn't sell it.


Spec.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No right. If people enjoy it. It is good and can't be destroyed ethically.

So says teh communist

[Patroklos]

No right. If people enjoy it. It is good and can't be destroyed ethically.

If the party doesn't like it, obviously the people couldn't enjoy it. They might think they do, but the party knows better...

[Shrapnel12]

It depends on if the artist owns the rights and how he is going to destroy it. If it's a famous piece of art, he probably can't destroy it even if he wanted to. He can destroy the original medium, but there are probably thousands of copies around. The only thing he can do then is to stop giving rights to print the art if he owns those rights himself. If he's given away the rights, then he has none himself.

[binTravkin]

Of course artist may, but I voted no because I have a bad feeling about this..

Besides, it's always easier to destroy something than build.

[Ben Kenobi]

And the castle was already in ruin.

Which is why they wanted it pulverised to dust.

[Lancer]

God turned the lights on, he will turn them off.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Darius871
And here I was thinking the thread was about abortion.

It's actually not a completely invalid comparison.

Originally posted by DrSpike
Before I answer I want to know if you planning to blow up the BTS AI in the next patch.

No. Firaxis owns the BTS AI anyway, I couldn't destroy it if I wanted to, which I don't. I like pwning noobs by proxy.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And to mirror spiky, the answer is 'yes' IF SAID ART IS NOT THE BTS AI.

Oh, "So it's okay if *I* personally don't like the art".

To clarify:
The question is starting at the premise that the artist DOES have the LEGAL right to destroy their art, they're doing absolutely nothing illegal. As well as creating it, they physically own the art, or they have the exclusive copyrights and rights to distribution - destruction in this sense could also mean "I'm going to refuse to distribute it", say music which is released under DRM, which, if DRM actually worked, would allow the musician to eliminate their music from the world (if purchases can be played only limited times). And even with DRM not working, means the music can't be legally acquired (or possibly even played) anymore.
It's a question of ethics, not legality.

Originally posted by Kidicious
No right. If people enjoy it. It is good and can't be destroyed ethically.

This has to be the answer I like most, I was going to append this sentence with "Unfortunately" : but no, in truth, Kid does have moments of simple lucidity.

Originally posted by VetLegion
Of course he has the right to destroy it.

And if someone buys, say, all works of Picasso and wants to burn them, he has the right to do so.

But then there's the "Legal is Ethical" answer.

Originally posted by Aeson
Art's "destruction" can be art itself. The process of creation or destruction can be the art, rather than the end state of the material. Art is about expression, and if the artist feels that the destruction of a material piece aids in that expression or is that expression, it would actually be destroying the art if it were not allowed.

A thoughtful response, that's actually kind of what the banana poll option eludes to . But as you say, in this case it's not destroying the art - it's just part of the "natural" lifecycle of the art. I've built and destroyed many fantastic lego models, the destruction allowed for new creation, it was as simple as that.

Although for arguments sake, we could say "if someone buys all the works of Picasso and burns them, and calls it art", is it ethical? While the burner and maybe a few others will appreciate the art, presumably a great many fans of Picasso's art will be outraged. I personally would call that generation of outrage art. But is it ethical?

But for the original question, it's a matter of the artist going "I've changed my mind. Turns out I didn't want to create that after all. I'm going to quietly uncreate it"
"Well it's good. But it's not perfect. I can't tolerate seeing my mistakes any longer. I'm destroying it"
In other words, it's a decision which is basically neurotic.
Do others have the right to protect art from it's neurotic creators .
(Unfortunately all good artists are neurotic )

This seems particularly relevant to the digital age, where both destruction and preservation are very, very easy.
It's sort of like "Information wants to be free", but instead "Art wants to exist", where one person/entity gets to choose whether the art exists or not, with the power of the law. And other people can preserve the art, but only illegally and quite possibly unethically depending on what you think the rights of the creator/owner are.

Does Art want to Exist?