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

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


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

It's all a bunch of political BS. You all the sudden love a ruined castle when the govt is going to use the land for productive use.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
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

You get pretty mad when people catch you blantantly hacking don't you. And all because you don't think religious nutters destroy art.

Don't get personal if you can't handle it.

[b etor]

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

that is what i thought as well.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
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?

I would say destroying someone else's art without their consent is immoral, even if you own it. While it may be legal, even ethical, it would be a "crime" against the art.

The act of destruction could be considered art, in much the same way that taking a dump could be considered art. But it'd be ****ty art, not "a picasso".

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 .

I think it would still play to what I posted about first. It would be the artist's "soul" that makes the art, and the preservation would run contrary to that "soul". Basically, undermining the art itself by preserving it.

To me art is about expression, and the actual material (if any) is only worthwhile inasmuch as it conveys the artist's intent, their work, whatever was driving them to create (or destroy). If an artist feels that the work should be destroyed, that's part of what the "art" of the piece is. I think it's why I'd never buy a reproduction or print... since it's not the absolute form that matters. That's obviously not a viewpoint that's held by everyone though. I'd guess I'm in a rather small minority even.

I've done some stone sculpture, and have had mixed feelings about whether or not to smash the resulting pieces up. I used to write quite a bit as well, and then burn everything without anyone having read it. If there's any artistic quality to what I've done, it's as much dependant on that destructive tendancy as the creative.

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.

If you're getting at IP rights... I don't think they have anything to do with art. It's business. It's sad when business gets in the way of expression and it's enjoyment.

Does Art want to Exist?

If the artist intended it to... and they were good enough. So far I think only God (if He exists) could claim it for his work.

But metaphorically speaking, art which is created wants to exist, and art which is destroyed (by the artist) wants not to.

[Blake]

Ah, I'd say that Art which is wanted, wants to exist.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Adagio
It doesn't matter who created it, what matters is who owns it. If someone buys a painting for millions of dollars and wants to destroy it, then let him. But the artist who painted it can't just go to the owner and burn it down, just because he doesn't like the painting anymore

If you want a proper answer to the question.

Buying a piece of property no more necessitates your moral right to destroy it than buying and owning a pet necessitates your moral right to torture it.

Any right you have to destroy your own property is conditional.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Ah, I'd say that Art which is wanted, wants to exist.

It's the artist who defines the nature of the art. "Wanting" would be part of that nature.

Observers can interpret meaning, but don't infuse it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Aeson


It's the artist who defines the nature of the art.

Really?

[Blake]

Yeah, Really?



I really have to disagree. Ever created something and been really pleased about one aspect of it, and yet then other people are particularly impressed by *other* aspects?

Like there are some movies which are more famous for being bad than being good. The director wasn't trying to make a bad movie, but the movie ended up being "appreciated" for it's comical mistakes rather than what the director was going for. It's sort of meta-art, in the eyes of the "fans".

[Bkeela]

Once the material has entered the public domain, I believe the artist has NO right to destroy his work. Anyway, once in the public domain, reproductions would kind of make destroying it an act of futility.

If an artist wants to be so possessive with their work, they should not make their work public.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Yeah, Really?

Yeah, really.

Ever created something and been really pleased about one aspect of it, and yet then other people are particularly impressed by *other* aspects?

Certainly.

It's sort of meta-art, in the eyes of the "fans".

You're just agreeing with me. Observers interpret meaning from the nature of piece. They do not form the nature of the piece.

[Aeson]

YouTube recently featured a video by someone who's doing a "Goodbye Art" project. Kinda interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Philinthecircle

[Patroklos]

And all because you don't think religious nutters destroy art.

How is it hackish to point out the blatant hypocrisy of a communist accusing religionists of being somehow more likely to destroy art?

Kid, you are a never ending source of hilarity

Over the last 4000 years of civilization, who created most of the art anytways? Who do you think has a better ratio of art created versus art destroyed, oh infallible commisar? "Religionists" (whatever that means) or communists?

On a seperate note, who here didn't have fun trashing people like Kid in highschool when being a commie was still "edgy"? Or similarlr laughing at them when they thought it was still cool in college? Aren't you like 100 Kid?