Poll: Destroying Art

[AdeptaSororitas]

So, I was looking at another, semi-related thread about flag disrespect, and I wondered if half the people who said it should or shouldn't be done would say the same of any work of art. So I ask you, does art, in any for, deserve to be destroyed or defaced?

This includes cartoons, sculpture, paintings, electronic artwork, movies or game.

 

[Laser Priest]

I find that I don't care about art. I'd prefer not to see originals defaced, but that's more of a value thing.

I don't really hold art in a high regard unless it is shiny.

 

[Berethond]

No, never. Unless of course it's an easily reproduced copy, e.g. newspaper comics. Those were meant to wrap school-books in, though.

 

[Chemical Alia]

I can't think of any good reason for destroying art, unless it was my own.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

well i guess it depends on what it is because i love Rage against the machines cover of Magggies farm but some people think its a horrid deformation of a track by one of the worlds most cherished song writers.

i think if it belittles the integrity of the original work i'm against it.

 

[War Penguin]

Unless the artist wants it to be destroyed, I can hardly think of a reason for destroying art. Personally, I think art is the only thing humanity has going for it. If we start wrecking it, what will we have? We'll be nothing more than animals if we don't have art.

 

[The Virgo]

Destroying art, as in burning paintings: No, that's wrong.

Defacing it, as it parodying it or poking fun at it: Yes, it is fine.

Also, off-topic: Am I the only one who thinks the captchas are getting a little ridiculous? One time, I swear I am not joking, one of the words was in oriental characters, what looked like Chinese. Are they kidding me? Mine is "j(ctr1y", but the "t" is part of the "c" ... it's barely comprehensible!

 

[King of the Sandbox]

Art is subjective, so... yes. I think it can be destroyed with validity, but only if it is a blatant (and I stress blatant) attempt to persecute or defame someone, or was simply deemed unfit by it's creator/owner.

 

[Blue2]

I believe anyone should able to modify artwork to make more art (i.e. remixes, mash ups, crossovers, censorship, etc.) but if you going to be immature (e.g. put a mustache on Mona Lisa with male gentles around) then no.

 

[Blue2]

I believe anyone should able to modify artwork to make more art (i.e. remixes, mash ups, crossovers, censorship, etc.) but if you going to be immature (e.g. put a mustache on Mona Lisa with male gentles around) then no.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Art holds meaning, perhaps on an aspect of life or perhaps something else. Perhaps the meaning is that it has no meaning? It's hard to generalise.

But for myself, I hold the distinction that a flag is the symbol of a piece of rock or a group and a piece of art can exist seperate from it's creator or a group.

 

[dagens24]

We can create art in the destruction of art.

 

[-Dragmire-]

So, I was looking at another, semi-related thread about flag disrespect, and I wondered if half the people who said it should or shouldn't be done would say the same of any work of art. So I ask you, does art, in any for, deserve to be destroyed or defaced?

This includes cartoons, sculpture, paintings, electronic artwork, movies or game.

Only if the art was a) designed with malice/make people uncomfortable without reason or a moral point b)illegal in content or illegal in where the placed.

-A)-is hard to define though...

-B)-is easier but can potentially limit an artists ability to protest an authority peacefully through their work.

Each piece of art is unique and should be judged individually. Any official rule can go too far in the wrong direction so it's best to look at it case by case.

EDIT: If someone paints a giant masterfully done painting of a mutilated dog on the front of your house, it doesn't really matter how skillfully it was done, your still going to get rid of it. Sorry for the extreme example.

 

[Nickolai77]

Art itself is ambiguous and hard to identify, the question should be is it ever right to destroy good art?

Generally it isn't, because art is someone's property, hypothetically however it might be right in some bizzare circumstances. If burning the Mona Lisa meant i would save a family from death, i'd burn the Mona Lisa, don't ask me how such a situation would come about though.

 

[Tselis]

People have many disparate opinions about what is and isn't art, so if you deface something you don't consider art, but someone else does, than they have the right to do the same to what you do consider art. Also, art is an expression not only of an individual's perspective of the world around them, but of their mind and soul. It's a respect thing when it comes right down to it. Just apply the Golden Rule and you'll get it.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

I'm assuming you mean an original/only copy.


When art is gone, we lose it forever. This is especially important because a lot of art isn't appreciated during the artist's lifetime. The cultural heritage is priceless and can never be reclaimed.