Should we vandalize the Mona Lisa?

[RebeccaFog]

HI,

   Sometimes a great value is put on an object. Usually an object of art like the Mona Lisa and the Sistine Chapel and such objects.

   Are these objects really valuable? Who would it hurt if I walked up to The Mona Lisa, tore off a quarter of it and burned the piece?
   Why can't I spray paint my name across the face of the Lincoln Memorial? It's not like I'm hurting anybody.

   If I raise the money for a bus load of us to go about the world and destroy great art, who is with me?

   If you do not agree, then you need to give me a good reason to not do it.

[Aeyra]

Give it a green mustache and purple lips and draw some 50s glasses on it. Put a picture of some pirates on it and put pink glitter on them too.....

[The Middle Way]

HI,

   Sometimes a great value is put on an object. Usually an object of art like the Mona Lisa and the Sistine Chapel and such objects.

   Are these objects really valuable? Who would it hurt if I walked up to The Mona Lisa, tore off a quarter of it and burned the piece?

I.

'You' would be depriving those who objectively value it (as opposed to the subjective value of money which I am assuming is what you indicate by 'value'; 'you' would be hurting yourself, after a certain convention  , in that 'you' have missed the idea of this kind of value, and that 'you' have appointed 'yourself' the authority to deprive the rest...

SINCE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT *THE* MONA LISA, and:

Not a copy, which, HELLO, Marcel Duchamps, done been there, done done that.


(and I am just getting started here, so WATCH OUT!)

[Valerie]

It would hurt anyone who finds such art beautiful and meaningful.  Just as it would hurt if you were to mar something that a child created.   

[The Middle Way]

IIA.

I mean, the world is getting to be an exceedingly ugly place, or do you not agree?
(I can sometimes find beauty where some may not, but that's another argument, maybe)
I think we can use all the help we can get on the counterbalance...

OF course you may have the argument, Art is Useless, much less artists, so wtf? In that spirit:

While you are at it, why pick on the Mona? {The Lisa, what-have-you.} Why not be like the German Social Democrats ca. 3/4s of a century ago and declare all that does not serve your social agenda as unfit, and made of the degenerates, by the degenerates, and for the degenerates? Hey that gave us some real restrictions on what was currently available in the art realm, and, two birds/one stone, provided some real useful DRECK (as opposed to the useless kind, EG: Paul Klee, product that will never properly prop up a total regime with any efficiency) which was of a piece with that regime -

And the trains did run on time, or so they say...


Posted on: July 17, 2007, 08:45:27 PMIIB.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

Defacing Lincoln's statue might be an Art Statement in and of itself, in that today's Republikaners have degraded those kinds of values, MORE OR LESS...

N

[cindianna_jones]

For centuries, art was solely the domain of the rich.  It has only been in the past century that some art has belonged to the people. You would be hurting everyone who can not afford precious art.

Why don't you spray paint your foot and cut it off?  Who would it hurt besides yourself?

Cindi

[Jonie]

What about how the artist feels, do you think they would want you to ruin what they worked so hard to create. I once misplaced three pages of a story I was writing and spent an entire frustrating afternoon looking for them. I wasn't very good company that day I'll tell you. Do you think an artist puts their heart and soul into a project intending to have it shown disrespect? Art is an attempt to communicate on an emotional level, to give a fresh perspective in order to open more widely the doors of perception, this is it's value.

[Emerald]

People have the capacity to create and the ability to destroy.
It's a joy to make something pleasant to behold!
Destruction is easy, and almost always ugly.

Those who destroy and vandalize speak volumes... about themselves.

-Emerald 

[The Middle Way]

Ok lessee now, no one else got that the Reeb is posing the 'negative dialectic' to make a pointed point?

[Jonie]

Ok lessee now, no one else got that the Reeb is posing the 'negative dialectic' to make a pointed point?

Sort of like what Andy Kaufman use to do, he once said that he was going to fake his death, Andy is that you, are you hiding out as Rebis. 

[RebeccaFog]

Ok lessee now, no one else got that the Reeb is posing the 'negative dialectic' to make a pointed point?

Sort of like what Andy Kaufman use to do, he once said that he was going to fake his death, Andy is that you, are you hiding out as Rebis. 

If I was, I'd be forced to destroy myself because of the status I've achieved in this culture.

Posted on: July 18, 2007, 12:05:50 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not picking on you, Jonie. I'm just answering these posts at random. Please don't feel offended. 

What about how the artist feels, do you think they would want you to ruin what they worked so hard to create. I once misplaced three pages of a story I was writing and spent an entire frustrating afternoon looking for them. I wasn't very good company that day I'll tell you. Do you think an artist puts their heart and soul into a project intending to have it shown disrespect? Art is an attempt to communicate on an emotional level, to give a fresh perspective in order to open more widely the doors of perception, this is it's value.

The only true artist is one who knows that their art is as temporary as the Dawn.

Posted on: July 18, 2007, 12:07:59 PM

I.

'You' would be depriving those who objectively value it (as opposed to the subjective value of money which I am assuming is what you indicate by 'value'; 'you' would be hurting yourself, after a certain convention  , in that 'you' have missed the idea of this kind of value, and that 'you' have appointed 'yourself' the authority to deprive the rest...

SINCE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT *THE* MONA LISA, and:

Not a copy, which, HELLO, Marcel Duchamps, done been there, done done that.

(and I am just getting started here, so WATCH OUT!)

I am talking about all forms of value.

Would those whom you say would be 'deprived' by the beauty still not have love & hate & sunshine & rain in their lives to fret about? Can they not create their own beauty?


Posted on: July 18, 2007, 12:10:25 PM

It would hurt anyone who finds such art beautiful and meaningful.  Just as it would hurt if you were to mar something that a child created.   

People throw out the stuff their children created every day. I'm sure that some people keep a few of these 'creations' but not all of them.


Posted on: July 18, 2007, 12:11:52 PM

OF course you may have the argument, Art is Useless, much less artists, so wtf? In that spirit:

While you are at it, why pick on the Mona? {The Lisa, what-have-you.} Why not be like the German Social Democrats ca. 3/4s of a century ago and declare all that does not serve your social agenda as unfit, and made of the degenerates, by the degenerates, and for the degenerates? Hey that gave us some real restrictions on what was currently available in the art realm, and, two birds/one stone, provided some real useful DRECK (as opposed to the useless kind, EG: Paul Klee, product that will never properly prop up a total regime with any efficiency) which was of a piece with that regime -

And the trains did run on time, or so they say...

N


Posted on: July 17, 2007, 08:45:27 PMIIB.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

Defacing Lincoln's statue might be an Art Statement in and of itself, in that today's Republikaners have degraded those kinds of values, MORE OR LESS...

Art is useless unless it can fill someone's belly, is it not?
Artists should all get a job, maybe something useful like on a train or in a train station.

Posted on: July 18, 2007, 12:15:10 PM

For centuries, art was solely the domain of the rich.  It has only been in the past century that some art has belonged to the people. You would be hurting everyone who can not afford precious art.

Why don't you spray paint your foot and cut it off? Who would it hurt besides yourself?

Cindi

I needed a fresh idea such as this. I'm working on it.   

[Melissa]

A work of art represents a part of the artists life and soul.  They put a of themselves into the piece of art.  Destroying it would be destroying a remaining part of the artist's soul.  Are you a soul killer?

[RebeccaFog]

Hi,

  Don't get angry at me. I'm trying to provoke people into thinking about their answers.   I like beautiful things too and even ugly ones, sometimes.  I appreciate the work that artists put into their creations. For some, it comes easy and, for others, it comes hard.

  I would like to see money made from art go to teach children about art.

  I like your answers too.

  >  Now Back to my phony position:  >

  An object, no matter how beautiful seems to have the right to exist forever according to some of the answers that I've received. To me, that would mean that the best sunrise of all time should exist forever, but it hasn't (if there has been one).
   The concept of 'objects' being so valuable as to be preserved forever goes against the natural order of the universe. Life changes. Political systems change. Technology changes. Peoples values change. Forests grow and are burned and then grow again. Water evaporates and is returned as water again. life, death, creation, destruction.

   So, why not deface these objects?

Posted on: July 18, 2007, 12:26:17 PM

A work of art represents a part of the artists life and soul.  They put a of themselves into the piece of art.  Destroying it would be destroying a remaining part of the artist's soul.  Are you a soul killer?

We are all soul killers in the eyes of the Great Pumpkin.

[Sarah Louise]

I don't understand how the dollar  value is assigned to these paintings.  Just because something is old or painted by someone (the art world) decided was great doesn't mean all their painting are good.

I have seen some wonderful paintings at the museums, I have also seen others that I wondered why they were there.  But then, I have seen some paintings on the street corner that are as good or better than some at the museum.

Still I would not purposely disfigure any of them.


Sarah L.

[RebeccaFog]

I don't understand how the dollar  value is assigned to these paintings.  Just because something is old or painted by someone (the art world) decided was great doesn't mean all their painting are good.

I have seen some wonderful paintings at the museums, I have also seen others that I wondered why they were there.  But then, I have seen some paintings on the street corner that are as good or better than some at the museum.

Still I would not purposely disfigure any of them.


Sarah L.

   I actually feel the same way. Sometimes I can't figure out who makes the money value decisions.  I guess it's just the marketplace like with everything else.
   I can understand some of the value. Like the paintings of the first person to use perspective in their work.  This is a historical thing in human development.  Those paintings should be seriously class materials for all children.


The Reeb

[Sarah Louise]

So, why not deface these objects?

My question, Why deface thes objects?  What is the purpose of defacing them?


Sarah L.

[RebeccaFog]

My question, Why deface thes objects?  What is the purpose of defacing them?

Sarah L.

For the sake of this argument, there are several purposes.

1.   By defacing them, we poke a stick in the eye of the established order.

2.   By actually destroying them, we create 'shelf space' for the works of living artists.  This way, people get recognition while they are alive and their parents get to live to see how their children have 'made it' in the world.

3.  By erasing all vestiges of the past, we will be free to create with much fewer references guiding us along well worn paths. We will create new traditions for people to destroy about 200 years down the road.

[The Middle Way]

Ok lessee now, no one else got that the Reeb is posing the 'negative dialectic' to make a pointed point?

I.

'You' would be depriving those who objectively value it (as opposed to the subjective value of money which I am assuming is what you indicate by 'value'; 'you' would be hurting yourself, after a certain convention  , in that 'you' have missed the idea of this kind of value, and that 'you' have appointed 'yourself' the authority to deprive the rest...

I am talking about all forms of value.

Would those whom you say would be 'deprived' by the beauty still not have love & hate & sunshine & rain in their lives to fret about? Can they not create their own beauty?

MAYBE NOT SO MUCH, we all have our limitations, and we need to help out by not intentionally depriving them of what might be shown to have objective value, to them.

OF course you may have the argument, Art is Useless, much less artists, so wtf? In that spirit:

While you are at it, why pick on the Mona? {The Lisa, what-have-you.} Why not be like the German Social Democrats ca. 3/4s of a century ago and declare all that does not serve your social agenda as unfit, and made of the degenerates, by the degenerates, and for the degenerates? Hey that gave us some real restrictions on what was currently available in the art realm, and, two birds/one stone, provided some real useful DRECK (as opposed to the useless kind, EG: Paul Klee, product that will never properly prop up a total regime with any efficiency) which was of a piece with that regime -

And the trains did run on time, or so they say...

N

Art is useless unless it can fill someone's belly, is it not?
Artists should all get a job, maybe something useful like on a train or in a train station.

Well, speaking of negative dialectics... (asserting which is not the same as a phony position) let's see, what is most useful to the system of capitalism, what we got here in this country? Since Antietam, nothing has driven this economy so much as WAR. War fills bellies every day. And might ensure the best train service and more employment opps in the process.

You grok?

NOTA

[Pica Pica]

.
of the degenerates, by the degenerates, and for the degenerates

That's going on my manifesto


As for the thing, I wouldn't destroy it, there's little that can be said by getting rid of it. In keeping it and keeping it in good nick we are giving the (mistaken?) impression that we value and aspire to beauty and other good stuffs.


Hehehe Grok, how very hippy

[The Middle Way]

  An object, no matter how beautiful seems to have the right to exist forever according to some of the answers that I've received. To me, that would mean that the best sunrise of all time should exist forever, but it hasn't (if there has been one).
   The concept of 'objects' being so valuable as to be preserved forever goes against the natural order of the universe. Life changes. Political systems change. Technology changes. Peoples values change. Forests grow and are burned and then grow again. Water evaporates and is returned as water again. life, death, creation, destruction.

   So, why not deface these objects?

Well, the Universe, in its natch order, will no doubt ensure the ultimate decay.degradation.destruction of these impermanent constructions.

So, my question is then: who appointed you to accelerate the universe, per any other's attempts to create a lasting something, even if you think it indicates a corrupt system of values by mere proxy?

My question, Why deface thes objects?  What is the purpose of defacing them?

Sarah L.

For the sake of this argument, there are several purposes.

1.   By defacing them, we poke a stick in the eye of the established order.

2.   By actually destroying them, we create 'shelf space' for the works of living artists.  This way, people get recognition while they are alive and their parents get to live to see how their children have 'made it' in the world.

3.  By erasing all vestiges of the past, we will be free to create with much fewer references guiding us along well worn paths. We will create new traditions for people to destroy about 200 years down the road.

Well, well.

1. The established order you are referring to won't necessarily give a damn about your stick poke.

2. It's going to take a whole lot more than destroying 'this' art to make any shelf space for 'that' art; unless it's imaginary destruction and imaginary shelf space.

3. "By erasing all vestiges of the past..." uh, good luck with that. In my imaginary art-work, which is ongoing, I have, per "be free to create with much fewer references guiding us along well worn paths" done been there and done done that, and no one else's monuments to their own imaginations were irreparably damaged in the process.

N