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.
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..... ;D
Quote from: Rebis on July 17, 2007, 09:41:40 PM
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!)
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.
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 PM
IIB.
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
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
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.
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 :icon_mrgreen:
Ok lessee now, no one else got that the Reeb is posing the 'negative dialectic' to make a pointed point?
Quote from: None of the Above on July 18, 2007, 09:15:10 AM
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. :laugh:
Quote from: Jonie on July 18, 2007, 11:31:55 AM
Quote from: None of the Above on July 18, 2007, 09:15:10 AM
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. :laugh:
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. :)
Quote from: Jonie on July 18, 2007, 12:47:02 AM
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
Quote from: None of the Above on July 17, 2007, 10:33:04 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
Quote from: Valerie on July 17, 2007, 10:38:04 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
Quote from: None of the Above on July 17, 2007, 11:01:36 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 PM
IIB.
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
Quote from: Cindi Jones on July 17, 2007, 11:55:53 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. ;D
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?
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.
>:D Now Back to my phony position: >:D
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
Quote from: Melissa on July 18, 2007, 12:18:14 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.
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.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on July 18, 2007, 12:28:05 PM
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
Quote from: Rebis on July 18, 2007, 12:16:35 PM
So, why not deface these objects?
My question, Why deface thes objects? What is the purpose of defacing them?
Sarah L.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on July 18, 2007, 12:32:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Rebis on July 18, 2007, 12:16:35 PM
Quote from: None of the Above on July 18, 2007, 09:15:10 AM
Ok lessee now, no one else got that the Reeb is posing the 'negative dialectic' to make a pointed point?
Quote from: None of the Above on July 17, 2007, 10:33:04 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...
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.
Quote from: None of the Above on July 17, 2007, 11:01:36 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
Quote
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
Quote from: None of the Above on July 17, 2007, 11:01:36 PM
.
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
Quote from: Rebis on July 18, 2007, 12:27:36 PM
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?
Quote from: Rebis on July 18, 2007, 12:45:13 PM
Quote from: Sarah Louise on July 18, 2007, 12:32:30 PM
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
Quote from: None of the Above on July 18, 2007, 12:56:14 PM
Quote
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
I grok. I have shamed myself. When I say "shamed", I mean "soiled".
Well, there's a job for someone. ^-^
Quote from: None of the Above on July 18, 2007, 02:29:31 PM
Well, there's a job for someone. ^-^
Know any starving artists? :-X
well, wot's yer going rate?
I don't believe I could afford to pay anyone enough to do it. Plus, they would be required to use the real Mona Lisa.
Great, I get to just sit in my own mess and hope a passing arsonist sets fire to my pants. Arsonists work for free :)
Amateur anything works for free, professional arsonists get the big bucks.
That includes professional art arsonists, so good luck with your new career, either way
I'm sorry, I'm not picking on you, Jonie. I'm just answering these posts at random. Please don't feel offended. :)
Rebis,
No offense taken, pick on me all you want. Your comments about "art" got me riled up and I found them very annoying, so I have a few words for you. Head-On, apply directly to the forehead,
Head-On, apply directly to the forehead,
Head-On, apply directly to the forehead,
Head-On, apply directly to the forehead.
Quote from: Jonie on July 18, 2007, 10:11:02 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not picking on you, Jonie. I'm just answering these posts at random. Please don't feel offended. :)
Rebis,
No offense taken, pick on me all you want. Your comments about "art" got me riled up and I found them very annoying, so I have a few words for you. Head-On, apply directly to the forehead,
Head-On, apply directly to the forehead,
Head-On, apply directly to the forehead,
Head-On, apply directly to the forehead.
I don't understand. Are you
for or
against vandalizing great art? ???
:D :D
I find irritation a very stimulating thing to the mind.
This is a great topic, it's philosophical and concrete.
can I get in on this 'head-on' substance? if it's fun that is... sounds like a transcutaneous sort of application... how long's it take to work, for starters?
Okay, so most (all) of you believe that art should not be destroyed and that it is important, but what if some crazed buffoon appeared in front of you while you were standing in front of the mona lisa and the buffoon said, "burn that painting or I'll shoot this coyote!". I forgot to say that a coyote had wandered onto the scene.
Would you then burn the painting or would you allow the armed buffoon to shoot a cute little coyote?
I forgot to say that the coyote is cute because it somehow ate the right food which makes its' coat of fur shiny and healthy.
One coyote as expendable to save the master work is a classic example (well almost, there are some that would deem the painting as *having no use value*, but it is a 'good' example) of sacrifice for the greater good; a cute predator is still a predator, it's hard to attribute much human social value to a single coyote, and you have posed basically a pet coyote which is unlikely, possibly absurd.
Sorry. Try again.
n
i could never vandalize anyone's imagination since it's our most mysterious aspect. it connects our conscious with our subconscious. it allows to explore our inner self and fill that urge to understand our ever changing body, mind, and universe. iow it is the most important part of every one of us. sorry don't count me on it.
Quote from: Katia on July 21, 2007, 10:11:37 AM
i could never vandalize anyone's imagination since it's our most mysterious aspect. it connects our conscious with our subconscious. it allows to explore our inner self and fill that urge to understand our ever changing body, mind, and universe. iow it is the most important part of every one of us. sorry don't count me on it.
What if you were running a museum and you knew for a fact that a nazi army was going to come riding in on their tigers and they were going to specifically sack the museum, send the goods back to NAZI central, and then offer it for sale across the globe in order to use the proceeds to build more bombs and to keep their ball bearing plant in Dusseldorf running?
at that point I'd certainly consider it.
Quote from: Katia on July 21, 2007, 10:11:37 AM
i could never vandalize anyone's imagination...
I could, in my own imagination. Or at least in the imagination of my imagination. On German tigers, even
Why not deface the Mona Lisa? Because I happen to find old Leo's self portrait quite beautiful and that to me is enough of an answer. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, if you want to destroy things others find beautiful or majestic, the Parthenon seen by moonlight, the Pyramids, Machu Picchu, because they have no "real or perceived value" to you, that is your choice. But do not be surprised when negative feedback is applied by others who "value" such things for whatever reason. ;)
Beverly
Quote from: BeverlyAnn on July 21, 2007, 11:33:24 AM
Why not deface the Mona Lisa? Because I happen to find old Leo's self portrait quite beautiful and that to me is enough of an answer. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, if you want to destroy things others find beautiful or majestic, the Parthenon seen by moonlight, the Pyramids, Machu Picchu, because they have no "real or perceived value" to you, that is your choice. But do not be surprised when negative feedback is applied by others who "value" such things for whatever reason. ;)
Beverly
But, what if evil G. W. Bush said, "I will stop being evil and I will devote myself to doing good. To show you that I am serious, I will have my team of evil doctors give evil dick[less] cheney a lobotomy which will force us to resign him. I will open up all files to the public. The only acceptable government meetings will occur in the open and be recorded by cspan. I will work with congress to clean up the environment and to enact a real health care system which will not discriminate. Then, I will send my evil corrupt minions to correct the damage I have done unto this world. However, I will do these things ONLY if you burn the Mona Lisa right in front of me.
Destruction is looking better now, isn't it?
No. Because everything that man says might be a lie, and he'd just LAUGH with Uncle Dick afterwards, after he has you arrested on some vandalism in the wrong forum charge.
Quote from: Rebis on July 21, 2007, 01:59:07 PM
Destruction is looking better now, isn't it?
Not at all. I'll take man's search for truth and beauty over that any day.
Beverly
Apparently, since I can't seem to goad any of you into doing my dirty work for me, I'll just have to do it myself. >:(
Wait! I have a new angle, I mean, argument.
In historical times, nobody cared about art or anything. The libraries that Alexander had built and most artwork along with actual knowledge was relentlessly destroyed by invading armies.
If they can do it, why not we? Are they better than us?
Quote from: BeverlyAnn on July 22, 2007, 08:19:45 AM
Quote from: Rebis on July 21, 2007, 01:59:07 PM
Destruction is looking better now, isn't it?
Not at all. I'll take man's search for truth and beauty over that any day.
Beverly
gotta love it when they doesn't get the joke.
this HERE, is part of the search for truth, if not beauty; this is what is known in the trade as an aesthetic discussion. in a philosophy forum, even.
Quote from: Rebis on July 22, 2007, 09:39:50 AM
Wait! I have a new angle, I mean, argument.
In historical times, nobody cared about art or anything. The libraries that Alexander had built and most artwork along with actual knowledge was relentlessly destroyed by invading armies.
If they can do it, why not we? Are they better than us?
by WE, if you mean ermerikins, if this art were of BAGHDAD (which ONCET UPON ER TIME were crawling with beauty and truth), it'd be a done deal already.
NOTA
I am getting low on argument juice.
This new proposal is based on the work of a modern artist named David Banks. The english call him 'banksy'. In my feebl opinion, Banksy is among the world's greatest humans because he fearlessly humiliates the establishment. He has been known to smuggle fake exhibits into museums and place them where they are taken as real by visitors. Banksy purchases paintings at local markets and adds to them in order to make the paintings more relevant. He is known as a graffiti artist among other things. He has a fabulous sense of irony.
I am not putting a link here, but you can get to his site by adding www. to banksy.co.uk
Is banksy justified in doing what some people call vandalizing other people's art?
I can't say, from theory. I'd have to experience the result.