Through many of our discussions in class, I have learned that art has various platforms. Today I learned of a new platform when I read an article that was published by writer Blake Gopnik titled “Bang! Kaboom! Art”. He talks about a new show that will open on next Thursday (October 31st) called “Damage Control: Art and Destruction Since 1950”. In the show, various artists will showcase or physically perform their pieces, all with a strong theme of destruction. For example, one piece made my Liz Larner in 1987, “is a two-foot-square block of hazardous substances. Its list of materials includes saltpeter (an ingredient in gunpowder), ammonium nitrate (used in the Oklahoma City bombing) and TNT itself.” (Gopnik). Other pieces might have an artist lively axing a piano or guitar, making the show a combination of still and moving images.
Although each artist may have his or her personal reasons for making a specific piece, most of the entries into the show are speaking about human nature and our contained anger. Many pieces also focus on public destruction occurring through war or disease. These pieces are showcasing various pieces throughout the embody a greater message about piece. Yet other pieces focus simply on the natural human emotion of anger. By that, I mean that these works of art random times in your life when you want to just destroy something. The variety of the show really embodies the complexity of human anger and destruction.
Although this type of art is not common, it has been around for years. In 1966, Raphael Montañez Ortiz passionately broke a piano with an ax in his piece called “Piano Destruction Concert”. Ortiz argues “instead of pouring out our natural aggressions on people, we should use them in an artistic framework.” The invention of auto-destructive is largely accredited to Gustav Metzger, who picked up a spray gun of hydrochloric acid and dissolved three full canvases that he had stretched. Both men’s pieces got worldwide attention from both critics and supporters.
I think this type of art is really cool but I can understand how it can be complex. Our whole lives we are taught that art is something that is beautiful, thought provoking, and powerful. In contrast, most of these pieces are loud, not very beautiful, and a bit painful to watch. However, I would argue that this type of art is very pure as it is a true expression of emotion. It embodies the true essence of art in that it connects the human mind, body, and soul. I feel that these pieces would really connect to many of us, as we have a lot of contained anger about classes, professors, sports, etc. but we don’t have many socially acceptable methods of expressing it. Also on a different platform, many of us have been the product of destruction such as the most recent Hurricane Sandy. Some of the pieces or the video of destruction between 1950 and now will probably resonate very closely with us.
In summary, I really think that this new art show will be very interesting as it connects with me better than most portraits or sculptures.
Works Cited:
Gopnik, Blake. “Bang! Kaboom! Art!” NY Times. NY Tmes, 23 Oct. 2013. Web.
Your article discusses a very emotional type of art. When I think of art moving, I think of a movie or a concert, not artists just breaking objects with cacophonous noises to supplement the destruction. While many would consider this type of art raw, emotional, and honest, I simply consider this violence. While I am all for sincere expression of one’s feelings, if one cannot get across those emotions unless he or she is loudly obliterating a perfectly useful object, then they need to reconsider a different method to getting their point across.
On a personal level, when I see a piano or any other object being destroyed for what I would constitute as not a valid reason, it seems very wasteful to me. Many things that will be destroyed to show the emotion of the artist are inherently beautiful themselves, and destroying art to make art seems unnecessary. When I saw the image and read the article about Raphael Montañez Ortiz, I was angered by the whole ordeal. Hopefully, artists can find alternative, constructive methods to convey their ideas.
Article: http://www.mfa.org/programs/special-event/raphael-monta%C3%B1ez-ort%C3%ADz
I do not know how to feel about this piece. On the one hand, it is interesting to learn about the new art forms. Yes, art is something subjective so why does it have to be pretty and linear. However, there are many criticisms of modern art and people have said “oh, what is the point of the red dot on a white piece of paper?” This could be the same because people could say, “oh cool, you broke the piano, what’s the point?”
I think this is interesting though. By looking at a broken piano, people could say that music is dying, an art form is being destroyed, and many other other interpretations. As we had mentioned before, the exhibit, “The artist is present” made people with only a woman sitting in a chair. Why can’t the same be said for a broken piano? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/arts/design/12abromovic.html?gwh=A7CCD5F56DD5D5F8D73C509911E2B1A7
I can see why artists do this type of thing. This “destruction” art is a new way of artists to portray their feelings of anger, hatred, or maybe just passion. The art form seems to rely on the process a little too much in my opinion though. I do not seem to understand how the artist manages to display any complex themes as he/she destroys an object. Forms of rage or destruction appear to be the only themes that can be expressed by this art. I found a similar piece about this art show and I cannot believe they are going to have pieces on nuclear war. I wonder what those pieces are like.
http://www.hirshhorn.si.edu/collection/damage-control/#detail=/bio/damage-control-art-and-destruction-since-1950/&collection=damage-control
Something that has been mentioned in class before is that “art is what each individual makes of it”. It is up to the individual to interpret a piece and declare whether or not it is art. Modern art may not be art to one person but it may be the finest form of art to another. The same goes for this form of art that you are talking about. For instance, art can be argued as being a channel for emotion and anger is an emotion.
I personally do not think that destruction of materials is art because I see art as the creation, not the destruction of pieces. But if anything can convince me to change my mind would be what you said about a socially accepted platform for expressing anger. You’re right, we often are forced to internalize our anger because if let out can result in nasty consequences so why not turn anger into an art?
This article lauds writing-a form of creative expression the last time I checked-as a way to solve anger issues. http://blogs.psychcentral.com/anger/2013/10/writing-promotes-emotional-expression/ So why can’t we incorporate performance pieces?
Destruction used as a form of art? That is a concept I have never thought of before. I have felt emotions when I have witnessed and old building being destroyed. I would think to myself there was once a beautiful building standing there and now it is gone. But I have never though of the emotions I felt during it as caused by an art. I can now see by destroying something or watching it be destroyed emotions are manifested. This is in brings an artistic sense to the action.
Expressing emotions and feelings are a simple trait of most art pieces and this type of destructive art brings a new method to this practice. I think this type of art can be very interesting to see and look forward to pieces being on display in museums near me.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~amroach/journal1.htm
Well I have certainly never heard of destruction art before. Although one quote that caught my eyes was the one form Ortiz, “instead of pouring our natural aggression on people we should use them in an artistic framework.” It reminded me of a study I read in high school that determined that aggression does not naturally occur in the body. The study was in response to a misconception that MMA fighting allows you to release your aggression. The study determined that the more we give in to our aggression, the more often we will want to act aggressively. So basically, Ortiz point is wrong.
I really liked your take on the differences between our expectations of art and the reality of it. It is definitely difficult to look at something that may not be aesthetically pleasing, but if someone is able to create something that holds so much emotion and is something all of us, as humans, can relate to, I think that’s talent. I like that you used the word “complex” in your description because I think that’s very accurate when it comes to art and the way it’s created today. We find it hard to define the concept of art and we leave it open ended purposely for this reason, so that people can take it and interpret it how they want to and they’re allowed to make what they want out of it. That’s exactly what Banksy, a British graffiti artist did on the streets of New York. In the article, “Mystery Man, Painting the Town”, it describes Banksy’s gallery. It’s not the usual exhibition in some gallery in the city, but rather the whole city is his gallery. The month long project, called “Better Out Than In” was anonymous so that he could do his work and get the reactions he wanted without people actually recognizing that it was his. It was different and I thought it related to what you were talking about well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/arts/design/banksy-makes-new-york-his-gallery-for-a-month.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=arts&adxnnlx=1383177954-W6dOnfzCCX/JQgZIoPgT2w
I wish more art was like this, a form of expression. I completely agree with you and think that there is a stereotype of people who see art as a way of showing beauty through canvases and movements, but when it comes to anger and hardship that form of art doesnt exactly resonate. Now this does resonate. This form of art is the equivalent of screaming to the world about all that’s messed up. It gives us the chance to feel extremely relieved after creating it or seeing it because it embodies the same emotions that we feel. I read an article of a man who has choreographed 24 people moving. Each one would do a different movement, but sometimes they would all move in unisons doing the same exact motion. I think that is related to this type of art because the motions are in relation to our emotions and how they can be rocky but then run smoothly all at once. This type of art is showing that rocky part and how we sometimes keep things boggled up, but the only way to let it out is by creating something that moves our emotion to that object.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/arts/dance/boris-charmatzs-levee-des-conflits-extended-at-moma.html
This is a very interesting concept for art. Destruction is rarely seen or accepted as an art form. But as you mention, the initiative and idea has been brought to life in the past. Gopnik’s ‘exhibition’ is simply another reincarnation of this very-different-from-tradition idea. I see the uneasiness of some commentators to accept this as a form of art, because at one point when anything can be defined as art, there is little room to differentiate what art is, and what art isn’t. For example, this article discusses the blurred line between art and vandalism. uthttp://thedailycougar.com/2013/10/29/modern-street-art-blurs-line-crime-creativity/. Is it simply art? Is it crime? Is it both. Art is a very subjective matter. One of the most notable definitions I remember from our definition of art is that art is used to communicate and express ideas, whether it’s through movement, visuals, audio, kinesthetic– quite frankly any medium. Any medium that can successfully communicate or articulate the artists’ idea is considered to be art in my book. Gopnik’s exhibition of destruction gives us a profound insight into the very nature of what it means be human. Thomas Hobbes in his famous Leviathan argues that man it his primitive form is chaotic and destructive. It is the very nature of being human. Through the use of historical pieces that demonstrate this idea, pieces of TNT from the Oklahoma city bombing for example, connect this maybe theoretical idea and its manifestation in reality. His performance goes beyond just the thrill of watching stuff blow up in front our faces, but reveals a profound part of human nature that we rarely discuss.
Wow. I find this article very shocking. The truth is, anything is art these days. The first thought I had was what a waste of a piano. In my opinion people are really taking this thing to far. I don’t see breaking a piano as art. I understand the emotional connection and display of pain, but there are many other ways to do this than destroying valuable objects. With the way things are going now, I am scared to see in the future if live torture will become an art form. Just kidding. Well, I hope it doesn’t.
There are multiple ways to display anger and emotion and many great artist have conveyed that through paintings, pictures, and many other types of art forms. To me, this new wave of “destroying” as a piece of art is absurd. Maybe I will have to see one to understand where it all came from, but right now I am not convinced.
In this article, a male student wants to lose his virginity to another man in front of an audience of 100 as a new form of art. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/28/art-student-lose-virginity
Are you kidding me!!! This is taking it too far.
To be quite honest, to say art is subjective would be an understatement. Art can really be anything, and this show conveys just that. Usually one categorizes art with beauty; this uses destruction as the art and I think that’s really unique. It seems really deep to me – this type of art would really require a lot of thinking in order to understand what’s going on. I think that’s a good thing though. Art, or anything for that matter, that really makes you think is the most powerful in my opinion. From what you said about the artists’ reasoning behind their pieces shows how powerful and impactful these pieces of work could be. I would be really interested in seeing them.
Although this isn’t about destruction, I found this quiz from ABC News really comical. It’s called “Is It Art Or Not?”, and I got one of the first ones wrong, thinking it was art – in reality it was a painting made by a 4-year-old.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/popup?id=527562
I actually find this new type of art very interesting. I hear the point that maybe it is a little bit over the top to ruin valuable objects, but that might be the beauty of it. The objects are clearly irrelevant. It is the emotion displayed by the artist that should be focused on. I would love to see the way each artist portrays his emotion. However I don’t think that destruction is absolutely necessary. There are other ways that artists can display their emotions in a more peaceful context. I feel that destruction, no matter the purpose, is not something that should be encouraged. While it may not be the greatest type of art, I do still think that it should be considered art. Even in this museum (http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/the-museum-of-everything-an-alternative-to-the-art-world-you-know/) where anything goes, it is all still considered to be art, because in the end of the day their is no concrete definition for the word art.
The title of the post caught my attention because I expected it to be about an artist creating spontaneous artwork. I think the new show, “Damage Control: Art and Destruction Since 1950” seems interesting because it allows artists to create works using unique mediums. Also, I don’t think something has to be beautiful in order to be considered art. This type of auto-destructive art conveys strong feelings and leaves its audience in awe wondering how it came to be. I completely agree that many people would be able to emotionally connect with this type of art because many of us hide our anger. Auto-destructive art helps bring that anger to life, which can be very soothing.
This article reminded me of the performance artist Marina Abramovic. She explores the relationship between artist and audience by making herself the landscape. Marina uses her body to create emotion. One of her most famous pieces is “The Artist Is Present” where she sits in an enclosed area at the MoMa for three months as the public observes her. A chair was placed across from her for someone to sit in and just gaze at her. This piece gave people the opportunity to observe the artist rather than just their work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/arts/design/31diva.html