A new exhibition in Britain challenges the notion that all art should be protected and claim “certain assaults contain meaning and even insights into history and art” (Rachman). I personally agree with this statement. During revolutions and movements, art pieces will be destroyed. For example, the article mentions the Irish Republican Army’s action of blowing up Nelson’s Pillar, which represented a British naval hero. The destruction of Nelson’s Pillar at the time is necessary. The Irish Republican Army’s main objective was to break away from British rule, Nelson’s Pillar acted as a symbol of Britain’s power. The act of destroying it is important to signify a revolution. It would have been strange if the Irish led a revolution, but left a British monument standing. This would weaken the Irish’s resolve and confuse the revolutionaries. Preserving art is the least of their worries during a revolution. A revolution in any part of the world would never leave the current ruler’s monuments standing.
Although it is regrettable art is ruined in the process, I believe it is a necessary process. In some circumstances it is a necessary to win the war such as the melting of the statue of King George III into 42,088 bullets during the American Revolution. The addition ammunition assisted the cause. In both these circumstances, destroying art tells historians a story, which is important to record the past. Some people may see the destroyed remains of a statue as a loss of culture, but in reality it is a fountain of knowledge for historians. It brings up questions like: who were the current rulers, who destroyed these arts and why?
The article mentions the Chapman brothers, who buy works of art to deface them. Their actions may be legal, but I don’t agree with them. I regard them as vandals similar to the ones who have deface public art and imposed the cost of repairs on the public. The only difference is the legality of their actions. Their desire to deface art can not be justified on a larger scope or for the sake of any impactful cause. On the other hand, the brothers can claim their act of defacing art is their own style of art. Their actions have sparked many debates concerning if the defacing of art should be allowed under their circumstances.
What do you think about the destruction of art and the actions of the Chapman brothers?
P.S. I would advise against looking up images of the works that have been defaced by the Chapman brothers because of the drastic changes they have made. But, you are free to do so if curiosity gets the best of you.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times:
Rachman, Tom. “Passion, Principle or Both? Deciphering Art Vandalism ‘Art Under Attack,’ at Tate Britain, Explores Motives.” 30 Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.
Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/arts/design/art-under-attack-at-tate-britain-explores-motives.html?pagewanted=1&ref=arts
I like the differentiation you established between destroying art during times of turmoil and destroying art just because. I do think there is a huge difference in those two, and agree that if art is ruined during a time of revolution, it can definitely make a piece deeper and lead to more knowledge on the piece in question. Meanwhile, if an old column or art piece is broken, I feel like there is always something there telling us that we wish we had known or seen the art piece when it was a whole. There’s something about seeing art in it’s original state that is so complex and beautiful, that it’s hard for me to process the actions of the Chapman brothers. Nevertheless, one could argue they are creating art of their own and thus, this is a tricky subject. Meanwhile, I do think that we should always try our best to preserve art in it’s natural state because that’s makes it easier to understand the intentions of the artist, but if art gets damaged over time it does add a more complex and intriguing factor as well that can help us learn about history, as well as much more.
This is a very interesting article that certainly raises some deep questions such as: “What is art?” and “How do we define something as art and something else as not art?” and “Why do people care so much about art?”
In my art history class, we actually discussed art and politics and how they interact with one another. If art is defaced in a way that represents political change, then that piece of art brings an important message and becomes reflective of history. I agree with you that despite the lost of original art, the destruction of art for events such as revolutions and wars are important to the understanding of history.
On the other hand, I also agree with you that the Chapman brothers are taking this too far because they are defacing art without any reasonable justifications. However, once again, can we really say that what they are doing is not art? In a twisted way, their defacing of art is also a form of creative expression. Therefore, there is no way for us to argue that they are not artists themselves since what they are doing is legal.
This is definitely an interesting read. Both sides of the issue is displayed – the morality of defacing art is shown through your examples of destroying art in times of war as a necessity and the Chapman brothers defacing art to create art. Although I don’t support the act of destroying art as it makes up a part of history, I agree with the view that if it is necessary, then by all means, destroy it. The example of melting of the statue of King George III during the Revolutionary War provides such an event so that it was necessary to destroy that piece of art. I also ended up googling images of the pieces of art made by the Chapman brothers, and I find them repulsive. You would not find that in my house, and I regret taking the time to look them up. Art is ambiguous, but even this cannot be called art.
You present a very clear justification to both arguments: destroying art in times of war for a deeper historical meaning, and defacing art in an act of pure vandalism. But I believe what the Chapman brothers are doing can also be seen as an act of deeper meaning. Years from now, our current era would be analyzed, and the Chapman brothers’ art would be a piece of our culture. Maybe then, it would be “justified” as we justify war time destruction of art now. I’m sure at the time, there were also objections to the Irish Republican Army’s blowing up of Nelson’s Pillar.
I also decided to google images of the Chapman brothers’ art. Although I was slightly repulsed, I was also very much interested. I would pay to go to one of their exhibits. I think what they’re doing is art, and their style of art is only possible because of our current societal values. Or perhaps, the lack thereof as compared to the times prior to ours.
To me art is a reflection of what is relevant and important to a society at a certain time and place. The variables that concern art are fluid and change with the current events. Thus, the logic that history is linked to art and that one cannot be without the other is sensible in my mind. I can understand where it might be interesting to see where an artist has changed a landscape portrait due to an environmental disaster or where a sculptor changes the face of a sculpture due to social difficulties. However, in my opinion, what the Chapman brothers are doing should be neither condoned nor justified. Works of art are released into the world by artists with their satisfaction and approval. For them to violate the unwritten agreement upon purchase of art, to enjoy the piece for what it is, is disrespectful to the arts culture and the artists.
If the Chapman brothers are trying to bring a fresh perspective to art and calling their changes improvements, why do they have to rely on the foundations others have built for them? I think it would be more significant to create your own art that represents a statement about society than to warp someone else’s view of it. Although what they do is within legal parameters, I don’t think that their process is highly regarded in the arts community. The entire idea of defacing already established art reminds me of the debacle last year when Cecilia Gimenez tried to “restore” the Jesus fresco in her church and instead ruined the 19th century Spanish fresco.
First of all, I would like to say this is one of the most interesting stories (and analyses) I have read so far. This article is testament to the various interpretations of art and expression. There is a very fine line between defacing art to convey a political message and make a creative expression (that treads on the line of vandalism). Although I find erasing memorabilia of an opposing or repressing culture reasonable, I think defacing art, in general, has a negative connotation. The Irish may feel the need to “free” their country from any remnants of British culture, but destructing a work is equivalent to destroying the hard-work of the artists who toiled day and night to realize their imagination. Art is not merely a social or political statement; it is an individual’s thought. Then again, who thinks about an individual’s hard work during a war or a rebellion?
Regardless, I think the actions of Chapman brothers will incite some debate. It is interesting that you mention that defacing art may be their way of creating art, which again, just proves the extent and variety of art. Although their actions fall within the parameters of law, I think somewhere in the process, it comes in contrast with ethics. It may just be a matter of perception, but I think art is an expression of original thought, not an alteration or complete destruction of someone’s work.
Great response! It’s interesting how art is so disregarded in some instances, such as during war. However it is sometimes also a very powerful motivator in wars. Propaganda used during wars are examples of this. The destruction of art can also be a direct insult to instigate a warlike intentions, like you mentioned with the with the destruction of the Nelson Pillar by the Irish revolutionaries. Furthermore the concept of art is very difficult to define, as it is a very vague term that adjusts with the zeitgeist of the times and tastes of society. The L.O.O.Q., or Mona Lisa with a mustache, is an example that comes to mind after the mention of defacing what is considered conventional and standard art. The controversy that surrounds such instances may also be a motivator for people that attempt to deface art. By doing something very outlandish they draw attention to themselves, which may herald new ideas in aspiring artists and a change in what is considered art for the time period.