 |
| The suppression of opposing viewpoints that Hitler felt threatened his regime was key to the success of the Third Reich. Here, Nazi officials burn books by Jewish and communist authors. |
Destroying art is a crime. Defacing, vandalizing, or trying to suppress the message it is sending is wrong. Pure and simple. According to this article the reasons for people destroying art is generally three reasons: religion, politics, and aesthetics. It may be an extreme example I used but that was one of the first things Hitler did when he came into power in Germany. He destroyed any “degenerate” books and art pieces. Why you ask? Hitler understood the power behind a message and an art piece. He knew it could influence people to rise up, make people question why and that is the most dangerous thing to a person in power. So he had to remove any chance that the people would be able to be inspired to do anything.
Now what does this have to do with the article I linked you say? Well if you read it you will see that people are still trying to suppress the messages that are trying to come out today. Art is a powerful tool, and the power lies in its message- whether that message be: political, religious, or questioning society. People have different opinions. Awesome. An art piece can get you mad, an art piece can make you infuriated, but to try to stop others from viewing the work is wrong. The artist worked hard to create a piece to send out their message and although you may not agree with it, you have to respect it. I think that throwing paint on a painting, cutting a painting, or trying to destroy a painting only strengthens the message. It shows that it is working. It is causing a reaction so violent that the only response is to completely shut down and destroy the work. Ironic in a sense, trying to censor a message and only validating it.
It makes me sick that people do this to art that people work so hard to create. Pieces of history being destroyed is the single most selfish thing a human being can do. I remember seeing something on this a little while ago and it made me sick. This kid defaces a few thousand year old tomb, and what does he write?
“Ding Jinhao was here.”
REALLY? I think people like that should not exist in the world. I cannot comphrend what he was thinking as he did that and I can honestly say even though I have never met him, I hate Ding Jinhao. I can reasonably understand why someone would destroy a piece of art for a political message. Because it could help further your cause. It will get publicity and cause a stir in the news, possibly. Like in the article when it mentions
“Adherents of the women’s suffrage movement also occasionally turned on art, choosing targets like art galleries where privileged men might gaze upon nudes. In 1914, a woman attacked Velázquez’s “Rokeby Venus” at the National Gallery, slicing up the back of the recumbent nude, as photographs in the exhibition show.”
So I can understand that. But in reality even if you do deface art chances are that there will not be much news coverage. The museums and curators of art purposefully do not publicize the acts of vandalism to make sure that they do not create copy cats. If people see they can get notoriety and infamy due to these senseless acts then they will become significantly more prominent. I agree 100% with that statement and think these idiots who do things like this should be forgotten and gone.
Pinecrest, 0. <http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/snyderd/mwh/webquests/9-dep&tot/9-NaziRule.htm>.
Rachman, Tom. N.p.. Web. 1 Oct 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/arts/design/art-under-attack-at-tate-britain-explores-motives.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=arts>.
I agree with the basic premise of your idea Ken but not as dramatically. Although I do feel that defacing art is wrong, I wouldn’t wish death upon one who does. However, I feel that this issue can become a bit more hard to decipher when the art is offensive to some. For example, if a piece made during the Holocaust wrongfully portrays Jews in an utterly offensive manner, is it wrong for one to destroy that piece? Some might argue yes, as it still a piece of art while others might say no, as the piece is too offensive. Such was the issue here: http://www.artnews.com/2013/01/10/contemporary-holocaust-art/
Therefore, the issue can be made a lot broader than it seems depending on the context.
I do not know what Ken’s response to Kevin’s comment would be, but my opinion is what I think Ken means. I am Jewish, and I still think that it would be wrong to deface a horrible depiction of the Jews during the Holocaust. That would not prove a point or make anything better, it would just simply repeat the injustice they did to all of the writings/pictures that Jews had defaced by the Nazis. It would be better to allow that picture to stay intact for all to see, whether the people viewing it realize how absurd the depiction is or they agree with the it. That would send a stronger message and prove the point that you shouldn’t stop free thinking like those during the Holocaust did. To destroy an artwork that to some seems offensive is to allow subjective ideas to determine what is right and wrong. It is like the discussion whether or not a parent should be allowed to kill someone who killed their child instead of have them being tried in court. I agree this would have to become a broader argument, but I do not think the premise should be changed at all; that would be an injustice to the great point that this argument makes.
Here shows just how deep and more this question can get into: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-06-13/news/9706150130_1_death-penalty-timothy-mcveigh-execution
Destroying art is wrong; to destroy a piece of art is like destroying a piece of a person’s soul or beliefs. Art can be used to emphasize the artists’ message and when their art is destroyed their voice is silenced. Beside the fact that a beautiful piece of art is ruined, having to keep your outrage and anger a secret is even more upsetting. You do not want to reward bad behavior with attention so when exhibits cannot announce when a work has been damaged really angers me. There is a small counter benefit in telling the news of vandalism it draws attention to the vandal and the artist. This similar to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/arts/design/art-under-attack-at-tate-britain-explores-motives.html?_r=0
I believe people fear what they do not understand. This can account for the destroying of art. So yes “the power behind a message and an art piece” can be the reason for its demise. Art is a stimulant. It holds limitless possibilities. Such vastness can be intimidating to some. It is true that “trying to censor a message only validates it.” The magnitude of each piece of art carries cannot be physically destroyed. However a new message can be formed in defacing the art. Graffiti is a contemporary form of art that defaces architecture, another form of art. This article discusses how the art of graffiti destroyed the art work of another : http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/oct/03/banksy-classic-defaced-bristol. It is hard to determine whether this form of art, considered to be vandalism, is an actual form of art or simply, as you said another way “pieces of history are being destroyed”
I completely agree with you, art should not be destroyed or disgraces merely for pleasure or for keeping people away from being inspired. I read this article and was reminded about how cruel people can be: http://nypost.com/2013/10/07/new-banksy-art-pops-up-in-brooklyn/
Freedom of expression allows people to showcase their artistic talents, but it doesn’t allow anyone to deface it because they don’t agree. I think graffiti is art, but not in the way mentioned in the article. Although many would argue that responding to art in a negative way is also freedom of expression, I think it should be illegal because harm is done and nothing positive comes out of it.
I agree that destroying art is definitely wrong and insulting to the artist. I think it’s important to note the fine line between destroying artwork and recreating artwork. Of course we should be allowed to express ourselves with art, especially since it’s one of the most basic freedoms given to us in this country. We should be able to take advantage of it without worrying about someone tweaking or damaging it. I think a good example of something that is deemed acceptable as recreation is Miguel Gutierrez’s “myendlesslove” which is opening on Wednesday. It is created as a companion to his original piece in 2005, “Retrospective Exhibitionist”. Both are dances exploring relationship: the newer one inspired by a breakup, the older one an exploration of oneself exhibiting qualities such as fearlessness and innocence. This is only one example of many in the dance world. Pieces get reconstructed all the time, and it is actually common for a piece to be redone by a different choreographer other than the original one. And in a way, that’s giving the work almost a rebirth, not a death. In the case of the article on destruction of art, that is definitely not a celebration of the work, so I agree that it shouldn’t be allowed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/arts/dance/myendlesslove-by-miguel-gutierrez-at-abrons-arts-center.html?ref=dance
I completely agree with many of the important points brought up in this post. But out of everything, the thing that stood out to me the most was the fact that all of this destruction of art is only reinforcing the extreme power of art that we’ve been discussing in class. Theres no better proof to its influence over people than taking a quick glance at history. Hitler, while one of histories most horrific people, was still an incredible leader, and as you said, even he felt threatened by the power of art and the messages that it could send.
Unfortunately, we are not doing enough to prevent acts like this from continuing to happen. As you can see from a NY Times article from last year (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/picasso-vandal-gets-his-own-art-show/), some vandals are even being let off the hook for their acts. I think that this is unacceptable and if not stopped can severely hurt the future generations of art.
I think that destroying art is a crime that should be punished and should be protected by the first amendment because art is definitely a statement about something. If someone wants to destroy this message, they are limiting a person’s freedom of speech and expression. And yes, although Hitler is an extreme example, I think we should consider the extremes so as to understand the simple points. This issue really makes me angry because I feel like leaders and politics will change and in a few years, the piece of art that was destroyed would be revered but there is no way to get it back. The worst occurrence of this happens when a political figure destroys art to shape the publics view. One example is, “a religious figure in the 14th century, Saim El-Dahr, tried to get rid of [the Sphinx]…There was a common belief that the Sphinx had some power over the level of the River Nile … he wanted to smash the locals’ superstitious belief in the power of the Sphinx and tried to destroy it.” Whatever the reasoning behind it, I think getting rid of any art is unethical because then you shape what the public knows and learns about.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/02/16788304-why-extreme-islamists-are-intent-on-destroying-cultural-artifacts?lite