As we all know, art can come in many forms. It can be played by an instrument, drawn by pencil, sung by voice, and nowadays, photographed by a DSLR camera and fixed by Photoshop. Now, here’s the twist: take all that and destroy it. That’s what Smithsonian’s Hirshhorn Museum is doing for tomorrow’s (October 24, 2013) opening of the exhibit: “Damage Control: Art and Destruction Since 1950″.
An example of what will be shown will be the destruction of a piano with an ax. “Piano Destruction Concert” (1966) by Raphael Montañez Ortiz will surely be a sight to see. There will also be moving gears to push beams against the gallery’s walls, causing destruction. That’s only two of the many. So, why do this? Gustav Metzger, “inventor” of self-destructive art, says that as humans, we are all naturally aggressive and we should take it out on art, not people. One of the curators, Russell Ferguson, explains the attraction of artists to destruction as the need for control. However, it has also become a health concern to the museum staff and the audience. The pieces itself could potentially hurt, or kill, a person.
Self-destructive art is an interesting way of “creating” art. We are often taught that all art should be appreciated, not destroyed. And even so, how hard have people worked to preserve art pieces and fund museum exhibits? It’s certainly a new concept. However, art is about self-expression and if it means expressing your aggression, as Metzger comments, then it should be done. As seen, this art is not done for money (as there is no money for something that no longer exists), but rather for the artist themselves. The destruction can symbolize the self-destruction of the art world since so many artists lack passion, but desire wealth. It can also be seen as symbolizing the temporariness of everything on earth. Art is wonderful, but like anything else that is tangible, it will disappear and it should be extinguished by the artist themselves. If they brought it into the world, they should be the one to destroy it. However, I am not at all advocating the destruction of pieces like the Mona Lisa or Starry Night, as those are universal pieces priced at millions of dollars.
The Museum should try to keep this exhibit as long as possible because a lot of curious people will find their way there. The idea of self expression is also present, as well as the subliminal message of art being for passion, not wealth. As for the health concerns, I believe that they should definitely consider high safety. I wouldn’t put an age limit on the exhibit, but block off each piece with protective glass. It could be dangerous if Ortiz’s piano-destroying piece strikes anyone in the eye with a piano key. Art is made to express, not hurt. I am excited to see this exhibit open tomorrow and see what all the destruction is about.
Article made available here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/arts/design/damage-control-at-the-hirshhorn-explores-neglected-trend.html?ref=arts
Janice Fong
Your take on this emerging form of art is well-thought and imaginative. The concept that an artist has the power to destroy what he or she brought into this world ignites, in my mind, both a religious connection, as well as a controversial dilemma. The Lord giveth and Lord taketh away. According to this religious proverb, written by Job, because God creates life he can take it away. Therefore, following this ideology, because artists create art, they can destroy it. However, this idea raises a pressing question – where is the line between destruction being art and destruction being a criminal act? Destroying a piano to let out aggression or personal aggravation is considered the first, while destroying the Mona Lisa is the latter. But, the Mona Lisa attained this label because she was not destroyed by Leonardo da Vinci. She became a timeless, priceless painting because she was preserved and displayed. Had she been destroyed, the modern person would have no idea who the woman with the half smile was, nor would they consider da Vinci one of the best painters of the all time. With this in mind, is it safe to say destruction as a form of art is simply for the artist and not for the pleasure or gain of the people? Like you and the article state, destroying is a means for an artist to let out his or her aggression and personal frustrations. So shouldn’t everyone be paid to let out their anger?…
The creation and destruction of art is are conflicting and debatable subjects. In my opinion, there are two cases when art is allowed to be destroyed: if the piece was created to be destroyed or the creator of the piece decides to destroy it. Outside of these cases and cases similar to these two, I wouldn’t approve of the destruction and defacement of art. I’m sure by now, we are aware of the Chapman brothers, who purchase art to deface them. Just because they have the legal ability to destroy it doesn’t mean they should.
The museum piece is interesting in itself because it defies conventional art. Creation and destruction are processes we can only witness once. Afterwards we are left with the remains of either a finished piece or debris. Both creation and destruction are equally important. Creation and destruction cannot come from nothing. Material is necessary to make something that can destroyed. They compliment each other. I’m glad recently artists have begun to pay more attention to destruction to balance the overwhelming influence of creation in the art community.
I’m curious as to how the museum will fund the destructive form of art because new pianos need to be bought constantly. Overall, it was an interesting read especially the reference to the need to release our frustration.
The idea that the power to destroy art lies in the hands of its creator is debatable. The views vary as one’s perspective on what consists as art differs, as well as the idea of destroying art as being self-expression gets tossed around. While one may argue that destroying art can in fact “create” art, the opposite can be said – that creating art can “destroy” art. When looked into metaphorically, destroying art can be justified as a way of artists releasing their emotions, at the cost of their art. I am quite interested in what this such exhibit looks like in real life.
I like the idea of this exhibit; I think expression through art and not violence is something that should be taught to kids especially and is a good way to redirect negative feelings. I can see why destroying art can be controversial, but I think this lies in people tying in too much sentiment with particular pieces. Art progresses as we progress – as individuals and as a society. We will be influenced by future creations of art as we have been influenced by previous pieces, and so I don’t have problems with destroying art to make a point. And sure, the destruction of art can be art itself; it’s a visual exhibition and provokes thought and responses in its viewers.
Destroying art as part of an art exhibit is a very interesting and quite exotic, in my opinion. Most people are under the impression that art has to be an original creation of something. However, who are we to judge that art has to be made on canvas or paper? Art is an expression of ideas, feelings, or whatever moves a person. There is no right or wrong approach to art; it just simply is. For example, Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” is simply a urinal, yet it’s one of the most recognizable pieces in modern art.
So destroying a piano is simply another manner of expression. It’s an expensive and potentially unsafe one…but a legitimate expression nonetheless. Perhaps those were the artist’s intended implications of his piece.
I like to believe that art is created as an outlet of expression. Some people are just bad with words, and so they convey their thoughts and emotion through wordless forms. In art, there can be pictures of depression and death. But those are a calmer way of expression. When people are mad, anger comes out in a spur of energy and materializes into violence. In a more non-linear way of expression, destroying art is still art. And I believe that we should be embracing this new form and idea only because, if not let out, destruction can turn inward. To put a face to a name, I think self-destructive art is the first step towards a more raw and embracive form of art.
You definitely chose a striking and controversial topic. It is surely an unusual idea for me to allow artists to destroy the art they create. I personally don’t understand the destruction of art at all. I can’t really comprehend the art in breaking something. I think this especially struck a nerve because I’ve been playing piano, since a very young age. I find it unfathomable and extremely unnecessary to destroy a piano. Pianos are so beautiful and I simply see no need to break such a big, expensive, gorgeous instrument. I know in your review you mention that perhaps some artists need to get rid of aggression, and it’s better that they take their anger out on art than on others. Personally, I think if they people need to release energy they should take up exercise. Art is something that takes so much thought to create and make that it’s hard for me to understand how people can destroy something which they work hard on creating. For instance, in our animation, we had to create a collage and then destroy it. Although I understand it helped us learn about the theme, it was very hard for me because when I was creating the art originally I put so much work in it and thought. Meanwhile, with the animation, I did learn something by destroying it in a way. Otherwise, when people physically destroy art, like the piano, that seems unjustifiable for me.
I like how you mentioned that if art is to express yourself, regardless of positive or negative aspect, proceed. The thought of destructing something and considering it as art comes very new to me; most of the artwork involves constructing. I’m not supporting violence, but art can help people to express themselves more easily and in a more socially acceptable method. I rather see an artwork produced in that manner, instead of a victim from violence. Because this whole concept is so new to me, I am actually very excited to see how people will react to this. Perhaps it can change how the art world operates.
It’s quite stunning that destruction is becoming a new form of art. (It actually ties back to our animated collage creative project, where we constructed a story based on a theme in Act I, and showed destruction of that in Act II.) Lately, it seems like artists who deface arts have established a niche for themselves in the field. This article also reminds me of the Chapman brothers who have sparked a controversy due their practice of defacing and altering artworks within the legal parameters. Earlier, I commented that while Chapman brothers have the right to express their thoughts to any media, the destruction of an individual’s work carries more than a negative outcome.
In this case, however, artists are voluntarily destroying their own works. My question is: Why are they resorting to an action that results in the destruction of their own hard work? I don’t understand how they can destroy something that they once cherished.
In this review, you expressed a different outlook. You stated that art “should be extinguished by the artists themselves.” This is quite an interesting claim and I would like to know more about your reasoning for believing so. If art is to be destroyed, should it be created in the first place? Yes, I agree, the visual effect may be unique and cool, but is it worth losing art for an expression of art?
This is a very interesting post. I think the destruction of art should be done and displayed to convey a message or express an emotion. However, whether or not the destruction, as a means of taking out anger or aggression, is a form of art can be arguable. Everything in our world can be considered art, but I wonder what qualifications a work must meet to be publicly shown in a gallery or exhibit. Nonetheless, this concept of destroying art seems very fascinating. It reminds me of our last creative project, where we added images to our collage and subsequently covered, erased, or dismantled them to create something new. Despite the health concerns and criticisms that traditional artists may have to this exhibit, I think many viewers will enjoy it and find beauty in destruction.
I think your statement (and the overall summary of the article) of “self-destructive art as a way of “creating” art”, reflects the same ideas in interpreting literature.
I believe that many people do not have the artistic capability of creating art, therefore, destroying it allows them to express themselves in a artistic manner. While the actual act of destroying art may seem heinous and disrespectful, I think this would cause a new movement in art. Just like many people can interpret a piece of literature differently, many people can also destroy an art piece differently. Art is in the eye of the beholder and I think art is everywhere in the world. Just because this isn’t a conventional method of displaying ones ability or talent, art is argumentative and the destruction thus could be art. I would definitely check out on my own this exhibit in real life.