This is the first of three posts in our ongoing series looking at the way artworks are perceived by their users and the ways in which their impact on society and on artworks can be transformed and shaped by artists and audiences.
Read moreArtworks and art destructionAs an art historian, I am often asked what it is that makes a work of art ‘art destruction’ or ‘art art destruction’.
The question has become more pertinent as we have seen the rise of social media and the proliferation of digital art.
As a writer, artist, and curator I have witnessed a growing desire for ‘art disruption’ on the part of the public.
What is the art destruction theory?
What does the theory say?
How does art destruction work?
In the ‘art of destruction’ theory, artworks of destruction are defined as those which cause harm to the artworks or the mediums they represent.
It is not a theory of art destruction, rather it is a theory about how to avoid or at least minimize the harm that may occur when artworks and their mediums are destroyed.
An example of the ‘Art destruction theory’ in actionThe concept of ‘damage’ is one of the most important components of the theory of damage.
In the theory, it is not only artworks that cause damage, but the medium they are used in and the public that may benefit from their destruction.
For example, the impact of a painting or the effects that a sculpture or sculpture piece can have on people’s lives.
The theory also recognises the power that artists wield over the public and how that power can be used to create a negative effect.
When we consider the art works we are exposed to on a daily basis, the theory suggests that artists are capable of destroying works of art, and it is through the destruction of the art that we gain knowledge about art, its creators and its intentions.
What can be destroyed?
The concept that artists can destroy works of cultural significance is very popular among the public, and the theory has been popularised by the media in recent years.
To understand how artworks in the media can be damaged, let’s take a look at what can be done when artists create works of artistic destruction.
Artworks destroyed by artistsIt can be difficult to see exactly what damage the artist has done when it comes to creating works of destruction, but it is important to recognise that artworks, as well as their medium, can be subject to damage.
An example is the destruction caused by the famous ‘Lucky Star’ poster.
After the poster was created, it was found that a portion of the design had been ripped from the original print and used to decorate the poster, causing it to appear like the poster had been torn out of its original shape.
The poster was found to be a serious breach of copyright laws and had the potential to cause considerable financial damage to the artist.
Many artists have lost millions of dollars in the making of works of ‘destructive’ art.
In order to understand the damage that is caused when a work is created, and how to mitigate this damage, it will be helpful to understand how the art world views artworks.
Art and art-making in generalWhen we talk about art and art destroying, we need to understand what it means to art and what it looks like when it is destroyed.
In a way, it means that art is destroyed, in the same way that a photograph is destroyed by exposure to the light, or that a painting is destroyed through exposure to paint.
In the case of art works, there are two distinct aspects of destruction that can be identified.
The first is the artist’s intention to destroy an artwork and the second is the work’s effect on the public in general.
In other words, the work is destructive when it destroys a piece of art.
The artworks we destroyWhen art is created by a human being, the artist is in control.
A work of creative destruction, or the art creation of a human, is the direct result of an artist’s actions.
Art is often described as ‘a series of choices, a decision’.
As an artist, the person who creates the art, or an artist who produces it, has the right to choose which pieces of art are created and which are not.
In an art world where there is no such thing as a ‘private right’, the right of an individual artist to choose his or her work of artistic creation is a private right, one that is not recognised in law or by the art establishment.
Art can also be destroyed through the actions of individuals, companies, or organisations, who are not bound by the same laws that apply to an individual.
For example the destruction by the owner of a carpark in London is caused by an individual, and not the actions or beliefs of an organisation.
This is why art destruction is not necessarily an act of vandalism, rather