I don't really think of it as such a black and white issue
(obviously), and it's hard for me to think of it in terms of the
rights of the artist, because regardless of what a person's rights are
regarding their creations, people are just going to do what they do.
People fuck shit up, and based on all available data, it doesn't look
like they'll be stopping any time soon.
So OK, there's the fact that people will destroy things, art pieces
included, no matter what. Is it somehow incorrect then to make the
assessment that this instance was kind of funny, and (to me - I speak
only for myself here) ethically tolerable because I didn't have too
much respect for or attachment to the original piece?
I'm not saying it's unconditionally OK to destroy all art or anything
like that. I think that would be kind of lame. However, if you erased
my hard drive in a way that I found to be humorous or artful enough, I
would at least have an appreciation for that, separate from my
disappointment with losing all my data (this specific situation has
actually happened to me before). Furthermore, whether or not I am
harmed by the action of someone erasing my hard drive is really up to
me, not them. If I'm going to go to the trouble of keeping data in the
first place, it's my responsability to ensure that it doesn't get
fucked up. Would you blame God for raining on the Chapmans' art
pieces? No, you would blame them for leaving the pieces outside in the
rain.
Well, you could, but you'd be pretty silly to do so. The point is that
bad things just happen, regardless of the systems we put in place to
prevent them, and the best we can do is put additional systems in
place to account for the bad things in question. That said, I think
it's OK to say that some destruction is funny or artful, especially if
you personally have no attachment to the thing being destroyed.
This is definitely way off-topic at this point.
-QF8
http://scatterbrain.raygunarmy.com/
On 5/25/05, aleks vasic <bvasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well i agree with you for the most part. I just put myself in the
Chapman brothers shoes. I understand that every individual has
differing opinion inregards to ideologies. But i fail to see what
gives someone the right to destroy another artist's work just becasue
there ideologies differ? Crap man you are trampling all over the
basic
rights of individuals. Who is anyone to deface or destroy something i
created becuase of differences? doesnt seem right to me. Something
like that is inherent to me. You just dont cause harm to others.
I am an extremist about cerrtain thing, and it may sound immature, but
if Barschak or any other ignoramus would try that at a show i was
putting on i would take it to the next logical level, if you
instigate you had better be ready for the possible repercussion. To
not do so would be folly. Yes i am refferring to an old school ass
whooping.
Because i disagree with you inregards to Barshak's actions. does that
give me the right to come to your house and smash some of your work,
or
erase your Dat or HD? Hey our ideologies differ just like the
Chapmans
and Barshaks did. With that line of rationale i have the utmost right
to do so according to you.
Sorry, its just such a black and white topic matter for me. Hope i
didnt misunderstand you.
aLEKs
On May 25, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Quintus Frimschlowder VIII wrote:
It's real hard to come up with specific rules for these sorts of
things. Personally, I approve of this guy splashing red paint all
over
this thing, because I think it's funny and because based on what I've
read about the pieces in question, I don't think too much of them.
("The Rape of Creativity"? C'mon now. I did like the Chapmans' chess
set a lot, but any artist that claims they're out to "destroy" an art
form reeks, in my opinion, of bullshit.) Would I think the same thing
of the act if this guy were fucking up an original art piece that I
had respect for? Probably not. Though, if his execution (no pun
intended) was funny (artful?) enough, I'd have more respect for it.
After all, these things are temporary, and attachment always causes
suffering, and all that jazz.
It would be relevant to note that people who put their art on the
street (graffiti, stencils, stickers, etc.) expect it to get taken
down very quickly by city workers, if not by other street artists.
This is all pretty off-topic, here.
-QF8
http://scatterbrain.raygunarmy.com/
On 5/25/05, aleks vasic <bvasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well it certainley was cheeky but, what gives him the right to
deface
an original piece of artwork in order to create another? I view it
as
destructive, no matter how brilliant of a concept it was. Im shure
Barschak could have thought of a more intelligent way to get his
point
across. Im not a fan of the Chapman's but its the principle. I
wouldnt like someone coming into my studio and taking my sound files
for a project and altering them forever.
I dont think to mmany people would aprreciate a similar situation,
especially afterr working so hard on said project...
aLEKs
On May 25, 2005, at 1:23 PM, Kyle Klipowicz wrote:
What a brilliant work of art! Those Chapman boys have nothing on
Barschak. He was merely mimetically extending their own expression
in
such a way that it ridiculed them. How can they fault it, other
than
claiming bruised egos?
~Kyle
On 5/25/05, COSTELLOE Richard <Richard.COSTELLOE@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
just read this in the sunday papers this week. seems like one way
to
find out if what you're doing is art... (what would McDonna
think?!)
Consider Aaron Barschak, the so-called comedy terrorist who
gate-crashed
Prince William's 21st birthday party. In October 2003, he appeared
in
court on a charge of criminal damage. Barschak had interrupted a
talk
by
Jake and Dinos Chapman at the Modern Art Oxford gallery. The
Chapman
brothers were discussing their exhibit The Rape of Creativity,
which
features cartoon heads superimposed on a series of etchings by
Goya.
Barschak had splashed red paint on one of the artworks, and on
Jake
Chapman, shouting: "Viva Goya!" He claimed he was creating his own
artwork, made out of another's art just as the Chapmans had
adapted
Goya, and that he intended to enter his work for the Turner prize.
Finding him guilty, district judge Brian Loosley said:
"This is a serious offence of wanton destruction of a work of art
.
.
.
Even by modern standards and even stretching the imagination to
incredulity, this was not the creation of a work of art."
--
http://perhapsidid.blogspot.com
(((())))(()()((((((((()())))()(((((((())()()())())))
(())))))(()))))))))))))(((((((((((()()))))))))((())))
))(((((((((((())))())))))))))))))))__________
_____())))))(((((((((((((()))))))))))_______
((((((())))))))))))((((((((000)))oOOOOOO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org