• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Is destroying art unethical?

Roger&Me said:
"Art is not eternal! Art is not eternal!"
-Merry Pranksters
Click to expand...

"During the Teng Dynasty, Dharma Master Dan Xia (literally, Red Twilight) used to be a candidate for the civil service examination. But he got a "calling" and later became a Buddhist Monk instead.

On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple where Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Cut off from outside traffic, the coal delivery man could not get to the Zen Monastery. Soon it ran out of heating fuel after a few days and everybody was shivering in the cold. The monks could not even cook their meals.

Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put them into the fireplace.

"What are you doing?" the monks were shocked to see that the holy Buddha Statues were being burnt inside the fire place. "You are burning our holy religious artifacts! You are insulting the Buddha!"

"Are these statues alive and do they have any Buddha nature?" asked Master Dan Xia.

"Of course not," replied the monks. "They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature."

"OK. Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating fuel," said Master Dan Xia. "Can you pass me another piece of firewood please? I need some warmth."

The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down and burn incense sticks to them.

"Are you worshiping firewood?" ask the monks who are confused for what he was doing.

"No. I am treating these statues as holy artifacts and am honouring the Buddha." replied Dan Xia."
 
I like that merry pranksters' quote -- they often said that their efforts were to divert attention from the real target - whatever that meant!
 
Talksick said:
Tibetan Sand Mandalas
They practice this art form to show the impermanence of life. These beautiful works of art are created and soon destroyed and given back to the Earth. From personal experience, I have written a lot of lyrics and created a lot of art that I destroyed and no one ever saw. I'm sure there are people who would have enjoyed these things, but not everything an artist creates is meant for consumption.

So to answer the question:
No. However destroying artifacts is very much unethical.
Click to expand...

a sand mandala isnt the "art" most are familiar with, though, it is magic. destroying a sand mandala, after all that work might also seem like a big sacrifice made, but the sacrifice made is by the soul, who is now residing in this crude place.

can art not become an artifact? or seen as a measure of a civilizations intellectual moral and spiritual progress?
 
construct said:
"During the Teng Dynasty, Dharma Master Dan Xia (literally, Red Twilight) used to be a candidate for the civil service examination. But he got a "calling" and later became a Buddhist Monk instead.

On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple where Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Cut off from outside traffic, the coal delivery man could not get to the Zen Monastery. Soon it ran out of heating fuel after a few days and everybody was shivering in the cold. The monks could not even cook their meals.

Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put them into the fireplace.

"What are you doing?" the monks were shocked to see that the holy Buddha Statues were being burnt inside the fire place. "You are burning our holy religious artifacts! You are insulting the Buddha!"

"Are these statues alive and do they have any Buddha nature?" asked Master Dan Xia.

"Of course not," replied the monks. "They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature."

"OK. Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating fuel," said Master Dan Xia. "Can you pass me another piece of firewood please? I need some warmth."

The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down and burn incense sticks to them.

"Are you worshiping firewood?" ask the monks who are confused for what he was doing.

"No. I am treating these statues as holy artifacts and am honouring the Buddha." replied Dan Xia."
Click to expand...

Great story!

But there is no "Teng Dynasty" in any country I have studied.
The name Dan Xia makes me think he was in China, so this is probably the Tang Dynasty.
 
Destruction is the only form of art - especially if you destroy someone else's work on a whim.

Real art is seen in the reaction to a piece of art -- that is what defines the worth of the art - and whether it is worth destroying or not must surely come from that point of reasoning - but art can take many forms - and all destruction of art says something - all observers of art are not alike, and some observe what others miss - the ones who miss the worth of the art are usually the ones who do the destroying - but it is still art to watch as someone destroys something that is worthless - because the worth of something is in the eye of the beholder - and this must surely define the very nature of art -

or else - where are we then? - when all is destroyed? one is left with ones own art - the joy of appreciation is in the sharing - the joy of destruction is in solitude - this exemplifies man's eternal condition, surely? The choices, seemingly shallow, have profound effects on others - that's why I think Andy Warhol was a beautiful man.
 
Last edited:
Psyduck said:
Obviously, when violating property rights, but what if you bought a 1000 year old painting, sculpture or temple. Is it unethical to destroy it?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't see how it could be - it's something you bought, which doesn't live or breathe. It would be a crime against intellect & reason, but a real ethical faux pas? No.

Perhaps I will find another point o view in the thred though *reads*


Construct - I love that story.
 
Mjäll said:
No, it's art in itself.
Click to expand...

the act of destruction is inherently "art in itself"? while there's no concrete definition of "art", that one is pretty out there :/

destruction of art isn't automatically ethical/unethical, that depends on the art and your views on it. if you want others' opinions you should specify, because it'd be pointless to answer otherwise.
 
depends on art,if you want to kill justin beiber more power to you

,if you wanted to destroy dubplate and hard drive of certain dnb producer I love witch have bunch of unreleased stuff on these,I would me super mad,definately against god the second example
 
i should've added that, in almost any/all circumstances, it is automatically unethical if said art is not your property.
 
depends on art,if you want to destroy dubplate and hard drive of certain dnb producer witch have bunch of unreleased stuff on these more power to you

,if you wanted to kill justin beiber, I would me super mad,definately against god the second example

:)

art!

alasdair
 
What about the gentleman who just defaced that Rothko painting at the Tate Gallery? He said that scrawling his name and the name of his "yellowist" movement on the painting was not destruction, but rather an enhancement to the painting as art is meant to evolve and change. I don't believe he has even been charged with any crime yet. Very interesting case, it will be interesting to see how it pans out...
 
he's a vandal, plain and simple. unsure how you could even ask that...perhaps there are extenuating circumstances or something..meh ;/
 
^This^ hard. You checked the yellowism site? Whadda loada pretentious shite! Talk about up himself? Jesus. 8)

Soft porn and images already deemed iconic or recycled covers of hipster mags like The Face require nothing in the way of genius despite what you and your pretentiously dumb manifesto has to say about them, and you sir are no Duchamp. Rothko FFS. What did you think you could possibly bring to the party defacing a Rothko. What a complete tool you are, fuckwit!

I think Vladimir can consider himself well and truly the fuck told there, I'm sure you'll all agree! =D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top