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

Is destroying art unethical?

Psyduck

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
672
Obviously, when violating property rights, but what if you bought a 1000 year old painting, sculpture or temple. Is it unethical to destroy it?
 
It depends where you place your values. Others might disagree. I would say that if you looked hard enough, you'd find somebody who would appreciate a particular object as art. That said, if destroying said object does not cause any person to endure suffering, how is it effectively any different to throwing out a piece of packaging?
 
Yeah, I think so. Any piece of art that has lasted 1000 years and is still recognizable as art is clearly a cultural treasure. Such a piece is an absolute gem to historians and cultural scholars, even if it fails to move anyone nowadays, and the intention of the original artist is long forgotten. Art that lasts through generations is what connects a present day people to their ancestors, both in terms of historical / archaeological knowledge, as well as personally feeling affected by, and therefore deeply tied to, those long gone, without whom you would not be here. I've often wondered what it must feel like to be a shopkeeper in Luxor, Egypt, and to have one's flimsy market stall right next to an obelisk.

The poem 'Ode to a Grecian Urn' touches upon this subject.

Destroying ancient art is a tactic frequently employed to deliberately cut people off from their ancestral past, and their history. Seems to me that knowingly wrecking an ancient piece of artwork is a great way to give the middle finger to those who came before you in the human chain.
 
It may not be unethical in the way that say, torture or stealing is, but I believe it is unethical--especially if it's something irreplaceable.

I'll admit I'm biased; I come to this topic as someone with a keen interest in history, to whom the obliteration of the past is a travesty. I think it's safe to say that what we don't know about the past is so much more than what we do know because of thousands of years of burning, looting, and warfare (to say nothing of natural decay) that's steadily erased all but the most persistent and relevant details. The ancient Greeks had a vibrant painting tradition; to my knowledge, almost none have survived. All of Aristotle's surviving works are basically lecture notes; most are lost. One can go on and on.

To me, a Fatimid serving dish or a Greek amphitheater or a Ming vase is more than just the object itself; it's the time it was made, the work that went into it, the hands it passed through, where it laid in the end. Call it mystical bullshit, but an artifact is all those things to me, something more than what it is in itself. Painting a reproduction of the Mona Lisa is easy; why don't we just burn it and make a thousand Warhol-esque facsimiles? Clearly, it's not just a painting to lots of people.
 
Last edited:
Destroying ancient or old art: unethical

Destroying modern art: the work of the gods
 
Anyone ever see the documentary where the band KLF burned 1 million UK sterling on a fire? Initially they set out to see what the value of art really was and divided the 1mil into bundles, got huge 10 inch nails, and nailed it all to a board and framed it. They then tried to sell it to a gallery. When they asked for an estimate of what it might fetch, the gallery told them "anything up to half a million. WTF? lol. So, being a bit miffed at this, they loaded up on alcohol and few mind altering substances, and took it to the top of a hill at night, setting fire to it. I found the video they took of it one of the most exciting things Id ever seen 8o My missus went nuts watching it with me, spouting off about all the good they could have done with it. Me? I thought it was goddamn hilarious. =D
 
An interesting example that throws a monkey wrench into this whole issue is those Tibetan sand paintings, that take days to make, and then are immediately and unceremoniously destroyed as soon as they are completed. They're definitely a spiritual lesson and a psychological training exercise. But does this disqualify them from being art?
 
^
That gets into the thornier (and IMO, unanswerable) issue of what constitutes art in the first place. Better to stick with the easy assumptions, yes? ;)

In that particular instance, if your intent is to destroy what you create then it certainly isn't unethical.
 
The poem 'Ode to a Grecian Urn' touches upon this subject.

I was just thinking that. History, or imagination itself, really gets frozen in artwork. By destroying art, you are a destroying cultural and personal memory. It is an obstruction of the past.

That being said, I believe that ethics are entirely subjective.
 
i read a story(well manga) were this guy painted but after he was done with each painting he destroyed it. i guess he didnt like to share
 
^ think of ice sculpture. or makeup art. destruction of the final product is inherent in the form.
 
pictures-410.jpg


alasdair
 
thats an awsome picture. i think it captures the moment of the destrective beauty.......kinda. and yea it would be pretty fun to smash an ice sculpture with a baseball bat
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Top