I was so shocked by the vandalism of my work
that I decided to ask a lot of questions to the GPT Chat.
I want to save these notes here because I will come back to them a little later.
The damage to the two lower panels—where the newspapers have been partially ripped out—adds a powerful new layer to the work, especially in the context of your research on conflict, propaganda, and media manipulation. This act of violence and aggression against the artwork itself mirrors the destructive nature of both conflict and the way information can be manipulated or censored in war zones. Here are a few ways you could connect this to your exhibition and research:
1. Aggression as a Metaphor: The physical destruction of the newspaper on the panels can represent the way war and violence tear apart not just physical landscapes but also the information that people rely on. In propaganda, selective presentation, simplification, or outright destruction of information is common. By ripping away parts of the newspaper, the artwork echoes how truth is often "ripped apart" or distorted in times of conflict. The lower panels, closer to the viewers and more vulnerable to interaction, symbolize how media is often more exposed to manipulation and destruction in times of unrest.
2. Vulnerability of Information: The fact that the lower panels—those more accessible to the public—were damaged could reflect the fragility of media, especially newspapers, in the face of human aggression. It can be a metaphor for how accessible information is often the first to be attacked, censored, or destroyed in conflict, echoing the ways in which media is selectively presented or obliterated to control the narrative. This connects deeply to your ongoing exploration of how propaganda shapes public perception and distorts truth.
3. Layers of Time and Decay: While the upper panels are intact, having only been affected by rain (a natural, passive process), the lower ones show the results of direct human intervention. This contrast can highlight the difference between natural decay over time and the violent destruction that occurs in conflict zones. It suggests that while time wears away at everything, human aggression speeds up that process, leaving visible scars on both society and media. In the context of war, the media is both a tool for information and a victim of manipulation.
4. Symbolism of Destruction: Destruction in art can also serve as a form of expression and resistance. The ripped-out newspapers can symbolize the attempt to destroy memory or history, just as war often tries to erase or rewrite the past. It can also allude to the silencing of voices, as newspapers (which represent stories, opinions, and facts) are literally torn apart. The act of leaving the damaged panels as they are, without repair, reflects the idea that the scars of war and violence are never fully healed—they remain visible and impactful.
5. Interactivity and Responsibility: The lower panels, being more accessible and vulnerable to human intervention, raise questions about the role of the viewer and the public in either protecting or destroying information. In this case, some people might have damaged the artwork intentionally, but it could also have been unintentional. This ambiguity reflects the complicated role that individuals play in the propagation or destruction of media narratives, especially in the context of war. It also emphasizes how viewers are not passive recipients of information but active participants in shaping or damaging the narratives they encounter.
Incorporating this idea into your exhibition adds depth to your exploration of media manipulation and conflict. By showing the damaged lower panels alongside the intact upper ones, you create a clear visual metaphor for the ways in which both time and human actions affect the narratives we receive, particularly during war. This could lead to a compelling discussion on how media is manipulated, censored, or outright destroyed in times of conflict, and how the public both interacts with and influences this process.
Particularly important points for me are: how truth is often "ripped apart" or distorted in times of conflict, media is often more exposed to manipulation and destruction, accessible information is often the first to be attacked, censored, or destroyed in conflict, human aggression speeds up the natural decay, the scars of war and violence are never fully healed.
It's a great summation of the act of vandalism, but I think there's still a lot left unsaid, since the installation is located near a school. And there is a huge probability that children and teenagers were involved in tearing out the paper. And this opens up the prospect of working in a school, involving students in the process of creation, not destruction, and this also says a lot about the families of these children who committed vandalism.
My next question was about which artists worked with the destruction of art and vandalism and why people destroying artwork?
Several artists have explored similar themes of destruction, vandalism, and the aggression directed towards artworks:
1. Gordon Matta-Clark – Known for physically cutting into buildings, Matta-Clark’s work explored themes of deconstruction, impermanence, and the violation of structures. While his destruction was intentional, it parallels the themes of aggression and dismantling in your vandalized piece, as well as the idea of transforming something through destruction.
Gordon Matta-Clark, Conical Intersect 1 (Documentation of the action "Conical Intersect" made in 1975 in Paris, France) 1975, printed 1977 Online. At: https://whitney.org/collection/works/43339 (Accessed 17.10.2024)
2. Banksy – His Girl with Balloon famously self-destructed during an auction, which was a planned act of destruction, but it raised questions about how art is valued and consumed. Though planned, it mirrors how your work, now altered by vandalism, may provoke new interpretations about fragility, temporality, and value in art.
3. Jean Tinguely – His Homage to New York, a self-destroying sculpture, also plays with the idea of destruction as part of the artistic process. In your case, unintentional destruction could evoke similar reflections on the lifecycle of an artwork.
Jean Tinguely: Homage to New York, MOMA, 1960. Online. At: https://daskunstbuch.at/2012/12/24/skulpturale-formen-im-fotografischen-werk-von-bernd-und-hilla-becher/tinguely-homage-to-new-york/ (Accessed 17.10.2024)
4. Lucio Fontana – His famous slashed canvases were an intentional act of violence against traditional art forms, meant to open a dialogue about the rupture in the surface of art and its symbolic meaning. The vandalism of your panels could reflect a violent rupture against the themes you're dealing with, such as temporality, permanence, and mass media.
Concetto spaziale, Attese, 1966. Lucio Fontana. Tornabuoni Art, Painting. water-based paint on canvas, Dimensions de l'œuvre 61.0 x 50.0 (cm) Online. At: https://www.artbasel.com/catalog/artwork/89667/Lucio-Fontana-Concetto-spaziale-Attese?lang=fr (Accessed 17.10.2024)
Why people destroy art – Art is often a target for vandalism because it represents something larger: authority, culture, or societal values. Art can provoke strong emotions, and in your case, it may be that your work, which engages with themes of conflict, temporality, and the media, stirs unconscious feelings of frustration or rebellion in the public. Historically, art has been defaced during social unrest or to symbolize resistance against specific ideas or institutions.
I could use this act of vandalism as a starting point to explore aggression as a form of critique or dialogue between the public and the artwork.
Several scholars and thinkers have examined the paradox of beauty being destroyed by aggression or violence, particularly in art.
1. Vandalism as Rebellion: Vandalism in art can sometimes be seen as an act of rebellion against societal norms, institutions, or even beauty itself. Jean Baudrillard, in his critique of consumer society and simulacra, has argued that acts of destruction can represent a rejection of superficial or commodified beauty, suggesting a deeper existential dissatisfaction.
Does this mean that if my work was not so attractive, then they would not have touched it?
2. Aggression Toward Beauty: Destruction can also be seen through the lens of Sigmund Freud’s theories on the death drive ("Thanatos"), where human beings are driven by a compulsion to destroy, often attacking what is beautiful because it symbolizes something unattainable, distant, or even oppressive. The frustration with unattainable ideals might manifest in vandalizing beauty.
How then to show a person something better? How to elevate him if his natural reaction is frustration and destruction... If the viewer were offered art "of his level", for example, reproductions of Van Gogo's sunflowers or a pink sunset painted on the asphalt right away, so that he could walk on it, and he would not be irritated by the elevation of art. There is no logic here! But this is an interesting aspect that I need to think about.
3. Theodor Adorno: His Aesthetic Theory also explores how beauty can provoke violence when it’s perceived as disconnected from the real, raw human condition. In times of crisis, beauty might appear irrelevant, and people might destroy it as a reaction to the feeling of alienation from art that doesn’t reflect their lived reality.
When people are brutally killed by other people, it is strange to create art aimed at decorative beauty. In that case, I can understand it. So again, I can conclude that my works do not correspond to the inner state of those people who destroyed them. But is it possible to take into account the wishes of everyone and is it necessary when creating art?
4. The Sublime vs. the Beautiful: Immanuel Kant’s ideas about the sublime (where one is overwhelmed by beauty or nature, leading to feelings of both awe and terror) may also play a part. The destruction of something beautiful might be an attempt to overcome the overwhelming feeling it provokes, or an assertion of control over what one cannot possess or understand.
I have already encountered this in my childhood when someone really likes something, but he doesn’t know how to deal with these feelings and how to behave in this situation, so he just does nasty or bad things.
5. Art as a Target for Social and Political Anger: In contemporary times, artists such as Banksy have dealt with the fragility of beauty and how easily it can become a target for vandalism or political rage. The defacement of art can be a political statement in itself, challenging the very notion of beauty and its role in society.
To explore the relationship between vandalism, violence, and beauty in art, and why someone might destroy something beautiful, a number of relevant thinkers and research areas can provide insights:
1. Jean Baudrillard: His theory of simulacra and hyperreality can help frame destruction as part of the complex relationship between reality and representation. Baudrillard suggests that in a world of signs and simulations, acts of destruction might reflect a deeper societal discomfort with beauty as a representation of an ideal, perhaps triggering violent reactions.
2. René Girard: His mimetic theory explores how desires are imitated in societies, leading to conflict and violence. The destruction of art could be seen as an act of mimesis, where the violence is directed toward something representing an unattainable or painful ideal. This framework could help you explore how beauty or aesthetic perfection may incite feelings of envy, leading to acts of aggression.
3. Georges Bataille: In his writing on eroticism and transgression, Bataille discusses how destruction can be linked to both violence and a pursuit of the sacred. He might offer a view that vandalism represents a perverse form of engaging with beauty and art—transforming destruction into an act of reverence or taboo-breaking.
4. Theodor W. Adorno: His work on aesthetic theory often discusses the role of art in resisting societal norms and providing critical reflection. He also explores how beauty in art can provoke feelings of estrangement. Someone destroying beautiful works might be reacting against the reflective power that art holds in confronting their realities.
5. Hannah Arendt: Her writings on violence and power explore the motivations behind acts of destruction, particularly in contexts where people feel powerless or marginalized. This could relate to vandalism in your case, as those who destroy art may feel the need to assert control or disrupt a sense of beauty they perceive as imposed or alienating.
This is a strong idea that made me think that maybe I am creating kitsch? So to speak, I am imposing on the viewers a belief in beauty, and vandalism transfers my work exactly to the category of high art, where an element of imperfection is added.
6. Psychological and sociological studies on vandalism: From the field of criminology, there are studies that explore how vandalism can be a form of rebellion or protest. Psychologists and sociologists studying vandalism often link it to feelings of frustration, alienation, or anger, especially when individuals feel disconnected from societal values or norms.
By combining these ideas, you could investigate how the destruction of beauty might not only be a reaction to aesthetics but also a deeper reflection of psychological, societal, or existential tensions. This could inform your next installation, focusing on the fragility of beauty and how it invites both admiration and aggression.
The identified aspects of the causes of vandalism and the artists and scientists working in this field provide a great opportunity for further study and research in this direction.
Comments