literature

On: Destruction of Art

Deviation Actions

RavensHiddenSoul's avatar
Published:
296 Views

Literature Text

        It is always disappointing when time and hard work go to waste, but when emotion and passion play into it, the same circumstance becomes a truly tragic moment that cannot be easily forgotten.  Destroying something that someone has created with even more than just time and effort into it, adding in their own mixture of experience, inspiration, and personal opinion, is one such instance.  This creation goes beyond need, beyond survival, beyond logic, and heads straight for the territory of emotion and passion.  Besides doing indignity to something that very well may be worthy of praise (even if such praise requires seeking out another opinion), the destruction of art tends to injure the artist as well.  It is an unnecessary cruelty.

        Purposely razing any artist's creation is not only a blatant statement of disregard towards the artists' time and attention all poured towards such creation, but a harmful attack of the concept of aesthetic itself.  Any artist could tell anyone else who asks that they create their works with utmost passion, drawing forth things that would otherwise have stayed so hidden and private that the world may have never known they existed.  Needless to say, the artwork (be it a painting, song, sculpture, or book) means a lot to them.  Many artists tend to become parental and even obsessed towards their works, placing their ability to create as the center of their universe.  To destroy what they've created is to quake the center of their world; it is to destroy a piece of the artist himself.  It is cruelty.

        To destroy what someone has created with the total intention of the act is not only a physical act, but also mental, emotional, perhaps even spiritual, depending on the work in question.  Physically, it is done with the body. Mentally, one decides to act on the desires or commands that are usually rooted in emotion; why would anyone obliterate anything without some sort of basis?  There is nearly always a reason, even if that 'foundation' of action is as primal as the need to feel power over an inanimate object.  The emotion plays into it as the foundation for this base.  If that need is not satisfied, then frustration and disappointment show up in the equation - these are emotional responses.  Stepping off the oversimplified track and acknowledging plenty of other emotional responses that may be brought on by a piece of artwork, particularly a vivid or intense or uncomfortable piece, and looking at responses through filters of the human mind, one can easily see how feelings of revulsion, horror, or indignation would lead a person to react in a devastating manner to the artwork, or towards the artist with harsh words in review.  However, it is also possible to control such urges.  Though it may be hard, probably much harder for some than others, we must remember that each person has a different view; or perhaps the artwork was simply a way to expunge such negative feelings within the artist.  Should that be the case, artists tend to grow fond of not the physical art piece itself, but what it symbolizes: release, or relief from such mental entities.  When spirituality becomes involved, another facet entirely is added to the reaction.  Recently in Afghanistan, Mulla Mohammad Omar sentenced all ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan to be destroyed.  The international outcry was not only a response from anguish born of losing such ancient pieces of their county's rich history, but "They are destroying statues that the entire world considers to be masterpieces," as chief of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Koichiro Matsuura stated. Demolishing what an artist has created is a multi-tiered process.  "And this is being done in the name of an interpretation of the Muslim faith that is not recognized anywhere else in the world."  Emotional response, mental decision, physical action.  Because it is an attack utilizing all levels, it is deeply felt on all levels as well.

        Burning books, ripping paintings, snapping CDs – all of these acts are far harsher than they need be.  Even if something doesn't spark one's own particular interest or doesn't fit one's own beliefs, who could possibly say, and honestly, that there is no other person who may completely agree with the subject art, or at least enjoy the bits of existence put together by some artist somewhere else?  Personal interest should not determine if something one has created is to be destroyed or not.  That's not to say every little piece of artwork should be celebrated and perpetuated by every being; every person carries a unique set of opinions and should celebrate what they find worthy of it.  However, if they find something not even worthy of attention, or staying together, destroying what they find disinteresting or harsh may not be so unappealing to even the next man down the street.  It may have worth to someone else, especially the artist:  "One man's junk is another man's treasure."

        Some may love to point out that artists are infamous for selling their paintings, making their living by getting rid of these creations that are so obviously precious to them.  Is this selling hypocrisy when an artist claims to feel such burning passion towards their work?  Not in any way.  Firstly, there are some artists who create just for the thrill of creation.  Not keeping the finished work around to gather dust and never be thought of again.  Why not make a living off what one loves to do?  Second, even if an artist doesn't care as much about what happens to the painting or sculpture or book once it's out of their sight, there would still be a feeling of cruelty committed to that work if and when it is purposely tarnished in any way.  Sure, some "artists" couldn't care less about what happens to their work after it's finished, never thinking of the creation again, but those people cannot be considered true artists; therefore their creations aren't true art.  A true artist at least holds value in something behind the creation.  There is a difference between an abstract painting, possibly meant to vent the artist's feeling of chaos around them, streaming out their feelings with every stroke; and mindlessly splattering colored liquid on a canvas.  That difference is feeling, passion - art.  Logic plays little or no role in art; in fact, logic would probably call passion and emotion an inconvenience.  In true art, the object of concern is neither money nor physical bounds; where the painting is hung, what happened to that book on the self, the number of replicas of a statue sold, or the format in which they place the music on the CDs.  No, the value lies in the soul of the artist being mirrored in each creation - or at least whatever ones they so choose.  That value placed in the creation by the artists' hands give every piece of artwork a bit of significance, a bit of respect, enough so that that even though it may not seem very significant to any random person in the city, it just may carry all the meaning in the world to its creator.  Something so special should simply not be ruined.
This was written for my 11th grade AP English III class. The teacher told us we were going to write a persuasive essay, and the goal was to: be persuasive of course, and use literary tools like logos and pathos - I chose ethos and pathos, the tools that appeal to the reader's sense of moral and emotion.


~*~


See that "2011 Copyright" under the writing? This is my own work. It is my own intellectual and creative property. Absolutely none of this is plagiarized.

I repeat, I am NOT plagiarizing this - and I hope that my fellow writers and students of academia will show the same respect. This is NOT for free use. Read it and be inspired; I'd love that. Maybe even quote it; I could tell you my name if it would help you in your writings. But I do not give anyone permission to use this without my knowledge and prior written consent (or at least a digital response). And giving me credit, of course.


~*~


This was composed sometime in the 2009-2010 school year, probably early in 2010. I think I was 16...
© 2011 - 2024 RavensHiddenSoul
Comments9
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
TherealRNO's avatar
That. Is. Brilliant. Well-done. The only issue though is in regards to art that slanders other art simply for the sake of the artist's viewpoint (ex: on DA, this is represented through character-centric kill art, where certain characters are viciously maimed & decapitated, despite the fact that there could be many who enjoy said character), what about it? Does it fall under the same category as all those other pieces of art you mentioned?