I think that art that happens by accident is some of the best kind. It comes off as a suprise when you arn't sure what the end result will be. Take paint darts for example. The best part of the project is the excitement you get when the dart hits the balloon and paint explodes everywhere.
Another example could be when artists smash things into tiny pieces, or throw things and make them shatter. Destructive art could be used in many ways, but is it purposeful? What would critics say about art like this?
I think that even though some art can be made by destructive means, it is the thought and intent behind the act that gives the art merit. Take for instance the contemporary Chinese artist Ai Weiwei. In some of Weiwei's more controversial moments, he symbolically destroyed an urn dating back to the Han dynasty and dipped other antique Chinese vessels in paint. This was calculated, however, as he intentionally destroyed the pieces' historic value in order to replace (the old value) with a modern cultural significance. I believe that art can be created by destructive means, but it is the philosophy and thought behind the creative action that raises a work to the level of "fine art."
ReplyDelete