When art becomes offensive, sometimes people decide to take their disapproval out on the piece, instead of being respectful towards the artist and the work that has gone into the art. This concept is called iconoclasm, and today, iconoclasm is certainly happening. People believe that it is justified to destroy art for the sake of their religious or political beliefs. Our culture has become offensive and hurt, where people now decide that they can take the law into their own hands because of their emotional feelings towards an art piece. Iconoclasm is an emotionally powered act that isn’t justified because there are other ways of having your voice heard or preventing something from happening, besides destroying art. Furthermore, the term iconoclast …show more content…
In just this year alone, American society has been divided by political views that have affected our common sense. Destroying property and disobeying laws has been a way people use to revolt against their political views. An alternative to ruining art could be moving it, and unless the state where the artwork is located allows it, art should not be taken down or vandalized. If the artwork is handled lawfully, then it would be appropriate to move the artwork and this way it is not promoting hate or illegal acts. It is understandable why someone might become offended by artwork that is contradicting to their culture and values. Sometimes the phenomenology of a piece of artwork can impact the effect it has on a person. If a statute makes you feel inferior, you might feel critical towards it. However, destroying the piece is not a good way to handle the situation because it doesn’t show a moral or lawful way of resolving the conflict. Instead, when someone destroys artwork, it just causes more hate to develop and grow, instead of handling the situation peacefully. Overall, if our collective culture used peaceful protest, it would be more effective and moral, because no illegal acts or emotionally driven consequences will destroy …show more content…
People think that an iconoclast is bold individual, but not a demolisher of images. An iconoclast is looked up to as a cool or interesting person. However, the real definition of an iconoclast is a person who destroys art or cherished beliefs for their own political reasons and gains. The term that is used in society today is incorrect and misstated because it doesn’t define the true term or even relate to what iconoclasm is. Personally, I relate an iconoclast to the definition of iconoclasm because they should have a similar definition. This term is used completely wrong because a true iconoclast should be the same as the definition of the act, not just a completely different “new” definition. An iconoclast is actually someone who believes that attacking or demolishing artwork or even something that is against their religion is appropriate because it is justified by their personal beliefs. The term iconoclast needs to be changed because the society definition of the term is unrelatable to the act or the true meaning that it really
A lot of people might be doubtful that art has much power to make the world a better place. If you asked they would probably summarize art as scribbles or
Inside the yard now stands a freshly painted mural, sixty feet wide and twelve feet high. The work is the result of weeks of designing and planning, and with luck it might last as long on the train as it already has on paper. What the boys have done, what has taken place inside that trainyard, is a work of art. [Let us begin with a basic assumption. One may object to graffiti on social or moral grounds, but only in the most conservatist terms can it not be considered “art.” Any idea of art which does not go out of its way to disinclude vandalism will, in fact, contain graffiti. We will, then, put aside social and moral considerations for the duration, and consider graffiti as art.]
Their handwork is seen as vandalizing of property despite the effort and intricacy of their lines to execute a printed-like work of art that may be a remembrance portrait or sometimes just a word. In cases like these, Tolstoy advises his audience to divide the two because one has absolutely no effect on the other. He says “subject matter” that the artist is portraying through the art are “independent” and “set apart form the quality of the art” (155). Bad art depends solely on its level of effects on its auditor. “The stronger the infection, the better is the art as art” as it cannot be judged by the content according to Tolstoy (153). He also sees art more or so moral if spiritual. Tolstoy says “it is not a work of art if it does not evoke that feeling of… spiritual union” between the auditor and the artist. The artist is supposed to portray a work of art that aim’s at the “spiritual life of man and humanity” (174). So the mural graffiti artist does not have the motive of “passing on spiritual strength” through the composition of his or her work of art, providing Christian context, then according to Tolstoy, it is not “true art” (195). Being that he is a devout Christian, as confirmed in his book What I Believe, Tolstoy believes that everyone should follow his way, which seems like he feels is the only right way. Instead of leaving the realms of religion
Welch, Michael Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest (Social Problems and Social Issues).
Jane Golden demonstrates the Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Mural Art Program that has changed the appearance of the city in a positive way and that gives people a way to embrace how they feel. While Harriet F. Senie in Reframing Public Art and is stating that most public art is being ignored by people and is slipping away into urban-scape. Public art is often ignored art, we don’t know how those pieces of art are actually successful. Public art such as sculptures
Although many people believe that Graffiti is vandalism, it is infact art because many museums display graffiti, people are interested in it, and it displays beauty and emotional power. Many people have learned to appreciate graffiti as an art form and have opened their eyes to the beauty and emotional power it holds. From the video on CBS News, “Is Graffiti Art or Vandalism,” Laura Fanning (museum visitor) explains at 1:42 “… now I see it as more of a commentary and a statement of ‘I’m leaving my mark’…” This quote exhibits a museum visitor whose perception of graffiti changed when she went to a museum that displayed Graffiti. The same message is delivered in the article, “Graffiti Art at the Museum of the City of New York: Writing Was on the Wall, and Some Still Remains” by Ken Johnson. Page one of the article reads, “In 1989, Mr. Wong founded his Museum of American Graffiti on the top floor of a townhouse in the East Village, but real estate complications ended that venture after only six months. In 1994, suffering from AIDS, Mr. Wong donated his collection to the Museum of the City of New York and returned to his hometown, San Francisco, where he died in 1999.” The quote from this article informs the reader that museums will accept people’s collections of graffiti to use in their museum. Museums are usually interested in art and when a museum accepts someone’s personal collection that they have donated it must mean that it is truly art. Not only are museums interested in graffiti as an art form, but many people have come to accept graffiti as an art and take interest in it too.
Art is a form of expression. It can be created in many ways, and it can be destroyed in many ways. Art plays a very important in getting messages across. Art can be seen by hundreds and thousands of people. In the Chicano movement, art was everywhere. Art shows a sense of pride and honor. The artists that were involved in the Chicano movement really executed the message they wanted to tell. It will tell the story when people wanted change, they wanted to see a difference in the community they lived in so the future can have a chance that maybe they didn’t.
"Graffiti-Art Exhibit Is Artless to Police Commissioner Bratton" by Pia Catton covers the opinion of a police commissioner about graffiti art being portrayed as vandalism. Police commissioner Bratton views graffiti as a destructive force that has defaced the streets and subway cars of many neighborhoods and considered to be vandalism. Needless to say that Bratton doesn't even think that it's appropriate for kids to see, because according to him it's an atrocious depiction of what art is supposed to be. On the other hand for graffiti, Susan Henshaw Jones only intended for graffiti to be looked as a form of art "not to glorify vandalism". From the different standpoints of the article, graffiti can be a beautiful piece of artwork or inappropriate vandalism. The form that graffiti takes when on the streets doesn’t make it art because it was placed without permission.
“Iconoclasm” is defined as the action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions of established values and practices through the destruction of religious images or icons, which are considered heretical (9). Icons (“images” in Greek) are small paintings of Christ, the Virgin Mary, the saints, or any combination of these Christian figures (5).
Art is the expression or application of our thoughts, desires, emotions and feelings. Art helps us spread and share our thoughts with others. There are many different types of art and graffiti is one of them. Each person living in this world has their own definition of art. Some define graffiti as illegal because they believe that it abuses public property. Others believe that Graffiti should be legalized because they see it as not just another form of art but also as a useful form of political expression, a way to beautify scenery and as a potential source of income.
“ Many disputes surrounding murals have a lot to do with advertising,when an area of a city is downtrodden, muralists choose highly visible walls for their works to spruce up space.” ( Bjorgum 512) Muralists make murals on the wall to bring the town/city to life. For example, they can be making murals to tell a story of their personal lives Or for loved ones that passed away. Graffiti is known as defiance because people use it as a way that is known to vandalize property. “The undesirable fact is graffiti has become an expensive social problem in many cities in the world.” “U.S. cities spent an estimated four billion dollars cleaning graffiti in 1994 (Walsh,1996). Kan (480) Graffiti is and still continues to be a huge costly problem that we deal with today and can not really be prevented.
Some people believe that graffiti is not a form of art. They believe People spray painting public buildings, anything in the streets and on walls. They argue Graffiti is a type of vandalism, to spray paint, public buildings. It makes many people mad if their property gets vandalized. The definition of vandalism is “an action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property”. In their opinion Graffiti is plain vandalism. Because it violates people’s property as well as any owner’s and city’s. Some of them consider street art to be vandalism unless the artist has asked the owner of the building permission to paint on their
Activism comes in all shapes and sizes, and when someone does it in an unusual way it cannot go unnoticed. Banksy’s “The Flower Thrower” is a perfect example of this due to the fact that it’s vandalism with a deeper meaning. The man known as Banksy is a graffiti artist and a political activist, and the most intriguing thing about him is that he chooses to remain anonymous. There are many theories about his identity, one even claiming that he is a fictional character. Despite proof of his identity, several countries are on the look out for him. Many have even issued warrants for his arrest because his public works are considered vandalism. His paintings are known for making people question their everyday lives and really
...oing the public properties and misleading the pople through messy art. Damge to old buildings and the amount of money and time it would takes is hard. Therfore such act is not a form of ‘art’. “New York City and MTA official spend lots of money to get rid of the graffiti art”( Yuen, Elizabeth). Certain areas that are hard to replce or recover takes a lot of money or even not fiaxble at all, if the materials are no longer availabel at this time of the year. Even though there are bad sides to grafitti, when used for a good purpose its always good.
Humans are social beings, we want to know and to be known as well as we desire to be understood and be heard by other people. Therefore we choose different ways to express ourselves and make our statements. Graffiti is one of the main uncurbed ways to do it which makes it one of the most discussed topics. While some people consider it as art some people call it just “stain” or “vandalism”. Leonard Kriegel emphasizes his negative thoughts and experiences in his article titled “Tunnel Notes of a New Yorker”. However because of he had traumatic childhood memory, he is being too emotional and personal in his article. For this reason he loses his credibility in his words. Although I think that graffiti is a way to express ourselves freely and it includes artistic value it is undeniable that respectively it affects society and environment in a negative way, it violates the law, and cause the decline of the urban civility.