Should this painting be destroyed?

But don’t get me wrong - I’m not advocating for the painting to be destroyed

It’s a literal dilemma - two choices, both of which are bad

Part of the problem here is that by calling for it to be banned, more people will see and be aware of it than if it had just been left alone. It’s a not very famous painting by a not very famous artist. How many people had heard of it before this thread? If it is destroyed, it then becomes even more famous through infamy. Basically, it shouldn’t be destroyed, but it shouldn’t be called on to be destroyed either.

But i’m a middle class white male, so…

This is a test edit.

When you put it like that, nobody should ever criticise anything in the vague hope nobody ever sees it.

1 Like

Annoying that every time I see that name that electro song (believe it was by felix da housecat) overwhelms my attention

Ok having read it I can obviously see the argument fir it to be criticised and for anyone exhibiting it to have a way better justification than these guys seem to, but what is the argument for destroying it? Surely the voice of the artist must be at least heard in this debate.

Thank fuck Trump is banning funding for the arts eh!

1 Like

I’m sure George Soros’ has enough money to get one of his groups to purchase and destroy it.

Dunno what Soros has to do with this but you raise an interesting point about ownership

I mean, we don’t actually have a problem with people destroying art what we really have a problem with is various forms of authority deciding what is & what isn’t art and what is therefore censored or destroyed. The Nazi ‘degenerate’ art example is an easy one in that respect but we’re probably almost as easily disturbed by the idea of vigilante groups slashing & burning whatever they perceive as damaging whether we empathise with their motives or not.

There are far fewer people though who would be peturbed by the artist herself destroying the painting. She created it after all, surely it’s no big deal if she were to bin it ? (a small caveat here for the swivelheaded ‘Political correctness gone mad’ brigade)

But here’s the thing, we live in a society where the common understanding is that if I buy a thing then I can do what I want with it - burn it, slash it, piss on it, whatever. The problem in our perception isn’t art being destroyed but instead is all about power, rights & ownership.

So, at one and the same time the event of Emmett Till’s death is reproduced as commodity that can be bought & sold at the profit of the artist/gallery/art collector AND is commodified into a market where those who seek to preserve the sanctity of his death/memory/story have disproportionately little influence - either financially or in terms of viewpoints that inform ethics

1 Like

Yes we do.

Dana Schutz, for her part, has said she never intended to sell the work.

So if I made a painting and then binned it you’d have the same reaction than if I made a painting and the Government binned it ?

As for your second point …what does this mean? That she still owns it ? Or that she unintenionally sold it ? Or what?

Art must not be destroyed. Some artists should be protected from their own destructive urges. And a period of reflection can do wonders to one’s viewpoint.

She owns it. It is not for sale. It is on loan to the Whitney for the duration of the exhibition…

1 Like

Not physically selling it at the moment doesn’t prevent it from being a commodity or adding worth/notoriety though.
Wouldn’t be inclined to destroy art myself (probably) but wouldn’t criticise someone who felt compelled to in the right context, could definitely see it happening here.

It could equally be argued that the current criticism of the work makes it less valuable, as significant flaws have been exposed. Valuation of art is extremely opaque.

Where do you end up if you logically extend this argument though? People can only tell the stories of their own race, gender, sexuality, etc?

And what would you say about other creations that tell the story of black lives, made by white people? Examples from the top of my head, Bob Dylan - Hurricane, or The Wire, but clearly there are a huge amount more.

2 Likes

But as @incandenza says, it’s context dependent, not a precedent. This isn’t the thin end of a wedge it’s a specific point about a specific thing.

1 Like

I just can’t see a clear dividing line. Let’s use Hurricane as an example. You could easily make an argument that Dylan doesn’t understand the struggle of a black man, and therefore shouldn’t be writing about it, and therefore all copies should be destroyed.