Can vandalism be art? Can breaking a window be considered as art? That is the thesis of Kevin Harman, who filmed himself smashing an art gallery's window (he notified the gallery beforehand, but refused to reveal the date and time he'd actually do it).
Artists seem to agree with him, as many of them are offended that the director of the art gallery, Kate Gray, whose window got smashed took the artist to court:
"They should have shaken his hand and bought him a drink," declared Royal Academician Michael Sandle. Edinburgh art guru Richard Demarco, whose foundation recently awarded Harman a £2,000 scholarship, described the gallery's action as "intensely regrettable", and the artist as "a serious, hard-working and gifted person".
Gray was unavailable for comment, as was the Edinburgh College of Art, where Harman is in the second year of a master's course. It is understood that several of his tutors had been supportive of the project, which was initially labelled Brick. The scaffolding pole was substituted as a safer option.
The student, who has a piece in the current show of the Royal Scottish Academy, explained that he was less distressed by the fine than by the Collective's dismissal of his work as "vandalism", as the charge sheet put it. "There have got to be serious questions asked of their position as arbiters of art," he told the Guardian.
What do you think? Can vandalism be art? If so (like, for example, graffiti), where do you draw the line? Link (with video of the incident)
Previously on Neatorama: Soap Not Spray Can: Reverse Graffiti Art
"Stuff like this is why I have lost all faith in the conceptual/preformance art movement."
I'm genuinely curious, at which point did you lose interest? What kind of conceptual art do you like? Any particular artist?
"if your face was deliberately altered with a fist, its art?"
Please see my previous comment:
"I love the hysterical housewife flank of Neatorama. Where any question, however restrained, can be parried with the deft use of:
"!!1!!1 OH YEah, how'd u like if he wuz raping YOUR childerns!!1""
Which I will now amend to:
"!!1!!1 OH YEah, how'd u like if he wuz punching youz in da faces, huh?!!1""
Read the previous comments, paying particular attention to the one supposedly by the artist himself and you'll get an answer to your question:
"Who's paying for it? Who will the owners/patrons hold accountable for this mess?"
Having had a closer look at his website and that oh-so-clever thesaurus-impaired statement I think we're in agreement. Yes, it's some kind of art but as art it's absolute horrible rubbish.
This isn't art. This is somebody who is using "art" as an excuse to smash a window. That's a load of garbage. And I'm sorry, but comparing this to graphiti is almost insulting to graphiti artists. Saying that a well-executed graphiti mural is in the same league as smashing an art gallery window is like saying that body painting is the same thing as punching someone in the face.
Any artist who sides with this guy is as much of a quack and bullshit "artist" as he is.