I rather suspect that no one else in this thread suspected they needed to explicitly state, “…so long as you’re not breaking the law,” as part of their defense of art.
So, good job to you for demonstrating the problem with making assumptions, I suppose, but I don’t think you’ve found a significant flaw in your opponents’ argument here.
Let’s try again, since you apparently couldn’t figure it out the first time.
Vandalism is damaging or destroying other people’s property. If you own it, it is not vandalism.
I see. So if you buy the Mona Lisa and burn it, that wouldn’t be vandalizing a piece of art?
According to the definition of the word, it would be. And since according to some people in this thread, everything is art, then destroying anything at all, especially (as the flaming bag of poop on your stoop in my example might be) a work intended to be art, is vandalism.
At this point, I almost hope your trolling, since the alternative is that you are too stupid to understand simple definitions, which is sad.
The crime of vandalism, which is what we are talking about, is willful damage or destruction of someone else’s (or public property). You can no more vandalize your own property than you can steal your own property. So no, it would not be vandalism to buy and then destroy the Mona Lisa. It would certainly be a tragedy, but if you own it, you can do with it as you please. Just as I can feel free to squish my kid’s* Play Doh sculpture back in the can whence it came.
This entire line of “reasoning” is pure idiocy.
*Hypothetical. I have no kids.
What you seem to be missing is that “art” describes how we RELATE to an object, not what that object IS. So everything CAN be art, but that doesn’t mean that everything IS art.
It’s kind of like “money”. A piece of paper can be money. A metal disk can be money. A string of beads can be money. A seashell can be money. A stone wheel can be money. All these things are money not because there’s some fundamental “essence of money” they contain, but because different people at different times have treated them like money.
But this doesn’t mean that *every *piece of paper, or *every *metal disk, or *every *string of beads, or *every *seashell, or *every *stone wheel is money. These objects only become money when people decide to treat them as such.
“Art” is just the same. A piece of art is a piece of art because some people have decided to treat it as the trigger for an aesthetic experience rather than as a tool to accomplish a utilitarian purpose, or an abstract token in an economic exchange. Arguing that something isn’t “really” art is like arguing that rubles aren’t “really” money. Sure, you can’t use them at the local 7-11, but that’s an accident of context, not evidence of a fundamental truth.
Am I destroying “money” if I burn a banknote? It depends. Can I find anyone who will accept it in exchange for something? If so, I’m destroying money when I burn it. If not, I’m just destroying a pretty piece of paper. It might have value to someone as a work of art (it triggers an aesthetic experience for them) but it has no value as a general medium of exchange.
That’s one of the definitions. Another is destruction of art, specifically.
Maybe you should learn what words mean before accusing others of idiocy. Would make you look less foolish.
“Some people” plural or could it be “one person - the artist”?
Because if it is just that “one person” then yes, that flaming bag of poop on your porch is art, and you destroying it is an act of vandalism. Since when I put it there, I intended it as a trigger for an aesthetic experience.
Art isn’t magical, you moron. If you put it on my porch, I will feel free to toss it out for the garbageman with my allegorical Picasso print (or, alternately, sell it to someone who appreciates your oeuvre.)
Really, you need to read Hamster King’s post, he basically destroyed your entire crumbling house of bullshit cards.
“Some people” plural. For a message to be communicated (and art is, fundamentally, a process of communication) there has to be a sender and a recipient.
I see. Cool. I will bring a friend who appreciates the aesthetics of the bag of flaming poop on your porch to watch. Does that make you stomping the fire out an act of vandalism? Or do you require some set number of people to appreciate it to recognize it as “art”?
I’m well aware of the historic use of the word. That is not how people use it. It is not how people are using it in this thread. I have three dictionaries on my desk. Only the OED mentions anything other than the “willful destruction of private or public property” and that in relation to spoiling or destroying that which is beautiful or venerated (your bag of poo does not qualify): note the absence of the word “art”. Even then, historically the term refers to people destroying art that belongs to other people (or the public), not art they own. You know damn well that no one is advocating the position that no one should ever destroy art, because it is a stupid position. You are playing idiotic semantic games that serve no purpose but to annoy people.
To recap: the destruction of art that you own is not, by any definition, vandalism. The argument could be made that something like the Mona Lisa could qualify as being “venerated”, but that is entirely beside the point.
If one person believes that a colored piece of paper is money, is it money?
We live our lives surrounded by things that exist solely through social consensus: money, property, marriage, law, art. They are what they are because we believe them to be what they are. The more people believe, the more strongly they exist.
If only one person believes something is a work of art, then the only meaningful context for discussing it as art is a personal and idiosyncratic one. We can still understand it as an aesthetic trigger, but one with only a functional audience of one.
There is no magic threshold where enough people believe to flip “not art” to “art”. Rather the count of people who consider something art is significant only as a way to determine the context in which aesthetic analysis is fruitful.
A. No, that would make the entire thing trespassing. Get off my porch.
B. If I knew it were a flaming bag of poo, I would not stomp on it under any circumstances. Because, see, the entire point of the “flaming bag of poo” gag is to trick the person into stomping on it so they get poo on their shoes. The fact that you don’t understand that is telling.
C. A flaming bag of anything on my porch is a fire hazard. Just as I have the right to destroy art that I own, I also have the right to protect my property from threats in a reasonable manner. So yes, even if it were an act of vandalism, I would be entirely within my rights to dispose of your art.
Wrong. That is how I used it in this thread.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Wrong.
Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2nd ed.):
vandalism: “malicious or ignorant destruction, especially of that which is beautiful or artistic”
Macquarie Dictionary (2nd ed):
vandalism: wilful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures
http://www.onlinelawdictionary.net/terms/6295-vandalism.html
Deliberate defacing or destruction of property; ignorant defacing of anything beautiful or treasured, such as a work of art, architecture, or a valued building.
Ignorance or malice is usually inferred.
You coming to terms with your urge to vandalize art is a positive development.
Not one thing in your post makes any sense at all and your choice of words is appalling and homophobic.
But let’s look at one particularly stupid point in your post, that some people used to say that some humans aren’t human. Aside from your snide ad hominem, it should be clear to even you that it is very easy to come up with example of things that are not human; e.g., a rock or a sunset. But you seemed determined to defend art as the only word in the English language that can not be defined.
Only you. Nobody else defines vandalism of art this way
My destruction of your flaming bag of poo is not born of malice or ignorance. It is born of a desire to not have a flaming bag of poo on my porch.
The dictionaries beg to differ.
LOL. But it is definitely wilful. And I, the artist, see it as malicious and ignorant vandalism of my art. You’re just too ignorant to see the aesthetic subtlety of my artistic expression to appreciate it. I offer classes to help you learn. Not very expensive classes.
The dictionaries, to my knowledge, are not participating in this thread.
I’ve contacted the editors of Merriam-Webster. Hopefully they’ll put this issue to rest.
I don’t. Which just like what I consider to be and not to be art, is the only perspective worth considering.
Hilarious. Thanks for the entertainment.