Katherine's question: "If people can remove a tattoo that they no longer view as art, should people be able to burn/destroy famous paintings if they disagree with the "art-ness" of it?"
I think that this definitely crosses lines of posession/ownership. I think its hard to compare a tattoo and a famous piece of art for a number of reasons. A tattoo is a commissioned piece. The artist not only sells his artwork to someone else, but permanently puts it on the individual's body. The buyer then has complete possession and control of the art. If an individual decides that the tattoo he bought is no longer significant to him, he has the right to get it off his body. If an artist decided that he no longer wanted his own work to be in existence, then he naturally has the right to destroy what he's created. Whatever the artform may be, if it is your personal artwork or artwork that you've bought, you can do whatever you want with it. However, (and this goes for virtually everything, art or not) if it doesnt belong to you, dont touch it. Just because you disagree with someone else's interpretation of what is art, does not give you the right to destroy it. Art can take many forms, and what may seem like crap to you might just be someone else's masterpiece.
Q: Can artwork ever be entirely unique?
No comments:
Post a Comment