The destruction of the plain paper is the creation of another, new surface to draw on, how far can the destruction be taken while maintaining a surface which can be ‘refined’ into a drawing?
Is inflicting acts of destruction on plain paper/linen not iconoclasm? Is the destruction of figurative drawings iconoclasm? Can the phenomenon of iconoclasm be executed again and how?
Can the mutilation, and ultimately the destruction, of personally drawn figurative images be carried out with different motives? Motivated by iconoclasm, motivated by fetishism?
Does the destruction of the drawing change its symbolical, financial or emotional value? The patina of destruction?
Creating = destroying? Destroying = creating?
Can you make drawings with the frenzy, vitality, aggression and negativity inherent to (total) destruction rather than with the deliberate, investigative, presuming, expectant and positive inventiveness inherent to creating?
Destruction on surfaces is two dimensional, what is the difference in destructing three dimensional objects?
Creating is exploring, careful, sowing, germinating, allowing to grow, constructive, progressive, allowing to flourish, creative, inventive and positive.
Destroying is vigorous, wishing to overpower, violent, fighting, in a struggle, uncontrolled, provocative, regressive, a trial of strength, wrecking, aggressive and implicates crises, is vandalism and destruction, and ultimately victory or defeat.
The two opposing concepts of creation and destruction are vivid, lively, strong, healthy and full of energy. Their true neutralizer is indifference, impotence, stupidity, laziness, boredom, disinterest and infantility. Is it possible to create and destroy after these seven states of being?
No comments:
Post a Comment