'The Scream' Stolen At Gunpoint
 

"The Scream was stolen today"

I'm surprised the security wasn't better than this!

I agree, especially since this is the 2nd time the Scream has been stolen

OK, so Norway probably doesn't have a lot of crime... but why on earth wouldn't they do something more to secure such masterpieces.

Why'd it take them so long?


This is the second time it's been stolen? And still no increased security, but then again, the thieves didn't learn a lesson the first time...

Hope it ends up with a happy ending...

*alert* Backwards country *alert*

^ I don't know how you jump to that conclusion...

Anyways..I hope it shows up, I've always liked this painting.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107851.html

Kingdom of Norway

infant mortality rate: 3.7/1000;

life expectancy: 79.3;

density per sq mi: 37

Literacy rate: 100% (2003 est.)

Unemployment: 4.5%.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108121.html

The United States of America

infant mortality rate: 6.7/ 1000

life expectancy: 77.4

density per sq mi: 79.6

Literacy rate: 97% (1979 est.)

Unemployment: 6.2%


feel like backing up your claim?

That's pretty wild.
I'm of the opinion that so-called "masterpieces" should be destroyed. They do nothing but oppress us and blind us to the significance of the rest of our experience. The problem is how we enshrine and blindly worship them because a cabal of "art historians" has deemed them "masterpieces."

ARTelevision,

I agree.
They should be burned and the ashes dumped in the ocean.

But you'll always have these yuppie sons of bitches who want to preserve the past/

If they never find it I'll paint another one.

speaking as someone who knows sweet fa about art, i didn't like The Scream so i don't care :)

i'm sure they'll get it back though

They can always go to Art.com and get a replacement for the low low price of 20.99 -- there's a sale going on too...
The Scream

I think a good point was raised that people want to enjoy a museum, not feel like they're in a military compound. Also, using stronger securing mechanisms would likely result in the artwork being damaged. Given that the pieces are too notorious to sell on the market, and that the past has demonstrated the artwork will be returned after a ransom is demanded, the security level seems appropriate.

That just chaps my ass!

Maybe they should attach homing devices on all their paintings so they can track them down when they get stolen. But, robbing paintings at gun point... that's just odd.

I can't believe you made this comment ART.

What next? Start burning books?

I'm not trying to start an argument, but I'm stunned that you should say such a thing.


Mr Mephisto

Yes. That's my opinion.
I understand that it is iconoclastic.
Our experience and how we recreate it in the present is what is of value to me. The existence of masterpieces or "great art" is a conspiracy of art historians. The canonization of so-called "masterpieces" is a lie that is foisted upon us.

I am conversant with the notions that stand in opposition to my position. They are the predominant ideas of culture. I understand that my opinion is not the be all and end all of experience. You will not have to worry about anything changing because of my opinion. I simply refuse to salute along with the rest of the promulgators, creators, and sustainers of high culture. In my opinion, the emperor of art has no clothes.

Oh, I forgot to comment on the "burning books" idea.

No. I do not advocate anyone destroy masterpieces except the artists who are responsible for them. I would require that my art be destroyed after my death, as it has no further value. I would suggest other artists require the same. I would encourage the demystification of particular artists and works of art and the destruction of the idolatry associated with "greatness" as there is no such thing and the idea that there is is elitist nonsense. This destruction of masterpieces I advocate is conceptual - except for their actual destruction by the artists responsible for them as I described above. The rest of us should engage in the destruction of the ideas associated with propping up the baggage of cultural elitism as epitomized in the "masterpiece".

GUNPOINT! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIEEEEEEEE!!

i can't believe nobody said that yet.

Feel like making yours?

verminous--you said something about norway being a backwards country. i guess he was just trying to set you straight on the matter. i hope that clears things up for you.

in defense of verminous--it appears verminous is from england, not the USA, and probably thinks the US is a backwards country too. who knows, maybe he thinks england is a backwards country for that matter. hard to say if he doesn't say anything though.

Gah! While I'm not of ART's opinion, as I think previous artworks are capable of guiding and inspiring future masterpieces, there is a precedent set in sandpainting.

I am completely appalled by Art's statements but I don't want to get into a flame-war. All I'm going to say is that art is something that has value and mantains it's value forever. How can you say that when an artist is dead, the art retains no value? No, I have not been brainwashed. But I am in awe when I go to the Metropolitan museum of art or some other musuem. I love art. It is appealing to the eye, it can be expressive and deep and tell a story and believe it or not, there is a ton of skill and knowledge that goes into a great painting/sculpture. Additionally, in many ways, the values of a culture find their way into art, making them valuable for future generations to read into and learn from them.

Please don't stand there and tell me that someone like Leonardo Da Vinci should have all his work destroyed. Don't tell me that the only value to his work is a conspiracy.

I don't know what to say but I doubt it's any use trying to argue or rationalize with you about this...so I'm just going to say that I disagree.




...As for the topic at hand. It's the museum's fault. What kind of idiot puts priceless artwork into a museum with absolutely no security and expects everything to remain fine and dandy?

I don't get why they haven't increased the security as well. But perhaps it's because Munch painted 2 versions of "The Scream" (they still don't know which of the versions is the most valuable one) so there are actually 2 original "The Scream" paintings. One of them was at the museum and the other one is locked up some where in Norway I think..

I think it will. It's doubtful that the thieves are ever going to sell neither "The Scream" nor "Madonna" since they're too famous and attract too much attention to the buyer. They're most likely gonna demand a ransom from the Museum

the two versions of The Scream

http://205.126.22.50/art/terms/largeprints/scream.jpg

http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~erickyo/scream.jpg

This is gonna add a couple of million to its market value i reckon. Makes me wonder a couple of things:

1. Do they get any kind of insurance payout from theft/damage caused while in the state of being thieved?
2. Is it gonna turn up on ebay?

lol

apparently one of the last guys who stole a "the scream" put an ad in the paper about his new baby boy coming into the world "with a scream" ... they caught them after 3 months or so

BBC radio said there were 4 versions of The Scream in total mind

Trisk, I understand your position. It is the dominant cultural belief. It seems to me that considering positions other than one's own - especially if one's own is the most commonly held one - has some value.

P3 radio said that the thieves have already put the painting for sale on the Internet for the highest bid?!

Some newspaper says 3 and the news on tv yesterday showed 3 paintings. Apparently they only consider 2 of them as masterpieces. The rest are only preliminary studies

No. The museum will get nothing. The insurance cost 2 milliarder d.kr. per year which they thought was too expensive. In order to save money they haven't been insure for quite some time now. Big mistake!

apparently the idiots have already put it on for sale on the Internet for the higest bid

I can see where Art is coming from on this but don't completely agree with him... I have always been bothered by the reification and commodification of certain art and artists. Why one work is cannonized above another, why we focus on the purchase price rather than the historical context and inherent beauty of a piece... Our experience of art is typically one of worship, where we substitute holy pilgrimage for a tour book and pre-recorded museum walk through.

A few years back I may have called for the destruction of all art that isn't in the now but upon sober reflection, art serves as a reflection of a time gone by... of one artist's impression of what was once immediate and is now the past... it can speak to universal conditions (love, fear, triumph, sickness, etc.). As a piece of film, music or literature can entertain, elevate and transport us, so too can other forms of art. The difference is in the unique form in which paintings and sculpture take (hell look at what having two versions of the scream has done to assayers).

If anything the mass printing of famous works, while further cementing the comodification of art has a least done some levelling. Now anyone can have a Da Vinci or a Van Gogh on their wall.

To me the key is cracking the cabal of art historians and collectors that Art speaks of... to find and preserve the art that is lost because it wasn't deemed a "masterpiece". The next time you visit a gallery... do yourself a favour and skip the guidebook... don't read the curator's comments on the wall... just look at the art and find something for yourself... the way an artist has captured an expression or the odd inclusion of a vase of flowers in the background...

I had the opportunity to become friends with Tony Shafrazi because he became the dealer for my friend Keith Haring. He was involved in an action with Picasso's Guernica. See the text below. It has information relevant to the theme of 'destroy all masterpieces.'

"'For me, an image is the sum of destructions'

pablo picasso


An enraged man sprayed the words 'Kill Lies All' on Picasso's painting Guernica in the Museum of Modern Art yesterday. He was seized immediately and the red-paint lettering was removed from the masterpiece, leaving no damage. The vandal, who shouted that he was an artist, was identified as Tony Shafrazi. As stunned visitors looked on helplessly in the third-ßoor gallery where the huge antiwar painting hangs, the man drew a can of spray paint from his pocket and scrawled the three words in foot-high letters across the gray, black and white masterwork.
'We couldn't move; we were all stunned,' said Gregory Losapio, 16 years old, who was in the museum with his Scarsdale High School class. 'A man started to move toward the guy when he turned around, cursed and said: I'm an artist,' the student said. Mr. Shafrazi was taken to the West 54th Street station house and was charged with criminal mischief. 'I'm an artist and I wanted to tell the truth,' he said.
Originally the museum hoped to keep the vandalism secret, because, according to Elisabeth Shaw, the museum's press spokesman: 'Museums are always afraid that this kind of publicity may encourage other acts of vandalism.'


Source: The New York Times, March 1, 1974


Tony Shafrazi is now a well-known art dealer in New York. In December 1980, he said in an interview in Art in America: 'I wanted to bring the art absolutely up to date, to retrieve it from art history and give it life. Maybe that's why the Guernica action remains so difficult to deal with. I tried to trespass beyond that invisible barrier that no one is allowed to cross; I wanted to dwell within the act of the painting's creation, get involved with the making of the work, put my hand within it and by that act encourage the individual viewer to challenge it, deal with it and thus see it in its dynamic raw state as it was being made, not as a piece of history.'

In an art historical context, Shafrazi's conduct is regarded as vandalism. But how would Picasso have viewed the matterhe who himself painted over a Modigliani? Picasso's remarks are more in tune with Shafrazi's ideas than with what museums stand for: 'Ultimately, what is important about a picture is the legend it has created, not whether it is preserved or not,' and 'Everything I have done has been for thepresent, in the hope that it will forever remain in the present.' By turning Picasso's Guernica into a masterpiece, the museum helps to make the picture historic, thereby rendering it invisible in the present.

http://www.art.a.se/artvandals/03.html

There is an iconoclastic aspect to some art - perhaps much art, perhaps all art. There is a counter-tradition to the dominant mode of embalming the work of a tiny minority of artists in museological settings. For further reading on this subject, see Antonin Artaud's "No More Masterpieces" from "The Theater and it's Double"

A Google search of "no more masterpieces" is also worthwile.

Unfortunately, this loss of context is prevalent in most forms of art... To me it is often a problem of time... We in 2004 are not in the same headspace as Picasso was when he painted Guernica... those who don't know their history cannot understand the horror of Guernica as portrayed in the painting... it is too abstract. This is not helped by the fact that mainstreams galleries tend to down play the politics in most art.

It reminds me of a few years ago when I was dragged to see Les Miserables... At about the half way point in the musical it suddenly came crashing home that I was watching a Victor Hugo novel... a story about the Paris commune and its radical attempt to rethink the politics of the day... All around me were scores of middle and upper middle class people in their suits and ties and various fineries... all of them thoroughly wrapped up in a song urging everyone to "join our crusade". Cheering on Jean Valjean and company in their revolt... a revolt that would be against everything that the vast majority of those in the audience would find, well, revolting. The irony rung in my head like a giant bell.

<Threadjack>If guns are banned, then only art thieves will have guns!</Threadjack>

I have to disagree with ART. We would lose a significant connection with our past if paintings were destroyed upon the death of the artist, or modern painters were allowed to "update" older works with spray paint. Although the art world in general confounds me (it seems like nearly anything can be declared significant or artistic), I believe it has value. To allow temporary modern ideas to permanentaly scar or destroy a masterpiece that has stood the test of time reduces that value significantly.

Mr. Shafrazi is well within his right to see the painting in some kind of "dynamic raw state," but much of the populace would prefer the original work not be modified to suit the whims of an individual. Masterpieces are property of humanity as a whole, and should be preserved as such.

This issue is not really with the piece of art itself but with those who contexualize the work. Art historians, et al. make great efforts to control how we approach a work of art, frequently supressing opposing views. When this occurs a piece of art is rendered sterile and neutered (spayed?)...

Art should be a flow between the audience, the text, and to some extent the artist. To me, art ceases to be the artist's when he or she releases it into the world... at that point, the meaning of the work is strictly in the eye (and more importantly experience) of the beholder.

not so long ago, visual arts were unreproducible, and therefore the products of artists were unique one-of-a-kind objects. art curators were perfectly justified in ensuring that original copies of were were perfectly maintaned and highly valued. nowdays, it's much easier to get a print or reproduction (of paint on canvas, not necessarily of sculpture) and we can study art books and enjoy thousands of paintings from our living room couches. i see no reason to destroy art any more than i see any reason to not play a bach fugue. old art can still be appreciated and enjoyed by new eyes. a worship cult growing from an influential artist is not a bad thing--i would not be able to play jazz piano right now if i didn't have all my CDs of masters. the unduly strong emphasis placed in visual arts on originals vs. reproductions is, i think, an historical artifact that will diminish as reproductions, both on print and on canvas, become better and better. nothing to worry about--as is normal, it takes a little while for technology to become entrenched.

one more point--the originals in visual arts are more important than in other arts. Let's say you have a new bach fugue, hot off the press. every couple of decades, as the paper got old, you rewrote the fugue on new paper and destroyed the old copy. if you were careful, the boston philharmonic would still be able to play the piece exactly as written by bach.

if you were to take the mona lisa, hire an artist to reproduce it exactly every couple of decades, and then destroy the old copy, where would you be? that's why originals in the visual arts are more esteemed than originals in other media.

While I understand (and disagree with) Art's stance about masterpieces being dictated by art historians, and overshadowing other kinds of beauty and expression, I think the suggested solution of destroying art is dangerously nihilistic.

Putting all the aesthetic value aside, art, just like literature, preserves knowledge. You might not agree that this is a knowledge worth preserving, but destroying knowledge is a horrendous practice. Don't you agree?

Having your creations destroyed after death does not agree with human evolution as I see it, either. If not for the benefit of humanity in general, is it not my purpose, as a parent, to become the next stepping stone for my children to walk on, on the way to advancement? By destroying my creations, I would deprive them of the inherent knowledge it contained.

As for "The Scream" being stolen, I am sure it will get recovered. There's alot of money to toss around in the effort. I just hope the thieves don't do anything stupid, like burning it.

The only way people can truly appreciate art is to study it, and gain an understanding of the context. Charlatan gave a good example of this with Les Miserables, and I've developed a similar love with Italian Renaissance Sculpture as a result of a class I took with the Curator of Sculpture at the National Gallery of Art. His guidance was immensely beneficial; he would provide the factual basis behind the work, and we would be allowed to develop our own interpretations of the piece itself. Art historians do have their place, but I agree that any attempt to railroad interpretation should be avoided.

Consider ART's approach though. If the work in question is destroyed or defaced, the audience will never be able to achieve that flow or connection.

on a related note--it seems to me that Art is talking about the experience of creating art, and how the creative force gets muddled if you're influenced by old artists, rather than life itself. one could also say that scientists shouldn't bother studying the works of older scientists, because it would hamper their ability to come up with creative ideas. art is more than creative ideas--there's technical knowledge associated with all arts that allow people to express themselves better. the destruction of old art also means the loss of techique knowledge.

Thanks for giving my fairly shocking and highly unpopular views some consideration. I think, in terms of discussion, issues are often illuminated by contrast.

ART, Im having a hard time understanding WHY you would want to deprive people of enjoying someone's creations just because they died. I think I can grasp what you're saying about the meaningless "value" thats placed on them...but suppose I...not being a major art lover at the moment...I like a few things by a few different people, but at this point in my life I dont have "passion" for it....but suppose in 5 years that "passion" develops....why would you want to deprive me of art from the past?

(I really hope that comes accross right, I seem to be having a really tough time explaining myself today)

It is a personal position of mine, ShaniFaye, I've arrived at after a long history of working as an artist and seeing my friends - some of them quite "famous" - die and having their works "live" after them. The misinterpretations of art history are exactly the meanings and intentions artists work to avoid. There is a deep "message" to art - and IMO it is exactly the message that enshrining art in museological and art historical contexts is the wrong thing to do - artists' egos notwithstanding.

I'm sure there are living artists and artworks that can more than fill the void created by artwork disappearing from the face of the earth the moment the creators die.

There are other, more objective, reasons to advocate against the edification of "masterpieces" and "great art" that are referred to above by myself and others.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, what you abhore is the "meanings" that are attached to any creation that the artist themselves cannot, because they are dead, correct, should the "meaning" not have anything at all to do with the original artists attempt to convey.

So a person like me who just looks at a creation done by someone, like you for example with some of your works that you've posted here, and says....Oh, thats pretty I really enjoy looking at it.....and makes no attempt to find relevance in it...wouldnt be able to do that anymore should you get hit by a truck tomorrow and die?

(I dont mean that to sound as crass and uncaring as it does, but its the only way I could think of at the moment to express what I mean)

You say that future artists can fill the void....I disagree...In my example, what if YOU are the only person that can create something that I want to look at?

Yes I understand what you're saying. It is a sensible way to look at things. I can tell you that the artists I have known that have died, and myself, have strong oppositions to the way that meaning is ascribed to works of art, taken up by art historians, and offered to the public by museologists. That is the dilemma.

For me, the call for no more masterpieces is a way of calling attention to this serious dilemma. My methods of stating things has to do with making my points interesting and provocative. The idea is to have some unpopular and mostly unknown aesthetic issues be considered by those with an interest in the arts.

P.S. Much of my work is in private collections. I no longer "own" it. I do, however, regularly destroy much of my work from the past that I am still in possession of. It is the same sort of "right" as that of suicide, I think. Even though there is a loss to others, I affirm that humans have ultimate responsibility and control over their lives and the products of their lives.

Thanks for bearing with me long enough to help me muddle through and try to understand what you meant!!!!

...and thanks for your interest in pursuing an understanding of this difficult issue.

you could draw a cartoon lampooning art critics and publish it in the new yorker.

Yes, and her facts prove nothing. Note how she didn't include "population"? It's easy when you're pint sized to have better stats, no?

This side of the argument demands elaboration, not copy-paste and unwarranted smugness.

Facts are facts.

A version of the Scream was stolen once before, the public was APPALLED. Any intelligent society would take the proper security measures to protect such valued works of art.

And their answer was wire!

Yeah, the New England. Vroom, vroom.

Art, I have to disagree strongly with your position. It would be asinine to just destroy priceless pieces of art. Would you not like to be witihn inches of the actual masterpiece that Leonardo da Vinci painted himself?
I would.

I have not heard anything that ridiculous in a while, thanks. Just because your thought differs from the majority does not make it right. You do not always have to be different. A circle is a circle, isn't it? I couyld say it is a square just to be different but that doesn't make it right.

Artelevision,

Now that you've explained it to Shanifaye, I understand where you're coming from a bit more but I still don't think art should be destroyed. And if it is, you're on a slippery slope. Most books, poetry, the actions of a person, and tons of other things get analyzed and written about by people with no true understanding of the work/thing/action. If you're going to destroy art for that reason, there are many more things you'll need to destroy before getting to a point where false analysis, speculation and near-worship no longer happen.

I can live in a world with presumptuous elitist assholes. I don't have to associate with them. But I can't live in a world where there is no art - where things I admire, love and learn from are destroyed. Where the life-work of a person can mean nothing 10 years after his death.


There will always be elitists, know-it-alls, and idiots. But how often do you come across something like the Sistine Chapel? For every 5 idiots out there, I'm sure there is one person who goes in with an open mind and comes to their own conclusions about the work, never bothering to consult the idiots about it. They may be lesser in number but they should still have that opportunity imo.

Besides, destroying the art itself will only leave the speculative writing behind. How can future generations know how the artist really felt with only the speculative writing as reference?

soccerchamp76, the art historical and personal references I listed are the reasons I think the position I am taking is a worthwhile position to take in this discussion. I can live without the direct experience of objects if there is an overriding reason - in this case the overriding reasons are the ones I stated.

Trisk, thanks for stating your well-considered position. As you may know, I am not interested in debating things very much at all. I state my positions because I think they are relevant and are worth mentioning in a discussion such as this.

it sounds to me like art is taking the equivalent of a hunger strike against art critics.

Art is what every individual makes of it.

Saying you want to destroy art is like erasing WW2.

Great posts! I agree with them both. Art should not be destroyed. Destroying art is the same as destroying scientific knowledge. Without the knowledge from both science and art, where would society be today? Everyone should have the opportunity to view great pieces of art and come to their own conclusion, even if some of the people conclude nothing more than what the art historians have brainwashed them into thinking. I would go on, but most of what I thought has been said already.

As far as the paintings being stolen, I hope they're recovered in the same condition as they were in before they were stolen! It would be a shame for them to be damaged or destroyed. And since they're being auctioned off on the internet, wouldn't it be a simple matter for the authorities to locate the paitings by tracing who is selling them and the location by tracking the IP address? And if they can't do that, can't they become the highest bidder and then trace where the money goes and to whom? It just seems to me that the police should be close to catching the criminals if they haven't done so already, just from that, unless these theves know a thing or two about how they're going about selling it online. Most criminals are not very smart and make mistakes, which is all we can hope for in this case as far as helping the police to find the paintings.

Want to own a masterpiece?

Buy The Scream!

I wonder if that's a fake one or not. The "Delivery will take place in a dark alley of our choosing" part sounds a bit like a joke

Of course it's fake. It's put on by a radio station.

Not very original either :rolleyes:

How much would it have cost them to list that ad - -I thought the listing fee was a percentage of the price...

Hmm... I'm not sure. I've only listed a concert ticket on Ebay, and I forgot how much it would have been. As it was I sold it elsewhere.

Just to clear up some points here. Yes, Norway is a backwards country, and that's the way we like it! (It is true, we even call ourselves the "backwards country")
We have two art pieces that means a lot to us "The Angry Boy" (N: Sinnataggen) a statue by Vigeland found in the park named after him, and Scream. IIRC, The Angry Boy has been stolen twice and now Scream has also been stolen twice. However, the version stolen now was the one hanging at the Munch museum, and the one stolen in the nineties was the one hanging in the National gallery. There are four versions of Scream, the two mentioned and two more in private possession.

As far as Art's comments I see where he is coming from, but personally I am of the belief that "masterpieces" should not be destroyed, and that they are valuable to society as a whole. I don't care what art historians say, but works that trancend themselves and become "sacred" to a culture or a large group of people enriches our lives.

It does not matter whether these works are paintings, sculptures, buildings, monuments or something else. Scream is one of a few objects in the world that _anyone_, independent of nationality, language, culture or race can understand and feel. I believe that the masterpieces which have the same quality is the _only_ thing worth preserving, as they bring humanity a little bit closer to eachother.

I agree with Art, that many declared "masterpieces" are not, but the true judge of a masterpiece is not an art historian or a critic, but the whole human race. Should we also destroy the Pyramids, the Great Wall, the Vietnam Memorial, David, Notre Dame, the Night Watch, Taj Mahal, Mona Lisa, Hamlet, Big Ben, Aya Sophia, Ankor Wat, Teotihuacan and all the other great human accomplishments? These are "masterpieces" not because some historian has said so, historians call them masterpieces because nearly every human is breathtaken by them.

IMO, it would best if we view the monuments of the past as simply historical objects and pay them as little reverence as is possible.

This is crucial to living in the present.

if all that happened as a function of the museumification of art--which sits on an 18th century project that made art into a series of "things" that can be traded both by collectors as physical objects and by commentary writers as a type of symbolic capital (cultural power is the ability to make and enforce lists, create hierarchies and by so doing demonstrate the relative power of the person creating the hierarchy--pierre bourdieu is right about all this, i think)--was the creation of the fatuous category "masterpiece" then i would probably not agree with artelevision---but it goes further, into the erasing of the artist, of the ways of making things--in the place of making art you get an empty space of projections for critics and viewers, and a ridiculous notion of "genius" according to which art is made by some hardwired cultural aristocracy that communes directly with "god"---and all the cliches about "great art" that follow from this.

it is one of the most debilitating myths that circulates in this society, that "art" is something produced in a kind of divine frenzy engaged in by a kind of natural aristocracy, that it has nothing to do with craft, with sustained engagement with materials.
it is a way of letting people know that they cannot themselves make anything and that they should not even try.
better to buy things.
it is also a way of letting you know that the world in which you operate is totally outside your control and it is therefore better to be passive, do nothing, submit.

the relation of art to criticism is interesting--the function of critics is to assign relative value to pieces of art. it is easy to do in principle, because visual objects circulate as complete in themselves--even"incomplete" or "open" visual object ciruclate as complete in their openness, for example. it is a characteristic and a limitation of the medium. because of critics, who structure demand for the art market, everything has a price, you see.
it is not clear whether people look at an artwork in a museyroom because it moves them or because they like to think about it being really expensive. maybe for some there is no difference between the two.

i think you could make these arguments without destroying the works.
the upside: like a literary or musical tradition, these works are trails of options taken (and others avoided), of ways of combining elements, of processing and reprocessing a sense of being-in-a-history--and they can function as a set of referencepoints for people who make things in the present.
the downside: making this argument without altering how the works are displayed (for example) relies on the system that artelevision denounced earlier, the "cabal of art historians" and critics....if you made the argument within the existing order of things, and found your position becoming influential (for whatever reason) you would become the anti-critic critic, and would probably find yourself doing precisely the same things you criticize others doing, but in a kind of inverted way. which is the way it too often goes with internal critique of this kind. hell, the activity of the "left" academics is full of this kind of move and results.

recordings do a similar thing to music in terms of erasing process. even a recording of an improvised performance become an object, something complete in and of itself. brian eno was right when he extended the same idea to soundscape recordings--you can listen to a recording of street noise and learn it and by doing that deduce a structure and treat it no differently from any other musical piece.
you should try it.
at the same time, recordings let musicians access a wider public (in principle--recordings are commercials for concerts, really)...so what do you do? not record? issue disclaimers with each recording? play for your own enjoyment? but what happens when your sense of what you are doing gets too big for that hobby status? and on a related note, is it necessarily a bad thing to want to make a living by doing what you love?

in music you have a parallel "cabal" of critics and musicologists who operate in precisely the same way as the critics do in visual arts--they make lists, they argue for their lists, the argue against other lists and jockey for cultural (and economic) power for themselves by doing it. and they too substitute a fantasy for the musicians. and they make the same arguments about these fantasy musicians--the great geniuses, the divine frenzy, the implict aristocracy---all of it. with the same results--dont try, dont engage, if it does not come right away, do something else---buy things instead.

the interesting thing about recordings is that you play them in your homes, in your cars--you dont need a museyroom to access them, to listen to them--but the same kind of arguments obtain for them.

that is why i am not sure that destroying the works would do anything.

it seems to me the problem lies elsewhere.

It's interesting that we can see things so differently. I am a musician and I agree that there is somehing "divine" (i am not religious) about many of these "gods". However, they inspire me. Like a million other guitar players, I almost revere John Coletrane. Not because someone told me too, but because his lines are so graceful. Many of his runs translate well to guitar, even though they are not the kind of stuff that usually falls naturally on the guitar neck.
Then again I believe that art takes skill. Great art trancends the medium in which it was performed. I see Blue Train, I hear Scream, I don't look at Mona Lisa, she looks at me.
I think we should remember history, learn from it, correct upon it, expand it and be part of it. Of course many people disagree with me, but my life would certainly be emptier and less enjoyable without having these heroes to look up to.
I am perhaps not smart enough or talented enough to live solely on my own, and I find it better to look for influences among things that I find great, that is made with love and skill, than it is to do the same things over and over whenever I am stuck in a rut.

i agree with you in general, gogogo: on trane in particular--i guess i should have pulled more of the argument i was making about visual art into the part on music, so that it was clearer. i listen alot, and i think it is important: what you can do is a function of what you can imagine, which is in part a function of what others have done.
because no-one is entirely without models. everyone reacts to someone else, to lots of other people. i could start a long long list of the people who influenced me up to this point, but it changes and will probably change again and again. here the point is that what you do, what i do, is not a sum of the people that we admire, that we listen to--we (i presume here in the pronoun) are engaged with a history that does not dominate us for being a history. and i think that relation--awareness of history that does not ential being dominated by it, copying it, is part of about the closest thing to being free available to us in this goofball world we live in.

on the other had, i know that there is something that happens when playing that clicks in a different way of thinking, and that way of thinking is much more open to what, for lack of a better word, i guess you'd call energy. the question of how from the everyday conscious viewpoint you think about that other mode of activity---is complicated--lots of people think of it in religious terms--i dont, but thats only because the terms dont operate well for me, but i suspect i know what you are talking about. the main point for me is that the space is tied to a mode of acitivity--you would not know about it if you were not engaged in it---and that this mode/awareness is available to many more people than the Great Genius tradition would lead you to think.

so sorry if my post was confusing at the end--if you combine it with elements of what you said, and you'd land pretty much where i am.