From: YANJUNA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: Re: random thoughts about sandman...
Organization: Yale University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 13:33:00 EST

In article <BzvMpq.Gw0@uceng.uc.edu>
sweide@uceng.uc.edu (Steven Weide) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Dec26.043531.9271@netcom.com> dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>>zonker@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Regis):
>>
>>Another observation:  Last issue we were given to understand that Destruction
>>wasn't a very good artist.  This issue we learned beyond a doubt that he's
>>a rotten poet.  Are we to understand that he's been dabbling like this for
>>the last three centuries?  Must be frustrating to quit the destruction
>>business and then find out that that's all you're any good at.
>>
>
>It seems only right that he is a lousy artist and poet.  He is Destruction
>after all.  His job is to tear things down, not create them.
>
 
   Two thoughts; perhaps somewhat contradictory.
   We can (sort of) argue that destruction IS art; in destruction, we are
trying to achieve a goal, and one can argue that the act of destroying IS
an artistic process; and the rubbles are works of art.  This harkens back
to the idea that torture can be a work of art (gleamed from Gene Wolfe's
Shadow of the Torturer) or even Gaiman's work (Doll's House where many
of the mass murderers at the convention thought of themselves as artists.)
   However...
    Destruction is much more democratic than creating "art" (with its usual
definition,)  Not everyone can create a fine work of art, but anyone can
destroy a fine piece of art (again, using its usual definition, which
excludes destruction.)  Only one in a million can create a Mona Lisa,
or David, but any one of us with a ballpeen hammer can rip it up or crash
it beyond repair.
 
     Of course, one can argue that it is as difficult to destroy "creatively"
and well, as it is to create a work of art, but on the other hand, most of us,
when we create (if we do at all) mediocre work of art, it will affect no one.
On the other hand, we can all destroy something (perhaps not "artistically")
which will affect at least a city.  So if we take "destruction" as something
akin to an artistic process, then it is only natural that destruction is
a crude artist.
    It's so much easier to become famous by destroying rather than creating
especially in the comic book field lately.  All you have to do is kill a
few people and eat them (Jeffery Dahmer: The UNauthorized Biography)
 
 
    Destruction: The Art for the Democratic Century?
 
   "The world has caught up with me and surpassed me.  Ninety years ago, I
was a freak.  Today, I'm an amateur.  The future isn't what you thought.
It's what I am." ...Jack the Ripper in _Time after Time_
 
*******************************************************************
 
     I got remote control and a color TV
     I don't change the channels so they must change me.
 
     I need a doctor for my pressure pills
     I nned a lawyer for my medical bills
     I need a banker to finance my home
     I need security to back my loan
 
     I shouldn't bitch
     I shouldn't cry
     I'd start a revolution but I don't have time.
 
          Junsok Yang (YANJUNA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu)