Art and Vandalism

Art, as an act of vanity, is a form of revenge. Can art only be a vain action? The creation of something completely original is the recreation of the ego? If art truly is a personal reaction to stimuli, external or internal, how can it be anything but an act of vanity? Self expression is violence - an act of theft and reclamation. In the creative act, there is also the act of destruction.

From an email to the artist Scott Wayne Indiana (www.39forks.com) on August 6, 2005:

My thoughts of late have concerned art vandalism - not simply graffiti on a bathroom wall or a commuter train, although I do love that stuff. I really love when people vandalize famous works of art. I have been thinking that a work isn't really finished until it has been vandalized. My reasoning is this: if art is a vain act of self-satisfaction and revenge is a vain act of destruction for selfish reasons, what more supreme artistic act than to create art through the destruction of art? -josh

And the reply:

i guess my response would be that i don't think art is a vain act.

(well, not the kind of art i am into anyway.)

Is it possible that some art can be a vain act while other art is not?

A haiku written at Rockaway Beach, OR:

Thoughts about my art

and of dogs digging holes.

Both are quite futile.