Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1fd9CWNO-B2z2KdnrQeM09APYvlVEcCwb-fpYFEav9I0/edit?usp=sharing

What is the main purpose of the concept of destruction in the arts?

Destruction is the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired.

“Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction.”

― Pablo Picasso.

With regards to the destruction in the arts, my personal interpretation of the quote from Picasso are of the following:

1. Destroying old ideas to create something new and of higher quality

An artist’s ideas and design process are constantly evolving, and without forgoing or destroying previous ideas, the artist would not be able to move forward to create something that is better than before. For example, a product designer will have to choose one final version to work on, forgoing and destroying the previous ideas

2. Destroying the natural and original appearance of materials to create something useful

The original state is destroyed to be valued as a new product, for example, paper. It goes through the process of papermaking which completely destroys the appearance of a tree. Additionally, when we write or draw on the paper, we destroy the original empty appearance of the paper in order to create something that is of higher value to us.

3. Destroying one’s work to create value (to send a message, or to create social interactions, etc.)

• Iconoclasm
• Banksy is an anonymous artist and his works are worth millions at auctions. He installed a shredder machine in the frame of his painting and activated it once it was sold at the auction. It sends a message and creates discussion about art auctions, where artists don’t get much even if people are willing to pay for ridiculous amounts of money. The destruction of something valuable (to its audience) causes a panic at first but is seen as something more valuable now with more meaning attached to it.
• The Destructive Tug-of-War game from the reading “Destructive Games: Creating Value by Destroying Valuable Physical Objects” is a game where each player places a money note into the laser cutter, and then tries to direct the laser into the other player’s bill. Despite destroying the note, many of the players came forward with positive responses saying that the destroyed note created social interactions with others as they use the destroyed note as an interesting topic to talk about.

According to the reading, it was mentioned that while the primary objective of engineering (or art) is to create, artists and researchers have occasionally reversed this main underlying principle and explored destruction. Therefore, they created destructive games as a way to explore destruction. It is defined as a game that results in an object that is owned by a player or a valuable object being destroyed.

The robot DESU 100 is named after the acronym of DEstruction and SUicide. It explores the question, “Are humans tempted to destroy robots?” The DESU 100 robot is a metal cube with an arm that moved autonomously when it drove around and played a melody to indicate its current destruction status. Next to the button on a pedestal is a label that reads “Please do not press”.

By pushing the button, the robot will hit itself immediately with its arm, giving a direct response to the player’s action. Besides the visual appearance of the robot, every user-controlled hit also changes the overall behaviour of the robot. The more damaged the robot is, the more destructive it behaves. Its arm starts to wave, to hitting the floor and eventually hitting itself. The melody gets less harmonic and the driving behaviour becomes less fluently, which strengthens the impression of destruction.

What effect does irreversible consequences have on the participants of the artwork?

Traditional games are worth playing because it produces a positive net balance; the value of engaging in the game is larger than not engaging in it. It produces enough value (which is fun) to justify the expense in time.

Unlike traditional games, physically destructive games contain events of material loss in the equation. These increase the risk of running into a negative net value. Therefore, a physically destructive game has to produce enough value to outweigh the loss from the destruction. According to the reading, these are the following qualities to construct an effective destructive game

1. Irreversible Consequences

It adds on to the excitement as the player cannot undo their actions. There is no going back once they decided to play the destructive game.

2. Destruction in front of an audience

To show that the destruction is intentional rather than accidental.

3.Using the destroyed object as a messenger

What kind of value is created from destroying the object? What kind of messages are sent to the audience?

Irreversible consequences engage the player to think about their actions in the case of DESU100. By pressing the button, the player contributes to the destruction of the robot. Knowing that the robot cannot be brought back to its original form, the participant has to think carefully whether they want to press the button.

For the first player, they can only assume that the intended consequence is the robot hitting itself by seeing the position of the arm. They press the button anyway to see what happens to the robot.

After seeing what has happened, the following players have the choice to damage the robot even further or do nothing. I would imagine one to question themselves whether they should press the button after seeing the robot hitting itself, or thinking that since the robot is already damaged, there is no difference whether they decide to press the button or not.

 

What value does destruction bring to the artwork?

Although the function of DESU 100 is to destroy itself, some of the participants felt sympathy for DESU 100, saying that it is cruel that it is forced to destroy itself. However, each player has a choice to press the button and the only obstacle is the instruction saying politely not to push the button (“Please do not press the button”). Participants still did it anyway as the satisfaction of pushing the button to watch the robot destroy itself outweighs not pushing the button and the sympathy felt for the robot.

This is because humans are controlled by two drives: The life drive (Eros) which strives for creation, and the death drive which strives for destruction. Fulfillment of the creation of destruction leads to the feeling of pleasure.

Therefore, it makes us question whether an inanimate object with perceived animacy deserves to be destroyed in order to feel a sense of satisfaction.