by Frank Frank

It's good to do stuff, because sometimes the creative process offers something fresh and new. As someone interested in sustainability, I can understand why Michael Landy might claim with his Art Bin there is too much stuff in the world making it artistically appropriate to destroy superfluous art works. It should not be forgotten that in terms of life cycle assessment, the act of destruction may require more energy than just leaving the stuff where it is. I mean, think of the petrol you use to drive to the tip? 

There is an implicit order in making art, without which it could not be communicable and appreciated in a social context. Creating this intelligible order requires re-working minerals to make paints, dyes,stone or plaster to sculpture,wool or cotton to make fabrics etc. thereby increasing the entropy in the universe.

Destroying these works extinguishes any semblance of order conjured in the creative process. Human creativity is native to the physical universe, yet can it be argued that the order of artistic pursuits, whether realised in engineering, architecture, paintings or sculpture acts inversely, perhaps in a proportionate way, to the consequent increase in physical disorder? 

This might appear true for all processes in nature, organic or inorganic , from growth of crystals, to recurrence of eg. fibonacci patterns, propagation, reproduction, and gravity conjuring spherical planets and the stratification of rocks. However, these natural phenomena represent cyclically evolving and changing states of energy, which, while they increase entropy in the universe, are neither created nor destroyed, unless the process is driven by some fundamental design.It may be for good reason the elusive Higgs Boson has been called the God particle.

This contrasts with works of art that are created and can be destroyed. While the creation of the work of art might have this inverse proportionality, it’s destruction does not, as the most subtle...