Abstract
Modern society has learned to its regret that terrorists can effectively grab headlines and focus public discourse by well-timed attacks against symbols of the state. Assassinations, random acts of violence, and attacks on publicly valued artifacts can be used to publicize an attacker's grievance—whether real or imagined. Since control over the meaning of such a visible attack is a valued asset, both the attacker and the guardians of public order attempt to construct persuasive explanations of what has occurred. Such explanations are typically presented through press accounts and, when effective, constitute a suitable motive for a dramatic story. In this article we examine one class of these attacks and the explanations for them: that of “crimes against art”—physical attacks on prominent works of art. We draw material from four attacks on art works: the 1914 hacking of Velázquez's “Rokeby Venus;” the 1972 hammer attack on Michelangelo's “Pietà;” the 1975 slashing of Rembrandt's “The Night Watch;” and the 1978 bombing of Versailles Palace. We examine these acts of destruction in the light of the conflicting explanations used by both the perpetrators and societal guardians as attempts to control symbolic meaning. The authorities (public officials, reporters, and editorial writers) describe perpetrators as insane, whereas the actors themselves, despite differing perspectives, attempt to convince others that their actions were rational and socially significant. Surprisingly, in light of the evident cultural importance of these acts, courts typically have given light punishment to perpetrators when the act is legally defined as occurring within an art world. These “heinous crimes” are acts which, because of the symbolic richness of the act and of the target, can be used to establish a view of the world, and have parallels to other types of symbolic violence.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call