Instead, the artist added, he is trying to spark a discussion over why “destroying the life of people means nothing but destroying art is a huge taboo in the world”.
I always feel a visceral hatred of the narrow definition of art as 'technically impressive paintings'. This act is itself art, it doesn't have to be for everyone.
Yes the threat is permanent and destructive, it kind of has to be, that's the point.
There aren’t really words to describe the potential impact of art. Some artists are like pioneers of human experience, and they pave the way for other people to experience parts of themselves that they may have never known they had.
Allowing yourself to really connect with a great work is an indescribable experience. Looking on your computer screen can’t do them justice—stand in front of a Van Gogh and let the awesome power of it wash over you. Art is one of the only ways to take a real walk in someone else’s mind to find the threads of commonality that bind us all.
This is sounding overly flowery, but it is how I really feel. Let yourself cry in a museum, and you will leave changed.
All that said, this act is art also, proved by the very fact that a lot of people feel strongly about it and are reevaluating their own feelings due to it. Not sure Assange is worth it, but I’m not the artist. Regardless of who they picked, the concept has been very effective.
Julian Assange is only 52. He's got many more years in prison. I feel like the guy is jumping the gun a bit. Maybe wait another decade. Nobody is going to remember he is doing this stunt in a decade or two or three.