"This is not art, it's van­dal­ism"

[ripgriffith]

Back in the day, before graffiti became "street art", I gave an exhibition of photographs of graffiti from around the world, entitled, "Is it (N)ever Art, Is it (N)ever Vandalism?" False or not, this dichotomy has been (and is) applied to graffiti since its modern-day beginnings. 

As for the piece in question, did it cause any permanent damage, frequently the criterion for "vandalism"?  If not, where's the harm apart from the feelings of a few territorial Icelanders?

[Isaac]

If not, where's the harm apart from the feelings of a few territorial Icelanders?

Where's the harm when the artist colours your home?

[Alan Klein]

If he used some sort of food coloring that disappeared after a few minutes without effecting nature, I don't see the harm.   What would you think of it then?  There are many nature artists who set up their art for a specific period and then remove it.   Let's say though that additionally he was granted permission to produce this "work of art".

NYC Brooklyn Bridge Waterfalls (2008) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shg8Op_6ft8
NYC Central Park Christo's The Gates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates

[AreBee]

Isaac,

Given "art/vandalism is in the eye of the beholder" at the limit there will be as many "available options" as beholders.

Please can you provide me with a third available option?

[Isaac]

As before -- #3 neither art nor vandalism, #4 both art and vandalism

[Isaac]

Let's say though that additionally he was granted permission to produce this "work of art".

The artist has told us -- *"I do not ask for per­mis­sion be­cause na­ture be­longs to no one."*

"Strokkur, and the whole Geysir area is a na­ture re­serve."

[ripgriffith]

We already know that he neither asked for nor was granted permission -- "If he had asked per­mis­sion we would have told him that it's il­le­gal and that we would never agree to this kind of art per­for­mance."

Some of the most impressive art I have seen over the years have been done, illegally and without permission, on the sides of buildings, on metro cars (subways to you Americans), anywhere these young (and sometimes not-so-young) artists can find a canvas for their works;  often, I might add, at considerable risk of incarceration or even their lives. 

[Isaac]

By all means, offer up your home as a canvas :-)

[ripgriffith]

Where's the harm when the artist colours your home?

The operative word, which you conveniently left out of the quote, was "permanent".  Painting your house would require you to repaint to restore it.  In the case at hand, restoration required doing nothing for a few minutes, or even a few hours while the geyser digested and then belched out the food coloring, going on its merry, uncolored way.  No harm, no foul.

[Isaac]

In the case at hand, restoration required doing nothing for a few minutes, or even a few hours while the geyser digested and then belched out the food coloring, going on its merry, uncolored way.  No harm, no foul.

How exactly do you know? Are you in Iceland at the geyser?

[ripgriffith]

How exactly do you know? Are you in Iceland at the geyser?

Why would that be required?  Are you so ignorant of the mechanism of a geyser to think that some food coloring would wreak permanent damage?  I must say, you seem uncommonly invested in making this guy bad.

[Diego Pigozzo]

What I dislike the most is that everything this "work of art" has expressed is the assholeness and banality of mind of the "artist".

The banality of mind if evident by the fact the "the artist " has done the very same thing every idiot would do if it wasn't illegal, so no "deep thinking" is involved in the "artistic act".

The assholeness is evident from the fact that he did it for the very same reason any idiot would have done it: just to make people talk about him.

[ripgriffith]

What I dislike the most is that everything this "work of art" has expressed is the assholeness and banality of mind of the "artist".

The banality of mind if evident by the fact the "the artist " has done the very same thing every idiot would do if it wasn't illegal, so no "deep thinking" is involved in the "artistic act".

The assholeness is evident from the fact that he did it for the very same reason any idiot would have done it: just to make people talk about him.

Finally we have a cogent definition of both art and artist.  Well done, Diego!!

[Isaac]

Why would that be required?  Are you so ignorant of the mechanism of a geyser to think that some food coloring would wreak permanent damage?

In fact, you simply don't know that "restoration required doing nothing for a few minutes, or even a few hours".

I must say, you seem uncommonly invested in making this guy bad.

You seem uncommony invested in excusing his behavior.

The operative word, which you conveniently left out of the quote, was "permanent".  Painting your house would require you to repaint to restore it.  In the case at hand, restoration required …

Did the "most impressive art [you] have seen over the years … illegally and without permission, on the sides of buildings" require restoration?

By all means, offer up your home as a canvas.

[AreBee]

Isaac,

As before -- #3 neither art nor vandalism, #4 both art and vandalism

I stand corrected. Thank you.

[Isaac]

The banality of mind if evident by the fact the "the artist " has done the very same thing every idiot would do if it wasn't illegal, so no "deep thinking" is involved in the "artistic act".

Except that "the artist" has done variations on a theme.

Except that "the artist" has garbed his project in an art context.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Except that "the artist" has done variations on a theme.
Except that "the artist" has garbed his project in an art context.

Except that idiots keep repeating their feats and keep making excuses up for doing it.

[Isaac]

Not every idiot makes variations on a theme; not every idiot garbs those variations in an art context -- most use simple repetition, most use excuses that don't refer to art.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Not every idiot makes variations on a theme; not every idiot garbs those variations in an art context -- most use simple repetition, most use excuses that don't refer to art.

Right, not every idiot do variation or make up excuses.
But many idiots do that (just out of boredom).

[Isaac]

So no -- the "the artist " has [not] done the very same thing every idiot would do.