Earlier, I came across this piece of art by Cornelia Parker.
I was stunned by the real thing. Believe me, it is much better and fascinating in real. I don't mean the photograph is not good, but you know, it's always the best to experience it by one self rather than seeing it through others' eyes.
I don't have the chance to take the picture I perceived through my own pinhole because there was the 'non-photograph-sign'.
It really calms me, like a dream, although with the destruction of the intruments.
I think the artist does really enjoy the destruction of objects and the aftermath.
"There’s a lot of violence in the making of these things, but a quiet aftermath. I take things that are worn out through overuse, that have become clichés, like the shed, a traditional place of rest and retreat, and I give them a more incandescent future. Explosions are very familiar from films and the news, but how many of us have seen one or even touched a piece of the debris?" She said.
The shed, the garden shed that was exploded under her request were recollected and re-established into another piece of art called Cold Dark Matter.
Destroy and rebuild? Consider it to be another way to see the 'dead things'. Or maybe, not a dead thing as it is given new value, probably a reborn.
Although I am not sure whether the artist was thinking that way, I recognise that she has special feeling towards destruction, while normally people do not even want to touch the charred pieces.
While Cornelia Parker working on the "Hanging Fire"
"It's sort of to do with fear," says Parker. "There's a lot of violence in the world, we're surrounded by potential catastrophe all the time. And somehow making calm installations about destructions, it sort of calms my fears."
I guess, the unique thinking of artists make them the artists and different from others whom the majority consider as 'normal' and 'reasonable'.
Does destruction mean more than destroying?