Is Iconoclasm acceptable? Today we have encountered numerous situations of iconoclasm. Iconoclasm means “icon-breaking,” which includes the religious as well as the political destruction of images or monuments usually, not always, by those of another group (Džalto). There are many examples in the past and even recently that prove that iconoclasm still exists today. Thus, iconoclasm is the destruction of icons and sometimes it is believed that it is done because of the difference between religious beliefs. In fact, the word “icon” refers to many different things today. For example, we use this word to refer to the small graphic symbols in our software and powerful cultural figures. Nevertheless, these different meanings retain a connection
…show more content…
For example, in 2014, Florida artist Maximo Caminerois was charged with criminal mischief after police say he smashed a vase at the Perez Art Museum Miami (PAMM) that was worth around one million dollars. In the picture someone captured it clearly portrays Caminerois dropping the vase. Eventually, it was stated that he tried to copy the famous photos behind of an artist by the name of Ai Weiwei dropping a vase so this had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. There could be a possibility that this man believed that they were not going to punish him for dropping a vase. Based on damaged art pieces from the past proves that iconoclasts existed and also exist today since there has been plenty of cases about people who have the urge to destroy meaningful art. Whether or not this was done by someone with different beliefs, or just a person who was up to no good, it is still disrespectful. Thus, there has been sufficient art pieces that prove that iconoclasm existed, continues to exist today and that many time religion has nothing to do with it. There have also been cases where famous icons are referred to as an “iconoclasts,” and they seem to take it as a compliment. However, iconoclasts are people who destroy “icons” most of the times it is because of their religion. Therefore, I think it is pathetic for someone to be referred to as an iconoclast especially after doing some
For example, in 2014, Florida artist Maximo Caminerois was charged with criminal mischief after police say he smashed a vase at the Perez Art Museum Miami (PAMM) that was worth around one million dollars. In the picture someone captured it clearly portrays Caminerois dropping the vase. Eventually, it was stated that he tried to copy the famous photos behind of an artist by the name of Ai Weiwei dropping a vase so this had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. There could be a possibility that this man believed that they were not going to punish him for dropping a vase. Based on damaged art pieces from the past proves that iconoclasts existed and also exist today since there has been plenty of cases about people who have the urge to destroy meaningful art. Whether or not this was done by someone with different beliefs, or just a person who was up to no good, it is still disrespectful. Thus, there has been sufficient art pieces that prove that iconoclasm existed, continues to exist today and that many time religion has nothing to do with it. There have also been cases where famous icons are referred to as an “iconoclasts,” and they seem to take it as a compliment. However, iconoclasts are people who destroy “icons” most of the times it is because of their religion. Therefore, I think it is pathetic for someone to be referred to as an iconoclast especially after doing some