Hey, I was just curious, at first, and then it seemed comments were missing so I’d point it out.
You see, I’d post something, I’d call it art, and then I’d be wrought with the same kinds of questions.
I’d hold you to that but two things keep me from doing so: 1) the fact that you won’t care enough to seek it out, and 2) I really don’t care enough to really prove anything to anyone. I could slap a couple of squares together on a canvas and I could call it art and I do not care to get tied up in such things without inspiration – other than to say I can do it.

I strongly disagree with all of the negative feedback,
I think the work is incredibly original, dramatic and hard hitting, fantastic job!

anything a 12 year old can do with a pack of matches and some gasoline shouldn’t be called art…come on. this is pathetic. Quite taking LSD and do something inspiring. Weak.

Hope it felt orgasmic. For the generic we missed, you missed horribly with yours. I happen to like art – but like music, certain types just don’t sit well with me. For example, I was trying to have someone explain the appeal of the pieces to me and then found a problem with a system glitch. Suddenly, it becomes a mudslinging fight between who does and doesn’t know art.
Just because I don’t like this selection doesn’t mean I’m some sort of idiot. Scott, you seem to have some sort of disposition that comes from past experience. Sorry to hear that you’ve had such a bad run with ignorant people, but there’s no need to take it out here.

By the way, Scott, this page can be Stumbled. I’m sure that’s how you came across it. Respect that people can mistakenly come and see this and feel that their opinion must be heard, just like you did.

your dirty trousers, or cat for that matter, can possibly be art if someone as careful in destructing as talented in construction make due effort to evoke such a feeling of loss of beauty in our times. Type or lack of material does not make something or prevent it from being art.

This is art? Looks like someone just set things on fire. Even I can do that.

While I’m excited there are two general opinions on Hegarty’s artwork, I’m disappointed that many of those in favor of it are discouraging its criticism or–in more puerile accounts–verbally attacking those in opposition.

One of art’s biggest impacts is how it affects those who view it. Simply because someone disagrees with your own personal opinion, or your own personal definition of art, doesn’t take away their right to speak or discuss.

That being said (regardless of whether you are in favor or not of Hegarty’s work, or any other artists’), taking the “appreciate it or leave” stance stunts discussion and critique. Even worse, it usually makes a debate into a childish flame war.

tl;dr: Grow up.

While a few of them were amusing (1st, 2nd, and the cracked wall,) the junk lying on the ground?? Seriously? That’s not art anymore, that’s a mess…But to each their own, I prefer my art intact.

Of course, what I’ve found with much of how people define art is how much work, or thought, or time was put into the artwork.

On your point of Sherrie Levine, Jeff–if I remember right–there was a huge debate over her work because, while she copied other works, she defended that the exact exposure, lighting, ect., to achieve an exact copy was extremely difficult. But even then, I don’t think I would feel that was at all justified if it were my artwork she copied.

Good to know that some of the work destroyed is in fact Hegarty’s, but I still personally believe her second image holds the most promise as far as exploring this idea goes.

These are really interesting. I love the second one. Although it would be inspiring to see these works in person, I don’t know where they would be displayed other than a museum or a gallery, and that strikes a sour chord for me.

True beauty.

I don’t scoff at innovative art, just at the high price tag placed on it when it truly is something that anyone can create. I don’t place as much importance on say Jackson Pollock’s work when I can imagine just as many images in a variegated floor treatment on the Womens restroom floor at Walmart. My words may not sit well with some, but art truly is in the eye of the beholder and if you can only accept appreciation or criticism from the self-styled sophisticates and you lack the ability to speak the to rest of us, is that our fault? Though I would not desire to have any of these in my home it is still interesting to see what new and different things people are up to. The one with the branches is also my favorite.

amazing stuff. thanks again for turning me on to a new artist.

beautiful and intriguing !

Destruction does not equal art. This is a good example of a frustrated person who could never make it by being a creative artist. This “artwork” is lazy.

This is very cool.

For those of you who say “I could do this” or “my 5-year-old can do what Pollack did” I invite you to try. I bet you’ll find it is quite a bit more difficult than you’d think. And you haven’t seen a Pollack until you’ve seen it in person. It is stunning to see.

It’s sad that people instantly categorize art into technical categories. “Easy.” “Hard.” I’d rather listen to Son House’s delta blues music than Steve Vai 99% of the time, because Son House is a better communicator. That’s what art is about, communication between the artist and the audience. And this art is more relevant to me and our society than some painting of David with Goliath’s head. That painting may be technically and historically relevant, but Hegarty’s work makes me FEEL. Art isn’t bad when it’s easy or obvious. It’s bad when it doesn’t communicate, move you to think or feel.

So what does this art communicate to you when you let your personal barriers down? For those who like this, I’d recommend the film “Decasia: The State of Decay” by Bill Morrison. It’s the documentary film equivalent.

these are totally photoshopped…you can use the dodge/burn tool effect to get this in 5 minutes