Construction-free Destruction
Although the often-cited opposition in Islam to the depiction of human and animal forms holds true for religious art and architecture, in the secular sphere such representations have flourished in nearly all Islamic cultures.
But redlining is a universal phenomenon, is often more than self-imoposed, and can be done retrospectively.
Iconoclasm was previously known in the Byzantine period and aniconism was a feature of the Judaic world. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Iconoclasm literally means “image breaking” and refers to a recurring historical impulse to break or destroy images for religious or political reasons.
In the Byzantine world, Iconoclasm refers to a theological debate involving both the Byzantine church and state. The controversy spanned roughly a century, during the years 726–87 and 815–43. In these decades, imperial legislation barred the production and use of figural images; simultaneously, the cross was promoted as the most acceptable decorative form for Byzantine churches. Archaeological evidence suggests that in certain regions of Byzantium, including Constantinople and Nicaea, existing icons were destroyed or plastered over. Very few early Byzantine icons survived the Iconoclastic period; notable exceptions are woven icons, painted icons preserved at the Monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai, Egypt, and the miniature icons found on Byzantine coins, including those of Justinian II.
The Iconoclastic debate centered on the appropriate use of icons in religious veneration, and the precise relationship between the sacred personage and his/her image. Fear that the viewer misdirected his/her veneration toward the image rather than to the holy person represented in the image lay at the heart of this controversy. Old Testament prohibitions against worshipping graven images (Exodus 20:4) provided one of the most important precedents for Byzantine Iconoclasm. The immediate causes for this crisis have been hotly contested by scholars. Among the many suggested causes are the rise of Islam and the emperor’s desire to usurp religious authority and funds.
Historically, iconoclasm has been aimed at how to worship. But it appears as who to venerate as well.
For example, in ancient Egypt, the carved visages of some pharaohs were obliterated by their successors; during the French Revolution, images of kings were defaced. This was personal. Sulla dug up Marius's body and burned it.
But defacing history is different. Pol Pot's Year Zero, like the French Revolution's Year One, signaled an obliteration of the past, the deracination of the present and replanting of the future. And, of course, there is Zero hour (German: Stunde Null), a term referring to midnight on 8 May 1945 in Germany. It marked the end of World War II in Europe and the start of a new, non-Nazi Germany. It was partly an attempt by Germany to dissociate itself from the Nazis.
Those cultures were "Born Again." Being "born again" can be very dangerous to the older, the unarmed, and those who did not get the memo to adopt protective coloring. Often attempts to be born again politically fail because self-appointed revolutionaries can often see the aura of the past hanging on you.
Chinese artist and activist Ai Weiwei is one of art’s most provocative figures, and his practice often calls into question ideas of value and consumption. In 1995 the artist nodded to Duchamp with “Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn,” a piece he called a “cultural readymade.” As the title implies, the work consisted of dropping, and thus destroying, a 2,000-year-old ceremonial urn. Not only did the vessel have considerable monetary value (Ai reportedly paid several hundred thousand dollars for it), but it was also a potent symbol of Chinese history. The willful desecration of a historic artifact was decried as unethical by some, to which the artist replied by quoting Mao Zedong, “the only way of building a new world is by destroying the old one.” It’s an idea Ai returns to, painting a similar vessel with the Coca-Cola logo or bright candy colors as people debate whether he’s using genuine antiquities or fakes. Either way, his provocative body of work has inspired other acts of destruction—like when a visitor to a Miami exhibition of Ai’s work smashed a painted vessel in an illegal act of protest that mirrored the Ai’s own, a wonderfully symbolic event.
Probably not exactly what Schumpeter meant.
(some from The Met, a bit from wiki, some from I don't remember)
