Ever wonder what to do with an art work that you don’t want? Should destroying it be an option?

For Artist Michael Landy, it certainly has become not only an option, but business. In fact, Landy has turned his gallery into an artwork disposal facility of sorts.

For the next six weeks, both famous and unknown artists will be participating in what is called the dumping in the “Art Bin” at the South London Gallery run by Landy.

So far, two pieces have been thrown into the bin.

Landy has stated that he hoped the bin would turn into an artwork itself, being created with elements of “creative failure.”

This idea of “creative failure” seems rather foreign to me. Landy himself admits that some of the items in the bin will have a high value outside of the bin however, once placed inside, they will shed all their worth.

Seems to me that Landy is a fan of destruction for the aim of attention. In 2001, he literally destroyed everything he owned in an exhibit called “Break Down.” This stunt garnered him much publicity.

In this exhibit, Landy has taken it upon himself to decide what “failure is” and whether that failure is worthy of being dumped into the "Art Bin."

This is where my problem with this destruction arises. Landy has said this is basically destruction for the sake of destruction. Who is he kidding? Maybe I am too cynical, but to me, he is just destroying for the sake of attention or publicity.  If it was purely destruction for destruction's sake, there would be no selection process for the destruction.

The decision to destroy shouldn't belong to Landy, but to the owner/maker of the work. If an artist wants to destroy his work, he should just be able to dump it into the bin. Period. Involving an application process of sorts betrays the stated aim of this "exhibit."

The "destruction" will last until March 14^th at which point it will probably be emptied into a landfill site.