Exactly What They Deserve

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8486359.stm?ls

Personally, I think this guy's got the right idea. And that he should add more Damien Hirst pieces. To my knowledge, a great number of Hirst's pieces involve no direct involvement from him. He is a "conceptual artist," that is, he conceives the idea, commissions real artists to make it, and takes all the credit (and reaps the obscene profits of modern "art").

Though this begs the question: is there something aesthetic in the destruction of bad art? Is this pile of destroyed art pieces a work of art, itself?

My knee jerk reaction is to say, "no, it's merely what most modern 'art' deserves." But then I come to the question of what "Art" truly is. Could it be manifest in this destruction of artworks?

As a side note, I want to keep an eye on this... I'm curious as to whether Hirst will sue this artist for destroying his work.