"It had to start as art..."

In looking to find out more about Robert Rauschenberg, I came across this interviewing explaining one of his more famous, and controversial works, "Erased de Kooning". Willem de Kooning was perhaps the most famous and influential abstract expressionists in the early 1950s. Rauschenberg was interested in trying to represent drawing in an all-white space so he started erasing his own drawings. He determined that it wouldn't matter or make a statement because his drawings were nothing at the time. He concluded that "It had to start as art" before he could erase it to make new art so he bought a bottle of Jack Daniels, gathered his courage, and went to de Kooning's home. de Kooning surprised Rauschenber, and the art world, by supporting the project and giving him drawings to erase. It took him roughly a month and several erasers to create his "new" work which was viewed by many as simple vandalism and as a protest against abstract expressionism by others. See this video for Rauschenberg's take on it....



So the question is, does something have to start out as art to become art. In many of his other works, Rauschenberg creates abstract 3-D pieces using cardboard, found objects, and layers of paint or other media. These simple objects didn't start out as "art" but were composed to make something artisitic so perhaps erasing something that was already hailed as great art is really more deconstruction than destruction. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.