Public outrage followed one attempt to reclassify an event in art terms on September 10, 2002, the eve of the first anniversary of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, when Damien Hirst said in an interview with BBC News Online:
“The thing about 9/11 is that it’s kind of like an artwork in its own right! David Hockney said that it was the ‘most wicked piece of artwork’—a lot of people have compared it to a work of art. Of course, it’s visually stunning and you’ve got to hand it to them on some level because they’ve achieved something which nobody would have ever have thought possible—especially to a country as big as America. So on one level they kind of need congratulating, which a lot of people shy away from, which is a very dangerous thing.”
In art intervensions there as a big debate over what is art or vandalism.
The Stuckists mention that “an act by an individual which interferes with an existing artwork is termed an intervention and the individual termed an artist if they are endorsed by a Tate curator or are dead. The same, or similar, act by an individual interfering with the same artwork (or even interfering with the interference to the artwork), if they are alive and are not endorsed by a Tate curator, is termed vandalism, and the individual termed a criminal.”
But I think that Hirst took it a bit too far with his statement on the 9/11. There is a lot on stake when you attempt to frame such an event with artistic notions.