+0

Does the highlighted section in the context below mean "while art generally represents the processes of loss and destruction in a conservative way (because of enjoying symbolic aspects), however, the art that specifically represents the realm of disintegration and collapse, exhibits the dynamism of repetition compulsion (because of inhabiting on the narrow border between stability and instability"?

But, both of these two kinds of art represent loss and destruction, so what is the difference between them that the original text compares them with each other?


Context:

While art’s formalisation of the processes of loss and destruction has a conservative element in the sense of possessing a binding, symbolic aspect, art that interrogates the realm of disintegrating form, operating as it does on the threshold between stability and dissolution, exhibits the dynamic of repetition compulsion that characterises the death drive. For example, the artist Eva Hesse would continually write in her diaries about her anxiety about what she was making, how her objects were completely absurd, yet she was compelled to produce them.

Comments  
cattttBut, both of these two kinds of art represent loss and destruction, so what is the difference between them that the original text compares them with each other?

I would hope that she elaborated on it earlier, and this is a summation. It is hard to see a contrast in this single sentence. She says the first has a conservative element, and this element contrasts with some dynamic. It seems she thinks that conservatism is relatively static.