• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Ok.

    I mean, it sucks to see art destroyed, but I guess if you bought it, you can destroy it.

    If that upsets you, then maybe we should reconsider allowing art to fall into the hands of wealthy collectors. If it should be preserved for future art lovers and historians, then to quote a great philosopher of our time, “It belongs in a museum.”

    I don’t know what it has to do with Assange.

    • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      “To destroy art is much more taboo than to destroy the life of a person” - the artist doesn’t like how the world works and he wants to raise awareness. That’s what the connection is

  • Smeagol666@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Do this instead: sell those works, or maybe half of them, and give the money to Genocide Joe to bribe him to pardon Assange. Hell, if he lives long enough to see Trump elected, it would probably only cost half of that.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        That is absolutely not true. Museums themselves only display like 5-10% of their collection - the rest is locked away. Most art is in private storage

          • glimse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            I am not but the museum stash is surely due to space! Can’t have every artifact on display or the museum would be the size of the city.

            As for private collectors, work from famous artists rarely goes down in value…so rich people “invest” on storing thousands of paintings to make their finances look lower. It’s a tax evasion scheme honestly and the fact that it deprived people from seeing said works makes it even worse imo

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              to make their finances look lower. It’s a tax evasion scheme honestly

              Buying art has the same effect on taxes as buying shares of Berkshire Hathaway, which is to say no effect at all until you sell.

              • glimse@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Right, it’s defering gains. They are “storing value” and unlike stocks, depriving the world of art in the process

                • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  You can store value by buying gold instead, or just depositing money in a bank account.

                  Financially, buying art only makes sense if the value increases. And it might, but stocks are generally more likely to increase and therefore make a lot more sense than buying art.

                  In either case, buying them won’t reduce your taxes.

  • ThenThreeMore@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it’s not in the public sphere but your private collection, so you do you chap.

    In my opinion privately owned art of a high enough cultural value should either not be allowed to be privately owned, or if it is then it should have to be on permanent loan to free admission public galleries. But that’s not the case.

  • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is a thought-provoking stunt. There’s a desire to get upset about the deliberate destruction of art, but getting mad about what it would mean if the art was destroyed is directly tied to a world where Julian Assange dies in state custody, and it makes little sense to care about 16 paintings more than a human life, or the implication that we are not free to speak out against authority.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      to care about 16 paintings more than a human life, or the implication that we are not free to speak out against authority.

      I just wanted to pull this quote, because it’s on the nose. With either passive or active participation, the mere suggestion of this act is polarizing and says big things very loudly.

  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    If you destroy privately owned art that the public couldn’t see, does it make a sound?

    • Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The concept of private ownership is weird, if you think about it. It’s like penguins collecting stones they’ve found and not letting anyone come close

      • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Private ownership of things made by people is perfectly reasonable; the person who made the thing should own it and be able to sell or transfer it as desired. So a rock you found isn’t made by people, so yeah, but a painting, or a chair, etc, was.

        It’s land that wasn’t made by people where private ownership gets really ridiculous.