- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
He paid for it, it’s his art to destroy now.
If you don’t like that, or think I’m being insensitive, then maybe we shouldn’t let rich people buy and hoard art.
If they’re culturally or historically important, why are they in a private collection?
Is it sad to see? Yes, absolutely. But not any more sad than it falling into the hands of a private collector in the first place.Agreed 100%.
Also Assange is a whistleblower and is in jail for it… Sad.
Assange is not really a whistleblower… He’s a journalist who published the content whistleblowers gave him
More like an editor, even. Making the persecution just so much sadder.
If they’re culturally or historically important, why are they in a private collection?
That’s a really, really crap argument that is permissive of all kinds of cultural genocide. A LOT of artwork is in private collections that by no right should be. I make no claims about this guy’s collection, but the mere fact that it is being bought and sold has no bearing. After all, I live in country that used to “legally” buy and sell people.
Read more than the first sentence of the comment.
I’m sorry, I’m having difficulty following your point.
That’s a really, really crap argument that is permissive of all kinds of cultural genocide.
Isn’t it the opposite? He’s arguing that work of cultural importance should NOT be in private hands. You might say, “Who gets to determine what’s culturally significant? And why do we trust governments to do a better job than private collectors?” Those are fair questions, I think, but then I get lost again:
A LOT of artwork is in private collections that by no right should be.
Right, that’s what he’s arguing too.
I live in country that used to “legally” buy and sell people.
Ok, so… You acknowledge that just because it’s legal to trade in something, doesn’t mean that it’s moral or ethical. So is that also true of culturally-significant artwork?
See why I’m confused as to your argument?
“I’m not trying to destroy art, and I don’t believe I will have to,” Molodkin told the Guardian, adding that the project, called Dead Man’s Switch, was itself a collaborative artwork like any sculpture or portrait.
Dammit why do I see his point?
Instead, the artist added, he is trying to spark a discussion over why “destroying the life of people means nothing but destroying art is a huge taboo in the world”.
Let him cook.
Well, yeah, he could destroy the art whenever he wants. He doesn’t have to try at all.
I very seldom like installation art but this project has merit. Good for him.
Is someone high up in the decision making process a huge art lover or something? It seems like he is just setting fire to a huge pile of money otherwise.
the artist added, he is trying to spark a discussion over why “destroying the life of people means nothing but destroying art is a huge taboo in the world”.
Removed by mod
He’s planning to try and destroy art? What a poorly worded headline…
As a native speaker I thought it was clear, akin to the “what are you gonna do, stab me?” -man who was stabbed quote.
For more context:
Andrei Molodkin, the Russian dissident artist, has said he does not believe the works by Picasso, Rembrandt, Andy Warhol and others, which he will lock away in a safe with a corrosive substance this Friday, will actually be destroyed.
“I’m not trying to destroy art, and I don’t believe I will have to,” Molodkin told the Guardian, adding that the project, called Dead Man’s Switch, was itself a collaborative artwork like any sculpture or portrait.
“It’s not activism. I believe that Assange will be free and all the collectors and artists who have donated their work did so because they believe he will not die in prison.”
Instead, the artist added, he is trying to spark a discussion over why “destroying the life of people means nothing but destroying art is a huge taboo in the world”.
That’s exactly my point… The way the headline is worded it conflates his plan with trying to destroy the art when the full context of the quote is his clarifying that he’s specifically not trying to destroy the art nor does he believe it’ll come to that. It’s a misleading headline that also doesn’t quite make sense as it conflates trying to do something with publicly “planning” to do something you don’t believe will actually happen.
Yes unusually cluckbaity /editorialy news headline from the Guardian I thought.
