• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years 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
      ·
      2 years 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
    ·
    2 years 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.

  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years 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
      ·
      2 years 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
        ·
        2 years 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.

  • ThenThreeMore@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years 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.