I think you could make a point that it’d be completely ok to disown the people using important cultural artefacts as investment objects, spiriting them away into some safe or a private collection. Art and historical artefacts should be for everyone and the current trend of it being objects of financial speculation is despicable to begin with.
Thanks. Your reply was better than my own. I’m cranky tonight. It’s hard to describe to people that inheritance with ownership are just a means of protecting ruling class control of the possession and sale of art that they did nothing to create. People see its possession not as what it really is, that being capital, but as something like their toothbrush, or a quilt their grandma made.
I liked yours too and we’re on the same page about inheritance I think. But IMO sometimes it’s easier to not attack a whole concept from the start with people that aren’t there yet. Better to outline some outrageous examples everyone can agree with to open the doors, instead of coming right out the gate with the anticapitalist guns blazing so to speak.
An important point for this topic for example is that the artists intentions for the use of their art often are completely opposed to what people end up doing with them. Someone like Keith Haring was very focused on making affordable art for everyone. Now his work is at best behind paywalls in museums, at worst in private hands where no one can see them.
I agree. Though sometimes it’s late night and you gotta rant out a frustration and write a comment that is more for your own understanding of the idea than the person that responded to you. Lol.
But I agree. I’m much more “gentle” in person. Ranting about frustration with private property and inheritance with a person that identifies with them through a person experience and idea (toothbrush) is not very helpful in educating someone. Though it does help connect with a random online person that understands already.
I think you could make a point that it’d be completely ok to disown the people using important cultural artefacts as investment objects, spiriting them away into some safe or a private collection. Art and historical artefacts should be for everyone and the current trend of it being objects of financial speculation is despicable to begin with.
Thanks. Your reply was better than my own. I’m cranky tonight. It’s hard to describe to people that inheritance with ownership are just a means of protecting ruling class control of the possession and sale of art that they did nothing to create. People see its possession not as what it really is, that being capital, but as something like their toothbrush, or a quilt their grandma made.
I liked yours too and we’re on the same page about inheritance I think. But IMO sometimes it’s easier to not attack a whole concept from the start with people that aren’t there yet. Better to outline some outrageous examples everyone can agree with to open the doors, instead of coming right out the gate with the anticapitalist guns blazing so to speak.
An important point for this topic for example is that the artists intentions for the use of their art often are completely opposed to what people end up doing with them. Someone like Keith Haring was very focused on making affordable art for everyone. Now his work is at best behind paywalls in museums, at worst in private hands where no one can see them.
I agree. Though sometimes it’s late night and you gotta rant out a frustration and write a comment that is more for your own understanding of the idea than the person that responded to you. Lol.
But I agree. I’m much more “gentle” in person. Ranting about frustration with private property and inheritance with a person that identifies with them through a person experience and idea (toothbrush) is not very helpful in educating someone. Though it does help connect with a random online person that understands already.