129
I’m not trying to destroy art, says man planning to do just that if Assange dies in jail
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
129 points (94.5% liked)
World News
32323 readers
855 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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:
Right, that's what he's arguing too.
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?