• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 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
      41
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 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

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I understand the meaning of the quote, but if this artist said he was going to execute hostages, that would be an entirely different conversation.

        • Tier 1 Build-A-Bear 🧸@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          I think you might be missing the point. There is a life in danger, Assange’s. He’s forcing people to compare the value of human life to art. If he was executing hostages, you’d be comparing one human life to many.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Right, but to me there’s no comprison. Regardless of how you feel about Assange, a human life is more valuale than art, even priceless art from the great masters.

            My response is “I’d rather you didn’t.” I’m not in a position to release Julian Assange, though, so whatever happens happens.

          • Detheroth@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            10 months ago

            If Julian Assange dies in prison, I would think he no longer has rights and any artwork he has created can be freely destroyed without fear of litigation, especially if it is privately owned.

            Seriously. What does artwork have to do with Julian Assange? I don’t think he should be in prison but this is an odd protest.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            If I had to choose one? I’d burn the art to save a life. If he died and the artwork was destroyed, I would think that was two tragedies.

      • wahming@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        What’s the reason for that? Tried googling but couldn’t find anything on the reasoning for the law

        • gloss@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Additionally, authors of works of “recognized stature” may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work.

          The very next line after the one you you quoted. Also look at the case studies of times people have been sued successfully.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      The fact this guy owns this art is actually kind of disappointing to me. I thought he was just picking a set of famous art and going rogue with it.

      A terrorist, but instead of threatening blood only threatening the loss of priceless cultural artefacts. Going beyond mere property damage and loss of value, but still stopping short of violence.

      Still a bold move on his part. More impressive, really. But somehow less exciting.

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Considering he could make forgeries (considering he has the perfect reference) and destroy those, increasing the fame of those pieces, and their value should he save the original… Something tells me that there’s too much financial incentive not to pull a stunt like that and sell the real paintings later.

        Do I have any proof that’s what’s happening? No. But it’s not unrealistic.

    • olympicyes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      In the long run, none of us truly owns anything. We all share the same fate, Assange and this clown included. It’s a shame that this clown is holding western culture hostage to his terrorist demands. If he destroys the works, he’s no different than the Taliban or ISIS destroying pre-Islam archeological discoveries.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        none of us truly owns anything.

        I guess that depends on your personal definition of ownership. Something constantly being challenged in the modern era.