At least the cops know who to watch, but it’s a pain to have to.
Not pieces in someone else’s possession / ownership, ones he was donated. To the best of my understanding this is perfectly legal.
He spreads around human blood when he is an “artist” and it’s only a matter of time before he does something truly stupid.
Can’t he sell the painting and then spend 45milion on a lobbying and awareness advertising campaign? That might help more
I don’t think $45 million would get you much attention, SuckMyWang, but destroying “priceless” art definitely would. And has.
It’s like what that famous old cathedral burned down? Rich fucks love all that old western canon shit
Sorry, we don’t negotiate with performance art terrorists.
Oh, no! The thing Russian used to money launder before bitcoin or a person Russian used to selectively leak information! Which will we choose?
Warhol would probably approve of this, tbh
But wealthy people need to buy those and store them in crates in overseas storage so they can dodge taxes!
Most are in museums where all kinds of people stand in line to see them.
That is absolutely not true. Museums themselves only display like 5-10% of their collection - the rest is locked away. Most art is in private storage
Oh, are you a museum curator? Do you know why they do that?
I am not but the museum stash is surely due to space! Can’t have every artifact on display or the museum would be the size of the city.
As for private collectors, work from famous artists rarely goes down in value…so rich people “invest” on storing thousands of paintings to make their finances look lower. It’s a tax evasion scheme honestly and the fact that it deprived people from seeing said works makes it even worse imo
to make their finances look lower. It’s a tax evasion scheme honestly
Buying art has the same effect on taxes as buying shares of Berkshire Hathaway, which is to say no effect at all until you sell.
Right, it’s defering gains. They are “storing value” and unlike stocks, depriving the world of art in the process
You can store value by buying gold instead, or just depositing money in a bank account.
Financially, buying art only makes sense if the value increases. And it might, but stocks are generally more likely to increase and therefore make a lot more sense than buying art.
In either case, buying them won’t reduce your taxes.
I want to learn also
First of all, you have to acknowledge there is a finite area for proper display. Secondly, this happens more in the artifact world than the fine art world. Third, not all parts of a collection are as good or even ready to display. Some are in need of restoration. Some are inferior to others on display. Lastly, museums like to rotate displays to help visitors see something fresh. All this doesn’t mean that museum storage areas are not interesting. The Smithsonian has a very interesting one which I was lucky to lost in when I was a child.
Thank you. Very informative.
cool film it
That’s a weird reason to give for it, like it’s obviously not going to change anything. The Justice system isn’t going to be held up by an artist threatening to destroy some paintings (and it could be years before Assange ever dies in prison), it seems like it’s being done as performance art. Pretty much like Banksy trying to destroy one of his works right after it was sold at auction, it’s being done for the attention
If there is more of a taboo around destroying art over human lives, it’s not for the sake of the “Art” itself, it’s for the sake of the arbitrary, yet quantitative value of money that those works have attached to them, because of how ridiculously inflated the price of artwork is (for money laundering purposes or whatever financial hijinks the wealthy are using artwork for). The historical value to humanity probably plays into it as well, but that’s not nearly as big a consideration. Otherwise though, you’ve got governments like the Taliban which will happily destroy history just as easily as they’ll kill people, that’s the kind of society we could have where art is given equal weight to human life.
Reminds me of the African billionaire that wanted to bury his cars to advocate for organ donation.
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.
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.
none of us truly owns anything.
I guess that depends on your personal definition of ownership. Something constantly being challenged in the modern era.
It depends on the country. In the US an artist has rights and deliberately destroying an artwork can get you sued.
These artists are all dead.
What’s the reason for that? Tried googling but couldn’t find anything on the reasoning for the law
Rembrandt, Picasso, and Warhol do not have any rights anymore. They have all died.
bravo
And how would that compare, for you, to Julian Assange if he dies in prison ?
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.
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.
>right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author’s honor or reputation
not exactly
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.
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.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
It’s a pretty well conceived piece of art, because it’s actually saying something and provoking a reaction. And it’s fascinating that it’s building on and dependent on other masterpieces.
I love the way the comment above you translated your comment for the young’uns, and just says “Based”
As long as the US has the Hague invasion act along with some of the most inhumane sentences and prisons no country should extradite a non US citizen there. I’m pretty sure the only crime he committed was in Sweden anyways so they should have him.
Now that is some real performance art! Hope he records it. I vote for tannerite as destruction method.
I’m voting for napalm dropped from a private plane out in the desert.
At least this guy is being creative
what happened to the days when drama queens like this just went on a hunger strike, instead of destroying things people actually like
julian assange is a political prisoner with deteriorating health. i would give everything rembrant, warhol, and picasso made to free him.
i don’t give two shits about Julian Assange either way… he’s a narcissist and a criminal…
he might be a narcisist (i’m not a psychologist. where did you get licensed?), but i don’t believe he’s a criminal, and if he is, then the law is wrong. he’s a journalist who speaks truth to power.
I don’t know much about him. Can you give a link to some kind of summary of what he is about? I will also take any links from others as to why he is a criminal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
this goes over the worst allegations. nothing is sugarcoated.
he rose to prominence when he released footage from chelsea manning showing the US intentionally firing on journalists. it’s called “collateral murder”.
wikileaks helped pioneer anonymous, encrypted leaking.
he most certainly is not a journalist and he only speaks as much truth as is convenient
he absolutely is a journalist, and, yea, after exposing the pentagon murdering journalists, he started having to consider where he would be safe and making sure not to have enemies on **all** sides.
some people need to believe in him for some reason, i don’t understand it
because he fights the empire. that’s all the more reason i need. han solo is a rogue and a scoundrel, but he’s a good guy.
Well he raped 3 women in Sweden
I don’t believe that. if it were true, why would they drop the charges?
Because he fled to equador and the statute of limitations ran out while he was cowering there
why wouldn’t Ecuador give him up? surely they have good relationships with EU/Sweden and also have laws against rape. there must be more to this story.
I just don’t believe it’s true.
If you destroy privately owned art that the public couldn’t see, does it make a sound?
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
Yes a penguin that owns some stones would indeed not want other penguins grabbing them. Glad we’re on the same page with how private ownership works.
Yeah I know how it works. I said the concept is weird, but it benefit some share holders, so I guess we’ll have to live with it
I think they’re talking about art specifically. Like what’s the point of owning art if you ain’t showing anyone? And why should anyone care if ou destroyed art you weren’t willing to show it anyways?
Thanks. Original art have some kind of intrinsic aura, by the art proccess itself. That’s the difference between arts and craft or even art and design. The fact that concept of having the right to destroy art just because you’ve paid someone, sound so obvious and natural to people is weird…
When you describe it like that… I feel like it makes more sense. Like, of course the penguin is gonna want his safety stones. I buy that.
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.
But land is literally the first form of property. Territory is defended in life’s history long before any moveable object.
If anything, the conception of certain objects as being part of a person’s territory is the stranger step to take.
I kinda get the feeling that food was the first form of property. Land (by way of good shelter) was probably a close second with good rocks and sticks.
I can relate to that, but even in this manner, most of the goods made are the result of vast investments of time efort and money of lots of peoples over decades, just for few individuals to be the owners of.
(Btw, English is not my main language)
Well, under a free market economic system, each of those people is paid for their input to the thing, and only participates in that when they decide it’s worth their time to do so.
“I’m gonna destroy my toy collection if someone dies in prison”
