Remind me, why do you guys not like Assange (or WikiLeaks by extension) again? Is it just the Clinton leaks stuff?
If he were interested in bringing things to light he would have released all the information he had, but he didn’t, he held back for US Conservatives. He did right-wing politics in the US a big favor.
He has an agenda, and it’s not press freedom.
THERE IT IS. The acceptable conspiracy theory of the left. Thanks
It’s acceptable because it’s true. I would respect him greatly if he had released everything rather than what was damaging to his personal political enemies.
>If he were interested in bringing things to light he would have released all the information he had, but he didn’t, he held back for US Conservatives. He did right-wing politics in the US a big favor.
what makes you think he had something to release?
He leaked information from the DNC, but never released the same email logs for the RNC. He was given both following a known hack of both the DNC and the RNC. He released 1 side, and then tried promote the conspiracy about Seth Richs death.
He has an agenda. Wikileaks is a good idea, but I don’t buy that it didn’t have a state backer.
what makes you think he was given the rnc information?
Because we know for a fact the information was taken from both as part of the same breach of the RNC and DNC servers by Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, Russian state actors.
If Assange was not aware of the additional information from the breach that’s just as bad, because he’s happy to be a useful idiot with a fanbase.
So he’s either malicious or stupid. Neither is worthy of admiration.
this does not entail that they handad that information to assange.
there is a possibility that nothing from the rnc was that damning (i doubt this), or he felt that releasing it would dilute the seriousness of both sets of accusations.
but this is assuming he had access to the rnc hack, and that is not proven.
You? Who are you talking to? I, for one, like him
Oh no I like Assange. I have heard some people before saying negative things about WikiLeaks and by extension Assange so I asked. My understanding was they think/thought it’s beholden to the Kremlin or something.
it could also be chelsea manning. some people cant get enough of that five-sided dick.
I mean I don’t think it’s beholden to the Kremlin, but I do think that Julian Assange participated in the same type of secretive disinformation campaign that he claimed to vehemently oppose. I also think he’s not really a man driven by principles, but one driven by ego and fame.
I also think he, like 90% of powerful men involved in tech, probably uses his position of power to sexually harass women.
This is a thought-provoking stunt. There’s a desire to get upset about the deliberate destruction of art, but getting mad about what it would mean if the art was destroyed is directly tied to a world where Julian Assange dies in state custody, and it makes little sense to care about 16 paintings more than a human life, or the implication that we are not free to speak out against authority.
Assange is a russian asset, let him rot in prison.
You’re an American asset, I hope you rot in prison.
Touch grass, troll.
Nah bitch
Yeah, to go outside you’d need to put on pants for once this year.
Ahw man do I really gotta? I mean I was gonna… But then I got high.
to care about 16 paintings more than a human life, or the implication that we are not free to speak out against authority.
I just wanted to pull this quote, because it’s on the nose. With either passive or active participation, the mere suggestion of this act is polarizing and says big things very loudly.
If these art pieces are in a private collection that can’t be enjoyed by everyone already: Was anything of value to culture really lost? 🤔
Would the very fact that destroying them would be meaningful, as well as publicly documented, be more artisticly valuable than keeping the artwork locked up in a vault?
Extremely short sighted view of reality.
A lot of the art that is currently in museums was once donated by a private collector. Many private collectors will also lend their art to museums for special exhibitions.
Some art in private collections stays private but once it’s been destroyed there’s no chance it will ever get to the public.
Its an interesting point that some historical art being destroyed is more upsetting than a person dying. Of course if we’re going to make this point, why Assange, and not, say, Gazans?
why not both?
¯\_(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.
Yeah more government intervention is what the world needs.
Yeah cause leaving companies and the super rich to self regulate has worked so well.
So now we want to spend tax payer money keeping track of art? Fuck that lol
Better than spending it giving tax breaks to the rich or subsidising companies that are destroying the planet.
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.
Oh no!
So anyway…
Based move. Art is only good if it says something. This art says something.
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
Personally, the Rembrandts get to me because I hate seeing old things destroyed :(
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?
At the current rate it is almost certain that Assange will, eventually, die in prison. Instead the collector should set a timer on it so that the art is destroyed if Assange is not released by a certain date.
Perhaps that date is Julian Assange’s natural lifespan?
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 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.
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.
