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.

[–] youngGoku@lemmy.world 40 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Agreed 100%.

Also Assange is a whistleblower and is in jail for it... Sad.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Assange is not really a whistleblower... He's a journalist who published the content whistleblowers gave him

[–] spacedout@lemmy.ml 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

More like an editor, even. Making the persecution just so much sadder.

[+] admiralteal@kbin.social -19 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If they’re culturally or historically important, why are they in a private collection?

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.

[–] ech@lemm.ee 9 points 8 months ago

Read more than the first sentence of the comment.

[–] mulcahey@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty following your point.

That's a really, really crap argument that is permissive of all kinds of cultural genocide.

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:

A LOT of artwork is in private collections that by no right should be.

Right, that's what he's arguing too.

I live in country that used to "legally" buy and sell people.

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?