• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    146
    ·
    9 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.

  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you destroy privately owned art that the public couldn’t see, does it make a sound?

    • Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      9 months ago

      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

      • Ikelton@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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)

          • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            It is true that once production of an item becomes a greater task than simply the work of one person, the ownership of it can be considered more complex, but my point was that at least something created by people makes sense to be owned by its creator.

  • ThenThreeMore@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    9 months ago

    ¯\_(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.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        9 months ago

        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

          • glimse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            9 months ago

            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

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • glimse@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Right, it’s defering gains. They are “storing value” and unlike stocks, depriving the world of art in the process

                • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  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.

            • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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?

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    Seems kinda pointless, I don’t think anyone involved in deciding whether or not Assange dies in prison would change anything due to this.

    • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I imagine the point is to raise awareness of Assange’s position with people who care about the artworks, in an attempt to inspire others to campaign for his fair treatment.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        But like really, would anyone pardon a crime because they were being blackmailed with the destruction of art? Would a parole judge really take that into consideration? Seems more likely to me it would make them less likely to help Assange for fear that it looks like the threat worked, but most likely of all they would just continue based on the law and ignore this guy.

        • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          No of course it wouldn’t enter into it at all except that it gets people talking and taking sides. Suddenly it’s news again, and public opinion does matter.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    Oh, no! The thing Russian used to money launder before bitcoin or a person Russian used to selectively leak information! Which will we choose?

  • cygon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I think a lot of us only roughly remember the details (or didn’t follow the later revelations) about Assange. My memory was weak, too, so here is a short refresher (with links!)

    Pre 2015 Wikileaks did ethical releases of leaked information (vouched; cleaned of names and details that would expose individuals to danger) and exposed generally diplomatic and military-industrial dirt.

    Trump Campaign Assange and thus Wikileaks sided with the GOP. Wikileaks had a line to Trump’s campaign team. They also sat on a trove of DNC E-Mails provided by Russian hackers. Wikileaks timed releases to blot out news that could hurt Trump. In one case, the Trump campaign urgently asked for a leak and got Wikileaks to act within 30 minutes. Wikileaks also refused to publish leaks harming Russia.

    From the private chat logs (more in the Business Insider article linekd above), some things Assange said to his, until then, progressive aides

    Assange: “We believe it would be much better for GOP to win. Dems+Media+liberals woudl [sic] then form a block to reign in their worst qualities.

    Assange: “Russia is absolutely terrified. Kalingrad, Crimea, and its only foreign naval base, Syria are all under threat and are not protected by Russia’s strategic depth. Meanwhile the US hacks the hell out of it

    It looks to me like Assange got suckered in by Russian propaganda rather than sell out intentionally, but that’s just my own guess.

    Rape Charges In Sweden, he used his fame to obtain sex from two women, both times trying to refuse condoms. He was creepy and pushy with both. Woman A suspected he manipulated his condom. Woman B woke up in the night to find Assange had climbed on top of her for “second servings” without asking and had penetrated her without a condom.

    From my own memory: neither woman went to the police, but when they talked about it (to press?), a public prosecutor in Sweden was duty-bound to start a rape investigation.

    It gets too messy from there. The US had an interest in Assange’s extradition and may have plausibly exerted pressure. The women received threats and hate. Russia fanned the flames under everything to fuel division and turn more Wikileaks supporters against the US.

    The rest is history. I don’t know where to stand. Assange and Wikileaks were once forces for good. But, in my opinion, he got played, never realized or never admitted to it, and is now just another lackey aiding Russia.

    • Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      He’s a journalist and a political prisoner.

      Who can say where one should stand? 🤷‍♂️

    • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think we can separate the question of whether he ended up working for Russia from the question of how to treat him fairly. If we would want a certain level of humane treatment for a journalist publishing leaked information, that should apply whether or not we approve of the agenda behind what they’re doing, and whether or not we think they’re being played.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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?

    • nednobbins@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

  • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.