this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
338 points (94.9% liked)

News

23267 readers
3059 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 144 points 8 months ago (5 children)

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 40 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"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 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Tier1BuildABear@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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.

[–] gloss@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 8 months ago (4 children)

It depends on the country. In the US an artist has rights and deliberately destroying an artwork can get you sued.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Rembrandt, Picasso, and Warhol do not have any rights anymore. They have all died.

[–] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

And how would that compare, for you, to Julian Assange if he dies in prison ?

[–] Detheroth@lemmynsfw.com 19 points 8 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 6 points 8 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.

[–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 11 points 8 months ago

These artists are all dead.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 2 points 8 months ago

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

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

>right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation

not exactly

[–] gloss@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 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 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 8 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 -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.