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

News

23644 readers
3069 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 144 points 10 months ago (7 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.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 10 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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago (5 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

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

These artists are all dead.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 133 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (6 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

"I'm gonna destroy my toy collection if someone dies in prison"

[–] [email protected] 78 points 10 months ago (4 children)

¯\_(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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 76 points 10 months ago (15 children)

But wealthy people need to buy those and store them in crates in overseas storage so they can dodge taxes!

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago

why not both?

[–] [email protected] 32 points 10 months ago

Warhol would probably approve of this, tbh

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago

Oh no!

So anyway…

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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/message of the act itself.

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.

Meanwhile, the people that our society deems worthy of death are people who don't really have much income or wealth to their name. If you looked at the average wealth of individuals on death row or who have been executed in the US, it's likely to be lower than the wealth of average Americans. So Art is valued more than human lives because, quantitatively, some pieces of art are probably worth more than some people would make in a lifetime.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago

cool film it

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Perhaps that date is Julian Assange’s natural lifespan?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

Sorry, we don't negotiate with performance art terrorists.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Based move. Art is only good if it says something. This art says something.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Can’t he sell the painting and then spend 45milion on a lobbying and awareness advertising campaign? That might help more

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Now that is some real performance art! Hope he records it. I vote for tannerite as destruction method.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (40 children)

what happened to the days when drama queens like this just went on a hunger strike, instead of destroying things people actually like

load more comments (40 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›