# Great Art Belongs to the World? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391 "2015-05-06T15:53:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2015, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/81 "2015-05-09T17:20:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t refuse to discuss the moral or ethical aspects. I just think the discussion will be very short when it’s with anyone with whom I share little common ground for an ethical or moral framework. I don’t mean this as an insul in any way, but… isn’t that a really short list on this board? I guess I just don’t see why you started this thread. Most posters aren’t in a position to argue the law with you, which seems pretty unambiguous in this area anyway. And you don’t see much value in any discussion of ethics or morality with most posters here. I’m not sure where this thread can go from this point. > [@](#): > > Thanks for the concession with respect to the historic landmark program, by the way, which was not at all buried or ambiguous, but instead upfront, clear, and open. Sorry, had you already addressed that earlier in the thread? I genuinely missed it if you did. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/82 "2015-05-09T17:26:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t mean this as an insul in any way, but… isn’t that a really short list on this board? I don’t actually think it is. I think Bricker is far too quick to conclude that he doesn’t have similar starting principles to other people. It shuts down discussion prematurely, or else channels discussion into the legal realm, where he’s more comfortable. The more interesting discussions to me are the ones in which folks reason from starting positions. For example, I think that we probably both agree that, everything else being equal, allowing folks to live their lives the way they want to live them is a good thing. We probably agree that one should only caus e another person to suffer if there’s a good reason for doing so. We probably agree on a few other starting poitns. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2015, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/83 "2015-05-09T23:08:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Capriciously depriving persons of art they don’t own anyway is not a wrong that justifies puncturing the right of ownership. What about the rights of the artist? The concept of moral rights for authors/artists has long been part of the legal code in other countries, and the US laws have - albeit narrowly - recognized this right as well. State laws exist, but there is a federal law - Visual Artists Rights Act [(VARA)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106A), that protects a visual artist’s moral rights, including protecting the work from destruction: > [@](#): > > (2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and > (3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113 (d), shall have the right— > (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and > (B) **to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature** , and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right. Granted, this law applies only to living artists, but I would argue that the law should be expanded to protect “works of stature” from antiquity, equating public domain as a category of public property (the public being the country of origin in each case, similar to the Berne Convention). This type of art requires special protection; for example, when you own a copy of a written work, you are free to destroy that copy, but you do not own, or have the right to destroy, the author’s words, his creative expression, even when it enters public domain. Why should a visual artist’s one of a kind body of work and cultural legacy be destroyed, especially in cases when the destruction of said property provides no gain, and preserving it incurs no harm, to the owner? Haven’t courts held a dim view of “capricious” destruction of property in certain instances? There isn’t much case law on this type of property destruction because it is such a rare occurance; most of the disputes about these items are about establishing provenance. Greece is still trying to get parts of the Parthenon back from the British Museum (Elgin’s Marbles). When ownership is in dispute, does the one who possesses it without provenance have the right to mutilate or destroy it? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2015, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/84 "2015-05-10T00:07:58Z")
BTW, **Bricker** , when I looked up the legal definition of “owner” in Black’s Law, there is a difference between the 2nd edition and the 7th edition: The newer edition does not include the right to destroy in the text. Has it been changed again since then (I don’t have access to the latest edition). What is the significance of excluding that right from the newer definition? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2015, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/85 "2015-05-10T00:12:03Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I don’t “premise” the argument on that lack. Instead, I reject an argument premised on that right. What moral system do you hold that has such a premise? Surely not “eye of a needle” Christianity. Certainly Christianity has a right to property. Don’t confuse the exhortations towards Christians for how they should behave in a monolithically Christian group with some general requirement on how to behave in the word. > [@](#): > > Uh, no. If there’s such a moral right to ownership unfettered by qualifications, then taxation is theft and zoning laws are immoral. Not many people at all agree with those positions. If you’re positing a qualified moral right to ownership, then that’s broadly in agreement with what I said. Not at all. The key element is zoning laws and taxation are both part of the landscape: your ownership of property is already informed by the burdens attached to it by zoming and taxation. In other words, those infringements are _part_ of your ownership, in just the same way as if you bought a '57 Chevy Bel Air with a broken headlight frame. You own both the car and its damage. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2015, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/86 "2015-05-10T00:32:03Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Great art doesn’t belong to the world by virtue of it being great; it belongs to the world by virtue of there being no clear claim to ownership. > > If I paint a great painting, it’s mine. If I sell it to someone, it’s his. He can do what he wants with it. I’m in favor of reduced copyright limits, so I’d also hope that after a few decades, reproductions of that painting can be enjoyed by anyone. > > But the Pyramids and the Parthenon have no such obvious owners. It’s not clear to me that the Egyptians or the Greeks out to be considered their owners in full. Custodians and caretakers, yes. If they want to control access, sure. If they want to totally destroy them, I’m not sure they should have that right. > > Should the British Museum get to keep the Rosetta Stone by virtue of the fact that they got it before Egypt had its shit together as a modern state? Not clear at all. Should they get to destroy it if they feel like it? Absolutely not. In California, an artist gets 10% of any resale of his work painted and resold in Cali for a fixed amount of time. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2015, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/87 "2015-05-10T00:36:26Z")
> [@camille](#): > > When ownership is in dispute, does the one who possesses it without provenance have the right to mutilate or destroy it? Taking your questions out of order, because this is an important one. And the answer is: absolutely not. The whole point I’m making is about the right of the property owner to do as he pleases with his work. If ownership is in genuine dispute, then the very principle I’m defending here mandates the protection of the property in question in order to protect the property rights of the true owner. > [@](#): > > What about the rights of the artist? > > The concept of moral rights for authors/artists has long been part of the legal code in other countries, and the US laws have - albeit narrowly - recognized this right as well. State laws exist, but there is a federal law - Visual Artists Rights Act [(VARA)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106A), that protects a visual artist’s moral rights, including protecting the work from destruction: > > Granted, this law applies only to living artists, but I would argue that the law should be expanded to protect “works of stature” from antiquity, equating public domain as a category of public property (the public being the country of origin in each case, similar to the Berne Convention). And I disagree. Protection of works during the lifetime of the artist is one thing – and it exists precisely because, per 17 USC § 106A(e)(1), the creator can waive those rights. Extending this protection to dead artists’ work eviscerates the waiver provision and renders the protection permanent, which is not what the law was ever intended to do. Works made for hire are also excluded (see _Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc._, 71 F. 3d 77, 2nd Circuit 1995). And from that decision: > [@Second Circuit](#): > > Whether or not a work of art is protected from destruction represents a fundamentally different perception of the purpose of moral rights. If integrity is meant to stress the public interest in preserving a nation’s culture, destruction is prohibited; if the right is meant to emphasize the author’s personality, destruction is seen as less harmful than the continued display of deformed or mutilated work that misrepresents the artist and destruction may proceed. See Art Law at 421; see also 2 William F. Patry, Copyright Law and Practice 1044 n. 128 (1994) > [@](#): > > Why should a visual artist’s one of a kind body of work and cultural legacy be destroyed, especially in cases when the destruction of said property provides no gain, and preserving it incurs no harm, to the owner? Haven’t courts held a dim view of “capricious” destruction of property in certain instances? Not so far as I know, but if you can direct my attention to some specific instance, I’ll be happy to take a look. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2015, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/88 "2015-05-10T00:45:29Z")
> [@camille](#): > > BTW, **Bricker** , when I looked up the legal definition of “owner” in Black’s Law, there is a difference between the 2nd edition and the 7th edition: The newer edition does not include the right to destroy in the text. Has it been changed again since then (I don’t have access to the latest edition). What is the significance of excluding that right from the newer definition? Wow. That’s a really good question. I have spent time finding every single edition to check on when this happened. The answer is that the Sixth Edition (1990) says an _owner_ is: > [@](#): > > The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion, or title > of property; proprietor. He who has dominion of a thing, real or personal, > corporeal or incorporeal, which he has a right to enjoy and do with as he > pleases, even to spoil or destroy it, as far as the law permits, unless he be > prevented by some agreement or covenant which restrains his right. And then the Seventh Edition (1999) says simply: > [@](#): > > One who has the right to possess, use, and convey something; a > proprietor. I can’t really find any statement by the editors explaining this choice. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2015, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/89 "2015-05-10T02:09:43Z")
From the American Alliance of Museums’ “[What are Ethics?](http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices/ethics)” page: > [@](#): > > Acting ethically is different from acting lawfully. Laws usually reflect ethical standards that most citizens accept. “But legal standards,” as noted in the our Code of Ethics for Museums, “are a minimum. Museums and those responsible for them must do more than avoid legal liability; they must take affirmative steps to maintain their integrity so as to warrant public confidence. They must act not only legally but also ethically.” The [AAM’s code of ethics for museum curators (PDF)](http://www.aam-us.org/docs/continuum/curcomethics.pdf?sfvrsn=0) provides more specific information about professional ethics relating to selling or destroying objects from a museum collection. I am having problems with carpal tunnel syndrome and I suspect **Bricker** stopped reading after “different from acting lawfully” so I’ll leave it at that, but anyone interested in museum ethics should check out the AAM “What are Ethics?” page. It has links to various ethical codes and guidelines for museums and related organizations. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/90 "2015-05-10T18:59:17Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > From the American Alliance of Museums’ “[What are Ethics?](http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices/ethics)” page: > The [AAM’s code of ethics for museum curators (PDF)](http://www.aam-us.org/docs/continuum/curcomethics.pdf?sfvrsn=0) provides more specific information about professional ethics relating to selling or destroying objects from a museum collection. > > I am having problems with carpal tunnel syndrome and I suspect **Bricker** stopped reading after “different from acting lawfully” so I’ll leave it at that, but anyone interested in museum ethics should check out the AAM “What are Ethics?” page. It has links to various ethical codes and guidelines for museums and related organizations. It’s not clear to me what point you’re trying to make. I certainly understand that a profession whose _raison d’etre_ is the preservation of art would adopt the position that an ethical tenet of that profession would be to avoid destruction of art when at all possible. Nowhere in that paper does the suggestion arise that such ethical guidelines are intended to apply to the general run of humanity. I assume, if I were to post a link to attorney ethical guidelines relating to some issue at hand and argue that you should guide yourself in conformity therewith, you would tartly point out that you’re not bound by attorney rules or that this isn’t a courtroom. It’s mysterious in the extreme why you would seemingly believe that a proposed ethical standard for museum curators is of more seeping effect. Can you explain? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2015, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/91 "2015-05-10T20:02:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not clear to me what point you’re trying to make. I certainly understand that a profession whose _raison d’etre_ is the preservation of art would adopt the position that an ethical tenet of that profession would be to avoid destruction of art when at all possible. > > Nowhere in that paper does the suggestion arise that such ethical guidelines are intended to apply to the general run of humanity. Nowhere in my post does such a suggestion arise either. The fictional example in your OP and many of the other examples offered in this thread are about museums. You obviously started this thread just to play your favorite game (“But it’s not illegal, so I WIN!!!”), but since your OP specifically refers to museum ethics I thought there might be posters who’d be interested in learning about the code of ethics for the profession. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/92 "2015-05-11T00:44:58Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Nowhere in my post does such a suggestion arise either. > > The fictional example in your OP and many of the other examples offered in this thread are about museums. You obviously started this thread just to play your favorite game (“But it’s not illegal, so I WIN!!!”), but since your OP specifically refers to museum ethics I thought there might be posters who’d be interested in learning about the code of ethics for the profession. There was an example in the OP about a discussion _in_ a museum, drawn from the plot of a novel, and that discussion itself raises a somewhat related question which I don’t think your link answers, but which I’d be interested in hearing: what’s the museum curator’s ethical duty with respect to the Indian artifacts? Other than that, the examples involve one museum piece and two buildings not under the control of a museum, as far as I know. But regardless, my question was not about the ethical duties of curators. I boldly claimed there was no ethical duty to refrain from destroying a piece of art that you own, yes, but that was intended to signify a general ethical duty. I certainly accept there’s an ethical duty among curators not to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/93 "2015-05-11T09:05:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Once, maybe. But after the first lunatic billionaire grind up David to make bathroom tiles, how long do you think it will take for virtually every legal body in the world to pass some sort of “Cultural Protection Act?” But “virtually every body” isn’t really good enough. Look at the [Buddhas of Bamiyan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan) or [Timbuktu Manuscripts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu_Manuscripts) for example. Who was there to stop that destruction? Not many. And who would support sending their own country’s men and women to die protecting them? Very few indeed. So to say that art belongs to the world is meaningless sentiment if no one actually does anything to prevent those in control of the area in which the art resides from destroying or allowing the destruction of it. It’s reasonable to make an argument that art belongs to the people and then craft laws that govern the citizens of a particular state and how they may or may not treat art. But the simple reality is that if some other people in some other place decide to do something, we can offer carrots and sticks to try to get them act in a way that we prefer, but all factual evidence indicates that we’re not actually able/willing to enforce a paradigm where France or the US or whoever, says “hey buddy, that’s our shit, we’re not going to let you destroy it.” ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/94 "2015-05-11T12:32:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **I boldly claimed there was no ethical duty to refrain from destroying a piece of art that you own** , yes, but that was intended to signify a general ethical duty. I certainly accept there’s an ethical duty among curators not to do so. Not exactly; such a claim is not particularly bold. You claimed that there’s no legal, ethical, or even **moral** principle that says that “great art,” by which I assume you mean art of some cultural significance, should be treated any different from a privately owned copy of _Dogs Playing Poker_. _That’s_ a bold claim. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/95 "2015-05-11T13:47:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I boldly claimed there was no ethical duty to refrain from destroying a piece of art that you own, yes, but that was intended to signify a general ethical duty. I certainly accept there’s an ethical duty among curators not to do so. > [@steronz](#): > > Not exactly; such a claim is not particularly bold. You claimed that there’s no legal, ethical, or even **moral** principle that says that “great art,” by which I assume you mean art of some cultural significance, should be treated any different from a privately owned copy of _Dogs Playing Poker_. _That’s_ a bold claim. I said in the OP, “But I argue that there is no legal, moral, or ethical principle that suggests that artwork cannot be owned, and, once owned, disposed of as the user wishes.” ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/96 "2015-05-11T16:20:40Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > But “virtually every body” isn’t really good enough. Look at the [Buddhas of Bamiyan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan) or [Timbuktu Manuscripts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu_Manuscripts) for example. > > Who was there to stop that destruction? Not many. And who would support sending their own country’s men and women to die protecting them? Very few indeed. > > So to say that art belongs to the world is meaningless sentiment if no one actually does anything to prevent those in control of the area in which the art resides from destroying or allowing the destruction of it. I’m not really sure what your point is. Yeah, the Taliban isn’t interested in preserving works of art, and in parts of the world where they’re in control, such works are at risk if they perceive them to be irreligious. Of all the horrible shit the Taliban has done, “damaging art” is, unfortunately, _way_ down on the list. But I’m not sure how one particular governments hostility towards art invalidates the idea that government should protect art. I also don’t think governments should execute women in soccer stadiums for blasphemy. Does the existence of the Taliban invalidate that belief, too? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/97 "2015-05-11T22:21:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There was an example in the OP about a discussion _in_ a museum, drawn from the plot of a novel, and that discussion itself raises a somewhat related question which I don’t think your link answers, but which I’d be interested in hearing: what’s the museum curator’s ethical duty with respect to the Indian artifacts? If the information I’ve already provided isn’t sufficient for your needs, I recommend hiring a research assistant. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2015, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/98 "2015-05-12T00:19:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There was an example in the OP about a discussion _in_ a museum, drawn from the plot of a novel, and that discussion itself raises a somewhat related question which I don’t think your link answers, but which I’d be interested in hearing: what’s the museum curator’s ethical duty with respect to the Indian artifacts? > [@Lamia](#): > > If the information I’ve already provided isn’t sufficient for your needs, I recommend hiring a research assistant. Really? Is your implication that the question I highlighted from the novel’s characters in the OP was answered by your [PDF link?](http://www.aam-us.org/docs/continuum/curcomethics.pdf?sfvrsn=0) Because I read your link when you posted it, and didn’t see the particular ethical dilemma at issue addressed in the document. After your response here, I read it again, and still didn’t see it. Perhaps you have become confused as to what the issue with respect to the Native American artifacts was. To refresh your recollection, here is the relevant section of the OP: > [@Bricker](#): > > I’m reading a novel in which a central plot point involves a museum’s exhibition of some Native American artifacts, artifacts acquired decades prior to the novel’s events. The exhibition’s publicity alerts the tribe that created the artifacts as to their location, and the tribe contacts the museum to allege that the artifacts were taken wrongfully, and the museum has no legitimate title to them. This claim is borne out by the old notes of the anthropologist who acquired the artifacts; he acknowledges he paid for them but knew the tribesman selling them did not himself own them and had no right to sell them. This long-ago thievery was lost to history until the current exhibition alerted the tribe. > > The museum staff debates the issue. Some take the position that the museum bought and paid for the items, and should keep them; others, that the ethics of their professions demand that the items be returned. Now, page 5 of your link does say, “Curators must be aware of all applicable national and international laws and never knowingly acquire stolen, illegally exported, or improperly collected objects.” But in this example, the present curator had no role in the acquisition of the objects, and presumably the standards for ethical conduct from museum curators were looser decades ago when these objects were acquired. Moreover, since “…Curators at collecting institutions should be guided by codes of ethics relating to their individual discipline and by international, national, and local laws affecting aspects of their responsibilities, including the acquisition and disposal of objects,” and since the local laws relating to any civil action for recovery of the objects have passed, it can be argued that the museum has legitimate possession of the objects. In the novel, this position is taken by the museum’s board of directors, while the curator in charge of the objects argues for their return. I took your “hire a research assistant,” comment to be an implication that the answer was uncontroverted and easily discoverable in the link you provided. Yet, so far as I can discern, this is not the case. If you ARE trying to imply, without the willingness to directly say it, that your link explictly answers this question, I would point out that in Great Debates, it’s not considered sufficient to simply link to a PDF; some further reference such as a quote, or a paragraph or page number, is typically provided to make your citation clear. So: specifically and precisely, where in your link do you contend unambiguous guidelines for resolving this dilemma appear? If this information is not present in your link, and you never intended to imply that it was, I recommend taking a short class in effective communication in writing. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2015, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/99 "2015-05-12T01:26:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I said in the OP, “But I argue that there is no legal, moral, or ethical principle that suggests that artwork cannot be owned, and, once owned, disposed of as the user wishes.” But what about the classification of houses or property as historical sites, which then cannot legally be demolished or even altered? We already have a process by which property can be protected from disposal. Montpelier, Mt. Vernon, etc. (Okay, those are bad example, as they’re already publicly owned. But, say, the El Cortez Hotel in San Diego. Privately owned, but a landmark that can’t be torn down.) If an oil millionaire owns a Rembrandt, and is stupid enough to let it be known he intends to destroy it, aren’t there processes by which he can be stopped? Shouldn’t there be? I remember a controversy in Britain in the 70’s, when a portrait of Winston Churchill was deliberately destroyed. Governments definitely do have the power to act against such things – although obviously we don’t want the kind of police state and surveillance powers that would be necessary to prevent it in every case. Still, at very least, it should be acted against when known in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2015, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391/100 "2015-05-12T01:47:52Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > But what about the classification of houses or property as historical sites, which then cannot legally be demolished or even altered? We already have a process by which property can be protected from disposal. Montpelier, Mt. Vernon, etc. > > (Okay, those are bad example, as they’re already publicly owned. But, say, the El Cortez Hotel in San Diego. Privately owned, but a landmark that can’t be torn down.) I believe this was addressed above: > [@Bricker](#): > > The NHL Program requires the **support of the property owner(s) before** a property can be considered for designation as an NHL. > [@](#): > > If an oil millionaire owns a Rembrandt, and is stupid enough to let it be known he intends to destroy it, aren’t there processes by which he can be stopped? Shouldn’t there be? There are no such processes, at least not so far as I am aware. And no, apart from a Go Fund Me page to offer the oil millionaire more money than he can turn down, there should not be. > [@](#): > > I remember a controversy in Britain in the 70’s, when a portrait of Winston Churchill was deliberately destroyed. Governments definitely do have the power to act against such things – although obviously we don’t want the kind of police state and surveillance powers that would be necessary to prevent it in every case. Still, at very least, it should be acted against when known in advance. No, it shouldn’t, and how would you get around the takings clause of the constitution? If I own a painting I paid a million bucks for, I have the right to destroy it. If you remove that right, you’ve taken something away from me, and that flouts our notions of justice and requires that you compensate me for the loss. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-art-belongs-to-the-world/719391.md?page=6)