Great Art Belongs to the World?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

For the record, the Tête de Faune they are proposing to chop up is one of 50, so it’s not a case where an irreplaceable original will be destroyed.

True.

But in another sense, not true: it’s number 16 of 50 (or whatever it’s number is). If it I’d destroyed, the world won’t have 50 but 49, and it won’t have number 16 of that sequence.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Yes. But I think even the most ardent art lover would agree that posterity will be affected less by the destruction of this piece than by one that is actually unique.

[steronz]

Other than the fact that Picasso is a household name, is there anything in particular that elevates this piece from “Nice looking painting by a guy I’ve heard of” to “great work of cultural significance?”

[IDtenT_Error]

The artistic value isn’t in the number, nor in the continuous numerical sequence. It’s in the original painting. Prints are no big deal, except to the people who own them.

[Peremensoe]

@Bricker

True.

But in another sense, not true: it’s number 16 of 50 (or whatever it’s number is). If it I’d destroyed, the world won’t have 50 but 49, and it won’t have number 16 of that sequence.

On the other hand, the world will have gained a one-time performance art piece in which an iteration of a work by a famous artist is cut into pieces and distributed–and each piece becomes a memento of that event, and a displayable piece in its own right (with explanatory notes, anyway).

Whether that’s the world’s net loss or gain is an entirely subjective matter of the interpreted value of the respective works.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@IDtenT_Error

The artistic value isn’t in the number, nor in the continuous numerical sequence. It’s in the original painting. Prints are no big deal, except to the people who own them.

This is a linocut, not a print. It’s like a woodcut. There is no “original,” unless you consider the printing plate to be one.

[Stanislaus]

Has anything happened with this?

Their page merely says that voting closed on 31/12/15. They’ve presumably had time to count the votes now - has their been any kind of hint about the results?

If not, is that because the vote was to destroy it and they’re trying to find a way out? Or are they just waiting for a quiet news cycle?

[Driver8]

@Bricker

3. I know of several instances of laws that restrict what you can do with real property. They are called “covenants,” and run with the title to the land. This is how my homeowner’s association can force me to repaint my garage with something earth-toned instead of electric blue.

4. In the cases of covenants, which do indeed protect real property from destruction by the owners in some cases, those covenants were a part of what the owner bought – that is, they bought the land, and the building, but not the right to destroy the building at will. There is, thus, no conflict between these sorts of protections and what I’m talking about.

Perhaps I’m going back in time a little too much, but I found these points interesting.

Is your main objection to restricting property rights (i.e. not allowing destruction of great arts) that you’ve in effect under current property law purchased the right to to destroy the work, and by instituting a restriction you’re taking away that right without compensation?

If we imagine a world where great arts had always had this restriction, or it was only applied to new works going forward (i.e. everything that already existed and is owned was grandfathered in to existing policy) then this wouldn’t really be an issue anymore, right? It would be more analogous to the covenant or home owners association restrictions situation.

Would you in principle be opposed to such restrictions in that hypothetical? Or do you feel that property rights in principle should be unrestricted, with exceptions that are justified in the real estate scenario but not the fine art scenario?

My approach to the problem was very nicely summed up here:

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I have a different starting point, which I’m sure will come as a surprise :).

While I think property laws are a great innovation in human culture, they’re in no way absolute, nor do they directly correspond to a moral good, any more than mass transit or income tax or beer purity laws correspond directly to a moral good. Rather, they’re a tremendously useful means of answering the question, who gets to decide what to do with all that stuff? In general, devolving control over stuff to a single person or small group leads to pretty good decisions about what to do with all that stuff. It’s an artificial system we’ve come up with, replacing the Red In Tooth and Claw system of giving control of stuff over to whoever is the best at murder.

However, it’s not an ultimate good. Property laws constantly get balanced against other things: taxes, pollution, zoning, minimum wage, worker safety, economic development, endangered species, etc. In each case, the question is whether the inefficiency and harm inherent in reducing the strength of ownership is balanced by the efficiency and benefit inherent in social direction of How To Use That Stuff.

Which brings us to art. Telling the museum that owns the statue of David that they can’t break it up for tiles is a reduction in ownership; it reduces their economic power, and it also might reduce the price paid for future works of art. Those are the harms. Against that we must balance the benefit of protecting the work of art. Does it create enough joy, does it explain something about the human condition, does it fulfill the need for cultural integrity that humans have, to such a degree that it deserves protection? Will protecting it have the salubrious effect of preserving other artwork from similar threats? Will failing to protect it lead to a strange sort of art-owner terrorism, in which owners of classic works extort money from others not to destroy them?

I don’t think there’s a single Massive Principle that applies here, but I’m including property ownership in that statement: property ownership should be regarded as an efficiency, rather than as a moral principle.

In other words, I’m open to the idea of such restrictions. That doesn’t mean I think they’re good policy. I just have no overriding principal that suggests that even considering them are off the table.

I suspect that instigating such a policy would be more trouble than its worth. It implies a costly bureaucracy (“art death panels”?) for determining what objects can and cannot be destroyed. Also, it doesn’t appear to solve a problem that actually exists (are works really being destroyed in non-negligible quantities in countries like the United States that don’t have this policy but still have a well functioning rule-of-law?).

If the issue was more prevalent (e.g. it was common for billionaires to purchase historically significant work and destroy them) I might have a different verdict given the costs and benefits. I do have sympathy for the taking of existing property rights without compensation. If we’re trying to maximize justice that would be a major negative. But avoiding destroying culturally significant artifacts strikes me as a positive. I can conceive of living in a world where the positives would outweigh the negatives and I would favor such a policy. However, I’m not convinced that I actually live in such a world.