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.
Ownership rights are compromised by legislation requiring protection or preservation of certain objects pretty routinely; or even, retention within the jurisdiction.
In Canada, for example, if you want to sell an artwork deemed historically significant (of “national importance”) to a foreign purchaser, you have to go through a process by which Canadian institutions are given a right to offer a purchace price for the object in question.
I was on the board of an organization that actually had to go through this process once.
Property is a legal construct. We own things because there is a body of law in place defining ownership and because government works to enforce those laws. Law and the government both exist to serve the collective good, and so if we agree as a society that the collective good is best served by not applying property laws to certain objects, then that is a just and legal thing to do.
I find that hard to believe. Maybe in the cartoon world there exists an evil billionaire who goes around outbidding people at art auctions just to smash the art to pieces, but does that ever actually happen in the real world?
More likely, it would be quite the opposite. Art objects on the “do not break up for tiles list” would gain some prestige and, if anything, increase in value.
And I think that’s where the debate should happen: what’s the actual harm or actual good that would result from such a policy? I was spitballing on potential harms; it might well be that forbidding people from breaking up their own art causes trivial harms, or some terrible harm I haven’t imagined, but the actual harms/benefits, not the underlying principles, are what should be discussed.
We saw cases recently where ISIS was trashing museums. Prior to that I recall some Buddah statues being destroyed by one group or another.
I think there is a case to be made for world heritage art. Some of the Buddah’s (I think) were considered a world heritage site.
I agree with that notion.
Does it mean if you own some art you have to make it available? I’d say no. But at the same time I’d say if you bought the Mona Lisa or David you do not have the right to smash it. It is a part of a broader experience of human art and important for it. In your private collection is a little shitty and fine but destroying it…no.
We do this in the US with some houses (e.g. Frank Lloyd Wright houses). You can buy it but you can not do with it as you please. They have historic value and the owner needs to respect that. I’m fine with that as long as the person who owns the house when it is put in this category is compensated because I have heard it is a nightmare living in such a house (a great deal of things you may consider home improvements need to be approved by a committee somewhere).
I think this is incorrect. In the US, in general, property ownership cannot be changed without “due process”, even if a large percentage of citizens agree that doing so would serve the collective good.
Unfortunately, I do not have the answer for that. But, if enough of the flock rose up, stopped giving money, stopped attending services and stopped supporting the church it might be encouraged to begin allowing access to these items.
After all, they church is willing to ‘amend’ its beliefs if they become unpopular enough. Look at the fairly recent statement that- PSYCH unbaptized babies don’t go to purgatory after all.
That’s a very narrow and rather mercenary view of property rights that overlooks the existence of a commonwealth in the original and most literal meaning of the word: a common heritage and public interest that transcends individual property rights. It’s why we have historic-building designations as John Mace mentioned, why we have parks and public spaces that cannot be sold for private development, why we have zoning laws that may require new buildings to conform to architectural norms of the neighborhood, limit the height of tall buildings, and so on.
It’s a principle that’s well established in community planning to extend to private property, but a little trickier in the art world. We tend to deal with artwork of great value simply by keeping it in public ownership via museums so the problem doesn’t arise. My own view is that the greatest masterpieces shouldn’t be in private hands at all, but unfortunately many are. And it’s almost invariably for the wrong reasons – as investments and status symbols, rather than for their aesthetic value. The truth is that nothing offers millions of dollars worth of aesthetic value. That market value is determined only by an art object’s rarity and uniqueness, to an extent that makes it a legacy to mankind and human creativity. Which is why you shouldn’t make bathroom tiles out of Michelangelo’s David, or be allowed to own it in the first place.
I realize I’m not answering your original question – I was just responding to the quoted comment that I disagreed with. As far as the museum and the Native American artifacts is concerned, I don’t think it’s clear-cut – the devil is in the details and it sounds like it would make an interesting court case. There are separate issues of rightful ownership vs. the question of whether certain items – like maybe ceremonial items of great cultural significance to the tribe – should ever have been sold at all.
Furthermore in the case of land property rights have never been an absolute. Under English feudalism all land used to belong to the King, at least in theory. All others were tenants, and if you were a Lord you would have obligations attached. Even in colonial times owners of land would be required to pay something called quit rents to the original donor: these later evolved into property taxes.
Property is a human construct; its practices should be grounded upon a utilitarian calculus.
Correct. Government defines private property. Without any government your property is nothing else than that which you can and will protect by force of arms. It’s astounding how often some in America get this basic fact backwards.
Is there some point where you’d draw a line separating what is legal from what is moral? Was it moral for the Taliban to destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan? IIUC, the Prince of Savoy donated the Shroud of Turin to the Vatican in 1983. Would it have been “moral” for him to destroy it then instead? His ownership was undisputed.
(Or do you argue that Taliban seized Afghanistan by force so didn’t “own” it legally? But was not much of the U.S. seized with force from Native Americans?)
It did make an interesting court case. In fact, there were several interesting court cases involving ownership of Native American art. See my post #13 and the citations therein. In most cases, it appears that either the owners are giving the objects up, or cases are being decided in their favor.
And it’s interesting that the Ayahuda figures are being removed from their protective environments in museums so that they can be (slowly) destroyed – that was the intent all along when they were being made. To the Zuni pueblo it makes as much sense to take such a figure and preserve it in a museum as it does to construct the mound of fuel for a bonfire and then build a climate-controlled building around it to protect it.
Property rights have their limits in the UK when it comes to items of cultural, historical or archaeological importance.
In England (the precise laws differ between England and Scotland) thousands of historically or locally significant buildings, monuments, parks and so on are scheduled and it is an offence to modify these in any way without seeking permission. Significant pieces of artwork and items of historical interest are routinely prevented from being exported by HMG. Treasure troves are automatically the property of the Crown and by convention are either declared of national interest and purchased from the finder by HMG or are otherwise returned to the finder. Archaeological sites and designated shipwrecks are protected. Entire sections of towns may be designated as a conservation area, preventing anybody from modifying buildings to change the look and feel of the area. Entire sections of country are designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty with restrictions on what can and cannot be done with land and buildings within those areas, or can be designated as areas of archaeological importance or World Heritage Sites (e.g. Edinburgh’s New Town) with equally restrictive terms. Lastly, if need be, items of extraordinary cultural or historical significance can be forcefully placed into guardianship by the state if there is a threat to the continued existence of the item (e.g. St Rules’ Church in Scotland is placed under guardianship and maintained by Historic Scotland).
So, if Michaelangelo’s David was privately owned in Britain it seems to me that any attempt to destroy the piece would result in David being taken into guardianship by the State under the National Heritage Act 1983 or its equivalent in Scotand.
Anything that has only passed through private ownership should be immune to such claims. If a piece of art passes through public ownership then I’m fine with the argument that the right to destroy that art is not theirs to sell, but if I pay somebody to build me a house that some heritage group takes a fancy to, it’s none of their damn business if I or the person I sell it to decides to destroy it.
And I really do hate the idea of heritage listing private property. Let’s face it, old buildings often suck. They might be cramped, they might be drafty or poorly ventilated, they might have tiny windows or be a deathtrap in a fire. Being an example of a flawed architectural style should never come into it.
Much depends on when the heritage designation was imposed.
I agree that imposing such a designation initially is a burden on the owner at the time.
However, someone buying a property already so designated really has no beef.
Also, building are typically subject to all sorts of property right restrictions - zoning bylaws and the like. It’s a generally accepted part of ownership that such rights are not unlimited.
I contend that, in general, people are rational actors (given that they may be working from a set of irrational postulates or beliefs, mind you).
So in general, I don’t think there’s much chance that someone would “intentionally mak[e] a bunch of people sad for no good reason.” The reason may not be compelling to the bunch of people, but it’s compelling enough for the individual; his motive almost certainly won’t simply be to make people sad.
Sure. His undisputed ownership, his shroud to do with as he pleased.
I don’t agree the Taliban’s ownership was legitimate.
Sure. And this is an example of the manifest change in international law. The right of conquest was a recognized and legal method of acquiring territory when the United States seized land by force from the Indians. The crime of a “war of aggression” was codified in the Nuremberg Principles following World War II, and in the 1970s by U.N. resolution. Notably, this included the concept of territorial integrity, which meant that the concept sought to halt wars of conquest while not attempting to unravel territory gained in the years and centuries preceding the adoption of the principle.
It’s not necessary for his motive to be to make people sad. He may just not give a rat’s ass about David, and have a pressing need for marble tiles. To him, it’s perfectly rational to take this worthless (to him) statue and turn it into useful tiles.
But upon learning that his plan to procure fine Italian marble tiles *will *make hundreds of millions of people sad, then I would say that he has a moral obligation to explore alternatives.