No, here I disagree. It’s his statute. If the hundreds of millions of people are all that sad, they can each chip in a dollar and buy the statute, and he, being a rational actor, will do the math and realize he can take the hundreds of millions, buy lots of useful tiles, and still have money left over.
It’s only “his statue” because other people (acting through the government) agree that it is. There is no ownership without the collective consent of the community. And if the community collectively changes it’s mind about what constitutes ownership, they can revoke the privileges they have extended.
I feel like you’re just fighting the hypothetical. Of course nobody’s actually going to chop up David for building materials.
But fine, let’s say he’s done the math and figured out that he can sell each David tile for some total amount that’s $5 more than the hundreds of millions of sad people can come up with. He’s going to make all of those people sad for $5 in profit.
Not a jerk in your book?
Not quite the same, but a local radio station holds a fundraiser every year where they auction off art, and the art that doesn’t sell is destroyed on stage with a chainsaw.
Nope. Again, if they’re that sad, they ought to cough up a bit more. I figure they’re not all that sad if they refuse, and in any event he has no obligation to forgo his $5 just to keep people happy.
Now, I wouldn’t describe him as noble, or kind, but the issue isn’t binary. It’s not true that you’re either noble or a jerk. You can just be a middle-of-the road schlub, neither noble nor jerky.
No, that’s not even close to what we’re talking about. We’re talking about great works of art like Michelangelo’s David. Not some junk that no one in St Louis wants to buy. Certainly no one is arguing that all “art” ever produced by anyone in the world must be protected.
Still, a funny anecdote, though. Crazy Americans!!
It’s interesting how money plays such a large factor in your own rationalization of morality.
Of course it’s not binary. Noble would be selflessly donating the statue to a museum. Middle of the road schlub would be keeping it in a private collection, off-limits to public view, maybe hoping to profit on it at some point in the future. Jerk is chopping it up for 5 bucks while millions look on with sadness in their eyes.
::sniff:: ::sniff::
If those millions each donated 1 penny, then he’d have earned $20,000 (at a minimum: two million * $0.01) and would have certainly taken the $20,000 over the $5. So I think that “sadness” was simply sadness that this guy wasn’t as big a dupe as they wished, wherein they could deploy the puppy-dog eyes in lieu of a penny and he’d fall for it.
Newsflash: he doesn’t live his life for the sake of those millions. He lives it for himself.
Not all people are primarily motivated by money. And not all people are rational. What if someone buys David, decides that Michelangelo didn’t do it right, and takes a chisel to it to “fix” it? Or takes it into their head to do their own restoration project, like this woman did? What about the times in the past where the Catholic Church has decided that a particular work of art is indecent, and moved to censor it, as they did when they had another artist paint pants on some of the figures in the Sistine Chapel? Do you know how manyGreek statues are out there with their dick chipped off because they passed through the hands of some dour Victorian moralist? One of Damien Hirst’s works was a sheep suspended in formaldehyde - another artist walked into the gallery where it was stored and poured a jar of black ink into the tank, claiming he was thereby producing a new and original work of art. (Although whether its even possible to ruin a Damien Hirst work is a debate to itself)
I know that two of those examples - Mark Bridger and Cecilia Gimenez - damaged works that didn’t belong to them, making the legal issue pretty clear cut. But they’re both examples of mentalities that lead to the destruction of art that’s probably not going to be dissuaded by cash.
And most people take the feelings of others into account when making decisions. We call those people “normal.” People who don’t take anyone’s else’s feelings into account are called…
Cisgendered?
Damn, that’s not right. I was sure I had this.
A better answer would be “a thug”. 
[ducks, runs]
Why do you believe that one has a right to profit?
I agree with this.
I personally feel that when a heritage designation is imposed some monetary compensation should be given to the owner (based on how the market value changes due to the imposition of the designation plus some amount for the hassle).
After that whoever buys it can have no complaint and cannot do with it as they please.
Unfortunately I do not think it works this way.
Because you can’t stop it. A right exists when it can be exercised, the exercise of it does not incur a legal penalty, and the obstruction of it has a remedy at law.
In short: because I can.
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?”
Not counting the ones that already have one, of course.
Too many wishy-washy answers in here.
To the question of “should Great Art Belongs to the World?”, I place my vote clearly and emphatically in the box marked: Yes…and No.
First we have to address the issue of what constitutes great art? I think the world at large, and countries in particular, have in the past and continue to this day to do a pretty good job of assessing what stuff constitutes great art. I can think of a couple cases where this wasn’t the case…but not many.
If there appeared to be a big problem of great pieces of art in my country not being recognized as being great, then I would hope that my country would find a way to put together a reliable commission of stuff-appraisers. I hope other countries would do the same, but I don’t condone bombing them if they don’t. Perhaps just simple payola would do the trick. However, I just don’t see this as being a big problem—just hypothetically so. If it becomes a real problem, then let’s act on it.Think Pete Rose’s jock strap should be listed as a national treasure?—go fight that battle on your own.
Then comes the issue of great art destruction. Should great art be allowed to be destroyed? Easy answer: no. Should destroyers of great art be punished? Yes. If there are no laws on the books to prevention great art destruction or enforcement, then there should be. But, again, isn’t this just a hypothetical problem? Is great art destruction really a thing? Is it a thing in other countries? Well, it has been a bit of a thing with one country against another (e.g. Luftwaffe bomb raids), but do you think you can make a law against war?
If destruction of great art became a thing in a country I don’t live in, then again, my vote is to coerce that county (maybe with an apple pie) to enact laws to prevent art destruction in that country.
So, with regard to recognizing great art and preventing its destruction, those appear to be problems that don’t exist and if they did, we should fix the problem immediately.
The issues of who should own and have access to great art are murkier problems with murkier solutions. In an ideal world every city around the world would have an original Mona Lisa. But, we don’t live in that perfect, paradoxical world, so we have to make do with what we have. Should England give the Rosetta stone back to Egypt? I dunno, they’ve got to work that out between themselves, but I recommend gentle coercion either way, not bombs. Here’s a thought, maybe Britain could make Egypt happy and feel a sense of vengeance at the same time: they could bomb the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities with the Rosetta Stone! Win/win.
Who should have access to great art? Ideally everyone around the globe. Typically, granting access to great art is in the owners best interest (i.e. there’s money to made in showing it off). But some universities and museums are stubbornly shy about showing off all their great stuff. Should we enact laws to make them rip open their blouses and show off their boobs (figuratively speaking)? Yes, I believe we should, and we should enforce those laws.
But, to what level should we demand they give access? I’d be happy never again to see great art in person as long as I can look at photographs of it in National Geographic. Let us take snapshots of your stuff, that’s all we need. And, no, you can’t take a photo and then destroy the stuff. I want to know that what I’m looking at still exists somewhere. Too bad that can’t apply to photos of dead relatives, too.
Want to rub your naked body all over Venus de Milo? Too bad, you can’t do that. She can’t give a decent hand job anyway.
…damn, now I have to take a cold shower.
As has been noted both the Taliban and ISIS have taken to destroying art that is not Islamic.
So, one might reasonably suppose that if the Taliban ever took over France they’d raze the Louvre.
Worst. DJ. Ever.
They need stronger coercion than pie.
I have no problem with using lethal force if just for the protection of great art.