But we already do this with buildings, open fields (Civil War battlefields,) beaches, and other sites.
Yes, you have to be paid for it. But, yes, there are procedures to take away private property for the public good.
I favor this, but that’s an opinion; if you don’t, then, hardly for the first time, I’d have to disagree with you.
My last post was intended as a GD-appropriate “kiss off”. I didn’t expect you to be happy that I was refusing to play your favorite game with you, but I never imagined that it would provoke such a lengthy, or hilarious, response.
Good luck finding that research assistant.
The problem with the Go Fund Me approach is that it’s an extortionists’ charter. Business plan:
The museum in the OP, if its board of directors are sufficiently ruthless, may never lack for funds - the tribespeople can be made to pay indefinitely. My feeling is that public policy which permits such flagrant rent-seeking is bad public policy.
This is begging the question, isn’t it?
But if you destroy the art, you’ve taken something away from me. That’s the point of art - that although a physical piece can be owned by one person, the cultural enrichment the art inspires is accessible to all. I’m particularly thinking of devotional art, which is of course explicitly created in order to inspire not one person, but all people both within the faith and without. Consider Michaelangelo’s Pieta - it was attacked and badly damaged (not by its owner). I submit that had Laszlo Toth managed to entirely destroy it, the loss would have been felt not just by the Vatican’s accounts department, but by every Catholic, every Christian, and many more who could, perhaps, have found something numinous in this lump of rock. Further, I suspect the rationale for the Pieta’s now being protected by bulletproof glass is not simply the Vatican’s desire to protect an asset, but their need to preserve this art - and its message - for others.
Had the Pieta been destroyed, do you think you would have lost something that day? Or would only the legal entity known as the Vatican have suffered a loss?
If you would, somehow, have been diminished by the destruction of the Pieta, I’d suggest that intangible something you lost (multiplied by every Catholic) has at least a *claim *to higher priority than the intangible “right to destroy” when we’re deciding who is compensating whom.
And I’m OK with that – as long as you’re paid the fair market value of your art, then you can’t complain that you have lost something of value. It’s essentially the Go Fund Me solution, with taxpayers writing the check.
I object only to the notion that without paying for it, the government can tell the owner he can’t destroy it.
The problem is that while your post was “GD-appropriate,” in the sense that it didn’t contain any insult overt enough to trigger moderator action, it wasn’t GD-appropriate with respect to defending your claim. You posted a link, implied a factual claim about that link, got called on the error you made in asserting that claim, and retreated, trying to save face by implying that my ability to read or comprehend your link was at fault, instead of the paucity of support for your point your link contained.
What’s nice about GD, of course, is that these kinds of shenanigans are easy to reveal.
What’s the price tag on the ability to destroy a work of art? Is it equal to the full cost of the painting?
Of course, if the government tells you you can’t destroy it…what, exactly have you lost?
If you do destroy it, you don’t have it any more! You’ve “taken it away from yourself” all on your own. What is the “value” of the right to destroy a piece of your own property?
The right to destroy a piece of property is only a minor part of the overall value of the object. The government needs only pay you for that specific loss of convenience.
(Suppose the guy had a pay-per-view arrangement, with 20,000 subscribers, to watch him destroy his own Rembrandt. Okay, now if the government steps in, there’s an actual loss to be restituted!)
I assume that if I told you the government forbid you to burn that American flag you own, and said you haven’t lost anything of value by the edict, you would suddenly recall some things that you had lost.
I don’t know, but I propose the following thought experiment: you tell me how much is lost when the government forbids your destruction of an American flag, value $14.95. Then I’ll multiply that figure, whatever it, by a million, and that would be the notional figure for destroying a work of art valued at $14,500,000.00
What do you say?
These type of cases can go on for years. Who retains possession and who is responsible for the costs of securing, maintaining, and insuring the piece until it’s resolved?
Why is that a problem? In France, moral rights are perpetual, and cannot be waived in a contract. This is separate from economic rights, which do expire, and can be waived or transferred. So if it’s not about the money, then why is the US so reluctant to grant more expansive moral rights?
This is why your hypothetical is too unrealistic to debate. It’s not about people caring enough to offer enough money to stop the destruction. There would always be someone willing to pay a lot of money for a Rembrandt. There is no precedent for your scenario because it doesn’t make sense.
People pay millions for art for two reasons: love of art, or as an investment (or both). What self interest is served by destroying it?
If it’s an impulsive act in the heat of the moment, it’s irrelevant to debate if it is moral or ethical, as they were obviously not deciding factors.And even if there was a law against it, it would most likely be unenforceable unless the person confessed and provided the evidence.
There are some privately owned Old Masters that haven’t been seen publicly in decades. For all we know they could have been destroyed. There is no legal compulsion for private owners to grant public access to their art (and that inaccessibility, although perfectly legal, is actually a more realistic and common “loss” for society).
But here’s a hypothetical for you:
Mr Art D. Stroyer dies. His will directs the executor to cut up and dispose of his original Picasso. No reason is given, no benefit to or malice toward any interested party is apparent, and the remainder of his estate is to be distributed between his children, as was expected.
Would it have to be destroyed? How do you expect a court would decide?
I’d say that’s pretty stupid comparison.
Bricker, how much do you lose when a disturbed individual destroys the Pieta, or the Madonna of Bruges, or Monet’s Water Lillies? Multiply that by the millions similarly affected and that’s what it costs to destroy them.
What a vivid imagination you have.
Carpal tunnel syndrome prevents me from spending enough time at the keyboard to bother with making claims indirectly. The only thing I have left implied is a matter of opinion. The rules of this forum prevent me from saying exactly what I think of someone who would demand that I do his research for him and then throw a tantrum when I refused.
I don’t believe the “tantrum,” means what you appear to believe it means.
I have demanded nothing. You entered the debate, offered up a source, and are now in full retreat. My observations of this headlong retreat are made with a veritable surfeit of calm amusement.
What difference does the answer to this question make? The same quandary would exist any time ownership was disputed even if destruction were not in the cards.
I’d argue that it’s inimical to our general concept of freedom of ownership.
I agree. This scenario virtually never happens.
I expect a court would be very reluctant to give the decedent’s wishes full effect.
You can call your persistent efforts to get me to do your research for you whatever you like.
I stand by my surprisingly controversial claim that curators have a professional code of ethics that addresses selling or destroying objects from a museum collection. The sources I offered support that claim. If they did not provide you with a satisfactory answer to your later question then that’s your problem.
Good, this makes me feel better about how funny I find this thread.
Bad comparison: I already gave the example of someone arranging a pay-per-view of the destruction of a piece of art.
No one but you has questioned this proposition. No one but you has suggested anything about curators. You have staunchly defended an argument that you created and against which no one else contends.
I suppose that’s true. I merely voiced curiosity about the later question, though, at which you suggested, snarkily, that your link had answered my question. It’s THAT suggestion – the one that implicitly chastised me for not reading your link to find the answer to my later question – from which you are now in headlong retreat.
How, specifically, does that analogize to the loss you would suffer if the government were to forbid flag-burning?
I kind of don’t object to ‘ownership’ of great art as much as I think I should. I was thinking about how rich people should recognise a wider social responsibility and think of themselves as custodians. But I dunno …
Fwiw, I can’t guess what percentage of the worlds population would like to see this ‘live’ in a museum - maybe 1% of whom most would be students mostly wondering if they’ll get a shag today.
A bit like St Pepper - how much would you pay to have been at Abbey Rd for those sessions?, they’ll have to do with a copy. A poster of art seems like an album of music …
The one thing I can’t reconcile is observing up close how the artist uses the brush itself. And then it occurred to me 3-D printing might resolve this. If not now, then eventually.
Can yo imagine having 3-D copies of all the great masters anywhere and everywhere - how brilliant would that be!