Now she is saying that she didn’t burn the paintings. But the article mentions that the destruction of the paintings would actually be a more serious crime than the others with which she was charged. So perhaps she’s lying now.
Yes, and since the hearing was about whether or not she should be allowed to be freed from jail on bail until the start of the trial, if the paintings were not actually destroyed it would be more prudent for her to remain incarcerated until they’re recovered.
I imagine she was telling the truth before and they’re all gone but her changing her story does provide more incentive to keep her jailed now.
Your sense is not all that misplaced. Deliberately destroying artwork is a form of oppression. Most directly, it’s oppressing the artists who often create art as a form of expressing their ideas and experiences as human beings. On a more social level, especially with religious icons, destroying art is denying a voice to the people who value the ideas the artwork represents.
Implicit in the destruction is that the artist and the people who share the artist’s values are not allowed to have a voice, and therefore not allowed to participate in society as humans. It is indicative of the oppressors’ campaign to remove an oppressed people from all forms of existence.
Ideas can be as strong or have as much value as human beings.
Wow, what nasty, horrible little pieces of shit. They should have to live with my sister.
Everytime I read a story like this I remind myself that there are still people like this.
Overreact much? I certainly don’t lose out, nor does the vast majority of the population, most of which either don’t care or will be perfectly satisfied by looking at photos and copies of the originals.
Exactly. It’s a bad thing that these people did, but hardly a crime against humanity.
… and now we have a new Picasso charcoal drawing. 