Why do the mass killers of the fossil fuel industry walk free while the heroes trying to stop them are imprisoned? asks Guardian columnist George Monbiot
What defines “irreplaceable art” and why do we have a legal or moral obligation to protect it? Why does this allow for the private ownership of art?
How much of the earth’s resources are we willing to dedicate to “culturally significant, irreplaceable things” such as buildings, artwork, graveyards, and civilizations? Who gets to decide what from modern times needs to be available in ten thousand years?
I come from a hoarding home where everything was important. My approach to preservation is colored through this lens. At some point we either exist solely to preserve artifacts created before us or we learn to let go. Not every Van Gogh or Picasso in a museum’s collection will be put on display and many museums struggle to maintain their hidden collections full of what curators would honestly call junk art of interest to only the most specialized of scholar. Assuming we only keep the “best” samples (that’s another debatable topic) there will be a point when we simply cannot collect any more art or culturally relevant things any more, similar to the eventual trade off between graves and arable land.
Hoarding aside, why are you not arguing to prosecute oil as hard as these folks? The number of indigenous cultural sites across the world destroyed by drilling astronomically outweighs the number of paintings with soup on them. Sure, we can prosecute both, but I don’t see you saying that either.
A good place to start would be art made by a great artist that can’t make it anymore, usually because they are dead.
How much of the earth’s resources are we willing to dedicate to “culturally significant, irreplaceable things”
I don’t think the footprint of the world’s art museums would even show up on a chart when you consider waste or climate impact.
I’m not arguing to “prosecute oil as hard as these folks” because that’s not the discussion we’re having. That’s just what-about-ism. But since you asked, I think just about every C level in the oil industry should be in prison for the harm they have caused and the coverups they conspired to perpetrate while doing it. That’s not relevant to the discussion of ‘activists’ trying to destroy art to get headlines.
I agree with their message, I completely disagree with the method of delivery.
So only art in museums is culturally significant? Made by artists who are dead? What about buildings? Religious places? Graveyards? Note that these are things I called out in my first comment so I’m not trying to move the goalposts here. You highlighted the Taliban destroying cultural places so, by your definition, we must include those and since we can’t displace any new ones must be added.
I completely disagree that the footprint of the world’s art museums is minuscule. Museums today already have problems with storage. In order to meet your definition for art, museums must continue to expand their collections. As the number of people grows, the number of artists grows, increasing the supply of art. How do you define “great artist” without proportionally increasing the number? As fields specialize, so too do the “great artists” that define mediums.
What about books? Records? Movies? How do we decide what to keep here?
So you’re okay with oil companies destroying the planet which every person on this earth values? You’re okay with oil companies being given the pen to write the laws for climate protests? You’re okay with Judges taking bribes and providing harsh sentences to climate protesters?
You’re okay to with some corrupt asshole stealing our future from us (you’re probably part of the awful operations, who knows?)
You have answered nothing and read way more into the word “so” than was actually there. It’s pretty clear you’re just here to be mad so have fun with that!
I come from a hoarding home where everything was important. My approach to preservation is colored through this lens. At some point we either exist solely to preserve artifacts created before us or we learn to let go. Not every Van Gogh or Picasso in a museum’s collection will be put on display and many museums struggle to maintain their hidden collections full of what curators would honestly call junk art of interest to only the most specialized of scholar. Assuming we only keep the “best” samples (that’s another debatable topic) there will be a point when we simply cannot collect any more art or culturally relevant things any more, similar to the eventual trade off between graves and arable land.
Hoarding aside, why are you not arguing to prosecute oil as hard as these folks? The number of indigenous cultural sites across the world destroyed by drilling astronomically outweighs the number of paintings with soup on them. Sure, we can prosecute both, but I don’t see you saying that either.
A good place to start would be art made by a great artist that can’t make it anymore, usually because they are dead.
I don’t think the footprint of the world’s art museums would even show up on a chart when you consider waste or climate impact.
I’m not arguing to “prosecute oil as hard as these folks” because that’s not the discussion we’re having. That’s just what-about-ism. But since you asked, I think just about every C level in the oil industry should be in prison for the harm they have caused and the coverups they conspired to perpetrate while doing it. That’s not relevant to the discussion of ‘activists’ trying to destroy art to get headlines.
I agree with their message, I completely disagree with the method of delivery.
So only art in museums is culturally significant? Made by artists who are dead? What about buildings? Religious places? Graveyards? Note that these are things I called out in my first comment so I’m not trying to move the goalposts here. You highlighted the Taliban destroying cultural places so, by your definition, we must include those and since we can’t displace any new ones must be added.
I completely disagree that the footprint of the world’s art museums is minuscule. Museums today already have problems with storage. In order to meet your definition for art, museums must continue to expand their collections. As the number of people grows, the number of artists grows, increasing the supply of art. How do you define “great artist” without proportionally increasing the number? As fields specialize, so too do the “great artists” that define mediums.
What about books? Records? Movies? How do we decide what to keep here?
You’re putting words in my mouth so I can’t really respond to the first part.
Some people value art, some don’t. It’s ok if you don’t, it’s not okay to destroy what other people value.
So you’re okay with oil companies destroying the planet which every person on this earth values? You’re okay with oil companies being given the pen to write the laws for climate protests? You’re okay with Judges taking bribes and providing harsh sentences to climate protesters?
You’re okay to with some corrupt asshole stealing our future from us (you’re probably part of the awful operations, who knows?)
Nope. I can be against all that and against vandalizing art.
You have answered nothing and read way more into the word “so” than was actually there. It’s pretty clear you’re just here to be mad so have fun with that!