324
1d ago
[deleted]
108
u/KeyEffective2 1d ago
Ownership gives you rights, but destroying art can still erase cultural or personal value.
2
→ More replies (7)5
u/statllama 23h ago
Interesting point. I generally agree but don't you think that burning the physical canvas doesn't actually qualify as erasing the actual work? I think as long as there are replicas, that contribution will be preserved.
12
u/Wojtkie 22h ago
Have you ever seen original art pieces in person, not just prints? 100% the originals have a richness to them that cannot and is not preserved in replicas. Van Gogh was known for laying the paint on so thick that each one of them have a 3D texture from the paint. You lose that in a print.
→ More replies (6)2
u/paladisious 22h ago
There's photos of the Bamiyan Buddhas, so it was okay for the Taliban to blow them up with dynamite?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (52)2
u/neuropsycho 22h ago
There's legal categories to protect items like that. A friend of mine lives in a very hold house that has some furniture from the 18th century, that has been officially catalogued. So he cannot destroy or alter them in any way, it would be illegal.
127
u/Ok-Cry7712 1d ago
There is a absolute tone of art that was to destroyed but is keep in private hands same with lost art the church alone has a tone of that will never be released to the public
50
u/Mysterious_Point9516 23h ago
Conversely, the argument is made that the church is keeping them safe from people who want to destroy them. It's like how people complain that the British Museum is "a collection of stuff they stole", when in reality, they mostly stole it from people who placed little value in it and wouldn't care if it was destroyed, or wanted it destroyed but were happy to take some money instead. A lot of the stuff in that collection would not exist today if it wasn't taken.
→ More replies (13)3
→ More replies (1)6
403
u/przemub 1d ago
Legal property is a poor argument. Slaves were one.
119
u/Bitter_Spray_6880 1d ago
Slaves is the poor and worst argument as the act of owning them is already immortal...
46
u/AlternativeLog5494 1d ago edited 1d ago
now if you were to have your slaves buried with you…. that would be a power move, undertaken by both Emperors and Pharaohs alike
13
u/Known-nwonK 23h ago
Don’t forget wives. Can’t have her outliving her husband. Toss her on the pyre too
24
7
u/SystemPrimary 22h ago
It was moral for thousands of years. Morality is not abstract and changes with time. Things we do now, will be similarly savage to the future generations. What about modern prisoners btw?
→ More replies (12)3
u/Evening-Gur5087 17h ago
People here not being able to understand differences between morality and ethics, heh
2
u/silly_karinaxo 17h ago
It's definitely a tough topic; the moral implications of ownership can get complicated. There's a lot to consider when it comes to the consequences of those actions.
2
u/FedotttBo 21h ago
It's an interesting idea, what if we say that it's immoral to own culturally valuable art to begin with? Art belongs to publicly accessible museums, not someone's closed private property, and there are no excuses for taking away something from humanity's culture.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)2
u/WouldbeWanderer 23h ago
the act of owning them is already immortal
Exactly. Destroying something because it's you "paid for it" does not make it moral.
10
u/SarisaeBae 21h ago
Slaves were sentient living human beings and a piece of paper with paint on it is a piece of paper with paint on it. I don’t think the artwork should be cremated with him cause it’s a waste of beauty but to compare a piece of artwork to a slave is disrespectful and objectifying to the slaves who had to endure.
13
u/KartFacedThaoDien 23h ago
Ahhh reddit...
2
u/tehcaruS 11h ago
The morality of equating a person's life to an inanimate painting just for a gotcha argument.
→ More replies (1)8
3
u/ShawnMNH924 18h ago
That's a ridiculous comparison. A slave is a human being. A living, breathing, sapient person. A painting is colors on a canvas. It does not think, it does not feel, it has no will. It's an object.
I still think it would be immoral simply because he'd be denying the world a masterpiece if it were real (it was an offhand comment that the guy later clarified was simply him trying to express how much he loved the paintings and never intended to be taken seriously), but comparing a human being to a painting is a specious argument.
9
→ More replies (26)6
u/Fun_Landscape_7572 23h ago
what a silly argument. You are comparing life which you cant make a replica of no matter how hard you tried to something that is inanimate, can be replicated, stored digitally and is highly subjective. Seriously what a stoooooopeeed f##*king argument. Stop spreading your white guilt all over here. It is yours to keep.
sincerely
poc→ More replies (1)6
u/przemub 22h ago
That's an argument. Just saying "it's legally his, he can do whatever", is not.
I wasn't even talking of black American slaves specifically btw, why do you guys think they were the only ones.
3
u/Critical_Concert_689 20h ago
Just saying "it's legally his, he can do whatever", is not.
Actually "it's legally his, he can do whatever he wants with it" IS a very good argument. You tried to contest this with slavery, and everyone pointed out how poor your argument was because YOU (personally) compared PROPERTY to PEOPLE as the foundation of your argument.
Your argument was not only immoral, but logically stupid. In no way did it disprove that people should lose the right to do what they wish with their own property.
2
u/Cosie123 21h ago
People can say it's legally his he can do whatever. Everyone has different principles. I thought that discussing this was the point of the sub
379
u/MWMcurious 1d ago
Immoral. It belongs to the ages.
Evil man.
71
u/Yup098 22h ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/11JbaLzOXsg6Fq
Your comment reminded me of this. 😆7
2
u/Crusaderofthots420 20h ago
Reminds me of when Indy steals a relic that is still being a worshipped by an active religion, because "it belongs in a museum"
10
u/kernelangus420 1d ago
What if it was an expensive Banksy?
37
u/apupaples 1d ago
If the author is the one destroing it is moral if its others its immoral
→ More replies (3)2
u/OkJunket1385 20h ago
You'd be surprised how many people lose their shit when I throw away a piece I made and wasn't satisfied with. Some people think it's wrong for an artist to trash their own work.
→ More replies (2)12
u/ringadingdingbaby 1d ago
There's artists I don't like or particularly care for.
I still recognise their importance though and we shouldn't destroy things just because we can.
→ More replies (2)19
→ More replies (2)3
u/Evening-Statement-57 23h ago
His art speaks to our period of history enough to become history. It will be worth a lot.
→ More replies (2)9
7
→ More replies (10)5
u/Stock_Atmosphere_114 23h ago
What about a significant author who wants their unfinished work destroyed upon their death? Is that evil? You could argue that because it's unfinished, it's another matter. But then again, there's that old adage that artwork is never truly finished, only abandoned...
3
2
u/AppUnwrapper1 23h ago
Isn’t that what Emily Dickinson wanted?
2
u/Stock_Atmosphere_114 23h ago
I know Terry Patchet had a number of his unfinished works destroyed after his death. His assistant went so far and to rent a bulldozer.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Solid-Search-3341 20h ago
A steamroller, and it was actually in Terry Pratchett's will that his hard drives would be run over by one.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/Possible_Situation24 20h ago
Kafke wanted his stuff destroyed, a friend save it and had it published.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Extreme-Attention641 19h ago
The only reason we have the works of Kafka is that his friend didn't honour his request to burn them unread.
48
u/Biscuits4u2 1d ago
7
u/bottomlesstopper 1d ago
If his kids was me, Id be treasure huntin the day after.
13
u/Select_Analyst7334 1d ago
Ah, you must be the brains
7
29
u/gamingfreak50 1d ago
2
u/Connect_Ad_3361 22h ago
Then why didn't the museum buy it?
8
u/thomasrat1 18h ago
Immoral.
If ownership lets you destroy rare cultural artifacts, then you can’t get mad when groups like Isis destroy thousand year old statues.
→ More replies (2)
33
u/sugodarrosto 23h ago
another examples of how morality can drift away from legality
this is immoral both because past art should not be buyable and should not be destroyed or ruined just because someone owns it
10
u/Acceptable-Peace-69 21h ago
If you couldn’t buy/sell art, the only artists would be trust fund babies and homeless dudes in an RV.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)2
u/Soft_Lunch_183 19h ago
It should be like historic buildings, you can own them but you aren't allowed to make modifications or destroy them.
47
u/McRando42 1d ago
Utterly immoral. He is a steward of those paintings. Cultural ministry in Japan should remove them from his care. And not reimburse him. He is incompetent to be owning those.
→ More replies (14)2
u/6terabytes2k 6h ago
It was hyperbole. He didn’t mean it literally.
“Saito, 75, the honorary chairman of Daishowa Paper Manufacturing Co., couldn't understand all the ruckus. "What I really wanted to [express]," he said, "was my wish to preserve the paintings forever." Saito, his aides explained, was using a figure of speech: threatening to torch the oils was just an expression of intense affection for the masterpieces. Later, Saito said he would consider giving the paintings to his government or a museum.”
43
u/Restoriust 23h ago
Ownership of culturally valuable things should be illegal
17
u/GrandArchitect 22h ago
I like this answer. Interesting to consider
10
u/lordborghild 22h ago
Philosophically speaking, it is interesting. But thinking through the execution of it becomes problematic. Who decides what is culturally significant enough to deny ownership? What if you bought something and it later becomes culturally valuable, what happens then?
4
u/GrandArchitect 22h ago
It reminds me of the historic preservation of buildings. You’d need some kind of charter, rubric, and process of evaluating and deciding.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Euphoric-Ad-6584 23h ago
i think this is the right answer. as long as we're allowing people to buy it, it's theirs to do with as the please, but they shouldn't have been allowed to buy it in the first place.
15
u/TourCharming7721 23h ago
What makes something culturally valuable?
5
u/sohcgt96 22h ago
Also, in this case, ownership gets a little fuzzy. When it gets cremated with the guy, the original copy ceases to exist. Most of us will live our entire lives never seeing it or touching it anyway. The fact it was created, in its context, its well discussed and documented and a near infinite number of photos, copies, and prints of it have been made by this point means the original copy isn't of that much cultural importance at this point.
But it still seems like a selfish thing to do, and for what reason? Its basically just a giant "fuck you, I'm keeping this shit forever so you can't have it" to the rest of the world.
→ More replies (3)2
→ More replies (12)2
u/Throwaway74829947 18h ago
So what if you buy it before it's declared "culturally valuable"? And what would be the formal, legal process for declaring it to be so? Would the adjudicating body, if they have the right to seize such things, have to pay fair market value (e.g. if in the US, per the 5th amendment)? What if you were the one who made it, or your parent?
→ More replies (3)
5
5
u/AmbiiX 23h ago
Where would it go if it wasn't destroyed? In a private collection no one will see probably. Used as a write off. I wonder how much history has been stolen and hoarded by selfish rich men.
2
u/Mister_Way 20h ago
Rich women account for the majority of art spending. I don't know why rich women always get a free pass like this.
7
17
u/Nikoviking 22h ago
Moral. It’s his. He can do whatever he wants with it.
I can’t force you to treat a Bible or Quran with respect just because it has cultural significance to me. Same principle with a painting.
→ More replies (11)
2
u/Apprehensive-Size150 22h ago
It’s not immoral.
If you say it is immoral then destroying anything that is considered art is immoral. This would include statues/monuments of dictators and confederate leaders, NFTs, personal sketches, etc.
15
u/__itsatrap 1d ago
Immoral. The artist may have wanted their work to last a long time so others could enjoy it
→ More replies (1)6
u/Rikki-Tikki-Tavi-12 1d ago
That's a bad argument. If the artist had wanted that, they should have given the artwork to a museum.
We cannot know if the artist cared at all what would happen to the artwork after his death. I believe Van Gogh would have been happy to be able to sell it at all, which he had a lot of trouble with during his lifetime..
→ More replies (1)6
u/Global_Ant_9380 23h ago
In context, it would ably would have been difficult for a museum to accept these pieces, as they weren't exactly respected din their lifetimes. Only after do we fully appreciate the cultural significance of the movements these artists created.
You rarely understand the full impact of history being made until after it's over
→ More replies (2)
11
u/IcyIllustrator5901 23h ago
You know, upon seeing more comments, then I believe it's rather immoral. It's basically erasing a really important part of humanity's art history just for some whim of yours.
So legal? Most likely, moral? Not really
2
u/Pichupwnage 23h ago
Exactly. Taking shit with you to the grave is selfish horseshit. He just wants attention and his ego fed.
8
u/BoskiCezar 1d ago
Then don't sell it. Save it in a museum, problem solved.
11
u/TheeScribe2 1d ago
>just don’t sell it. Put it in a museum
You’re gonna be shocked when you find out how museums get things
2
u/Humble-Captain3418 21h ago
They buy stuff, but I'm sure they'll take a van Gogh or a Renoir for free, too.
3
3
3
3
u/TryingMyWiFi 22h ago
If the morality comes from the assumption that one cannot destroy something that has cultural/sofiartal value , the question to be asked isn't if they should be able to bring it , but to have it as personal property in the first place.
3
u/phantom-firion 21h ago edited 21h ago
Immoral because such works belong in a museum, especially since high art is generally just used illegal money laundering schemes anyway, if rich people want to feel cultured they are free to get high quality replicas. Originals should belong to public institutions, or organizations that seek to spread culture to the masses.
3
u/Cukaramacara 20h ago
This is the same as that dude that bought a picaso burn it and made like 10k nfts of the painting.
3
u/BayBreezeCA 20h ago
For masterpieces I think you don’t really “own” them - you are the custodian of them. I don’t have a problem with people making a profit off of them, because a lot of the time if you discover a masterpiece and sell it you are allowing it to be appreciated and seen by thousands or millions of people because it’s either going to enter into a museum or some other type of record.
In the flip side, it is truly an act of barbarism to keep masterpieces hidden or even to seek to destroy them.
A close personal friend of mine is a collector and they have expressed the desire to begin scaling their collection down and lending it/selling it to institutions for this reason.
When you have a vast collection, all it takes is a natural disaster or a simple house fire and it’s all lost to posterity forever. It’s nerve wracking but many collectors fail to appreciate it.
3
u/fang_xianfu 19h ago
I watched a video of a Magic the Gathering collector who lost one Arabian Nights and one Beta booster box in a flood. These are worth about $300k each and there aren't many left in the world, maybe as few as 50 for Arabian Nights and 15 for Beta.
He said it was heartbreaking in large part because he considered himself a custodian of these things and he failed in that job and now nobody else was going to get to enjoy them. And a big part of his motivation in posting about it at all - it was a few years ago but still very raw emotionally, he posted a few minutes of video from the time and his hands are shaking - was to encourage other people who own them to look after them properly.
So yes, deeply immoral.
Also the kicker of that story is that at the time of the flood, he owned the original artwork for Black Lotus, probably worth eight figures although it's never been sold at auction, and it was only saved from the flood because it happened not to fit in the safety deposit box he was putting it in, by millimetres.
4
u/khmergodzeus 21h ago
he paid for it with his blood and sweat.
he can do whatever. doesn't harm anyone.
4
4
u/arrownoir 20h ago
It’s his, he can do whatever he wants with it. If you disagree maybe you should’ve bought it instead.
4
u/greengunblade 20h ago
The japanse businessman its not doing something inmoral IMO, it his property and he paid 160 million for it.
The problem its no the japanese man, its the system that allowed him to buy it in the first place, you can't say something has invaluable cultural and artistic significance and at the same time put a price tag on it and allow individuals to buy it,
12
u/Ancient-Set-561 1d ago
It's just art, humans gave it this crazy value because of money laundering, it's not real value. If a guy wants to take said art to his grave oh fucking well, maybe I'm wrong here but are there no records of what this peice looks like? Whether there is or not it's a fucking painting and who cares
3
u/LatterDegree4064 22h ago
I see what you’re saying. I definitely think some unscrupulous intentions overinflated certain aspects and prices.
However, I’d argue art pieces like these still have a lot of value historically and culturally. A painting’s subject, style, etc can reveal insight into the past such as settings, trends, and perspective on their environment. Or even how we created the canvas or paint.
For example, I believe there was this period where a volcano erupted and the ash caused significant darkness in a certain area for a year. Artists in that area depicted it in the background and/or their work (subject and color) got depressing due to the lack of sun. We get to see a glimpse of what it looked like and how people felt or viewed it.
Sure, we digitized the paintings but also you can see a lot more from physically viewing the paintings itself. Some paintings have a lot of texture to them that don’t translate well on a screen. Brush strokes are easier to discern. Heck, we can even do scans of the paintings to find underlying drafts, missing features (funnily Mona Lisa’s eyebrows), and painted over subjects (which can say a lot about a political shift). But some of that we can only do and only learn if we retain them for future tech development or observation.
And just a bit on the art level, individuals have art styles, cultures influence the style too. There’s a lot to learn, and a lot people have learned, from past artists styles and decisions. Even if you don’t do art, historic pieces can act as cultural markers/artifacts/pillars, representing attitudes, available resources, and/or preferences.
I agree the laundering needs to stop. But I do believe it would be regrettable to just let these pieces be destroyed — especially out of ego.
→ More replies (2)4
u/TheeWalrusOverlord 23h ago
A Van Gogh does not have value because of money laundering, art is fundamental to human history and experience. Your opinion is why we can’t create anything beautiful anymore as a society. Could I destroy a Greek statue because it is just a rock? Or burn the Sistine chapel because it’s just a building with paint?
→ More replies (2)5
u/lingundongpin 21h ago
I think you're overestimating paintings to be anything comparable to historical structures made by collection of humans that was technically and culturally important to them. European art development through ages is just that-european art development. Throughout the world art has been developed, revamped, lost then born again. I am also not a painting enthusiast as I've literally seen better shit in my local musem thousands of years older than van gogh or leonardo and honestly don't get this weird pedestal culture. I mean I get the starry nights to be cool but fuck that shit is not some un reproducible stuff, some of my kid sister's art would have art connoisseurs having a seizure with all the symbolism and shit. Would you cry seeing them crumpled up in a dustbin?
2
→ More replies (3)3
u/WouldbeWanderer 23h ago edited 22h ago
humans gave it this crazy value because of money laundering, it's not real value.
Expressions of human creativity—art—have value because it is how we convey our experiences, emotion, and culture to one another. It is part of our shared humanity. I'm not really sure how to explain it that doesn't make it sound miraculous, but the effect that artwork has had on humans throughout our history is what makes it valuable.
Edited to clarify (hopefully) what I'm trying to explain.
→ More replies (2)5
u/keenOnReturns 23h ago
They’re not saying art is meaningless (at least I hope not). But why are these art pieces worth so much? Just cause they were made by some famous artists “Van Gogh” and “Renoir”? I find the outrage of these comments silly: if he asked to be cremated with some paintings made by a grandchild of his, would anyone care? Or is everyone in a tipsy only because these paintings are “famous”?
→ More replies (7)3
u/vacri 20h ago
I remember seeing one art show where there was an unsigned painting and experts were divided on whether it was done by some famous painter or one of his apprentices. It was worth $200k if by the famous guy or $2k if by the apprentice. It was a stark example of the value of the piece not being in the piece itself, but who did it. It was weird.
2
u/Thencamethetwenties 1d ago
The irony being they both ended up in some private vault.
Perhaps not burnt but probably not to be seen publicly again
2
u/toolsofinquisition 17h ago
I had to scroll far too long to find this comment. What's the difference between him burning it and him locking it away in his library where the public will never lay eyes on it again? Or in the basement of some museum, only to be looked upon once a decade or so by a few archivists?
There are digital reproductions. These artists have been studied at great length. We can let some originals go. We don't need to hoard them like a dragon guarding his gold.
2
u/spartaman64 1d ago
at least hes not using it for money laundering like the rest of the rich people
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Fantastic-Work-7529 1d ago
Either this dude was making a statement about organ donation or he loves Rand's The Fountainhead.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/AzerothianLorecraft 21h ago
and the funeral director simply forgot and they turn up in a private collection a decade later...
2
2
2
2
u/LuckyCloverPokemon 15h ago
His property his choice i guess. It would really suck if he actually went through with it, but there's nothing anyone can do
3
u/6terabytes2k 5h ago
He’d never intended to destroy them. That’s an expression in Japanese for when you really like something. He died in 1996 and the paintings are still around.
“Saito, 75, the honorary chairman of Daishowa Paper Manufacturing Co., couldn't understand all the ruckus. "What I really wanted to [express]," he said, "was my wish to preserve the paintings forever." Saito, his aides explained, was using a figure of speech: threatening to torch the oils was just an expression of intense affection for the masterpieces. Later, Saito said he would consider giving the paintings to his government or a museum.”
6
u/Professional-Bet2271 1d ago
amoral but extremely narcissistic
5
u/Jellyliker 1d ago
you really don't think that destroying a priceless piece of art that should be in a museum is immoral?
9
u/lavabearded 1d ago
the fascination with original pieces is beyond me. I will never understand why anyone gives a shit
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)6
u/ImaginaryNudge 1d ago
Priceless? There's literally a price in the post itself. If it were priceless, then it should've been in a museum already.
3
u/WouldbeWanderer 23h ago
Everything has a price. Everything.* That doesn't mean a thing isn't "priceless" in its uniqueness or non-monetary value.
*If you're tempted to respond with an example of something you wouldn't sell, I guarantee someone else would sell it for you for the right price.
→ More replies (1)2
u/_Carl15 21h ago
and people, especially rich people, will put price anyways. history and culture are priceless, and ofcourse some rich egoistic people will put pricetag anyway.
i wouldnt be surprised if there was an ancient obscure dick toy sculpture bought by some rich guy just because it was ancient.
3
u/Well-M1lk 23h ago
Moral, we could just paint another one. He spent all that money idc what he does with it.
4
3
u/vilk_ 17h ago
BTW, this is kind of a common joke to make over in Japan. Something you own that you're really happy with you say that you'll have it cremated with you. It's not some super weird off the cuff thing this guy just came up with.
Having said that, Japanese people really do get cremated with their favorite stuff. Usually not anything precious or valuable to the surviving family. But at the end of the funeral, the family members put a bunch of stuff that the deceased liked in the coffin with them.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Omnishrimp 1d ago
That's how you know the people around him will find excuses to not do that literally the moment he closes his eyes. Even if not to preserve art, but rather for the greed of selling them. People are deluded if they think his will will be respected.
2
u/KingFang1998 1d ago
I mean it’s immoral for him to have them destroyed but also all the people advocating that the property should be stripped from his family by the government are also immoral. He dropped a lot of money to privately own them. No art isn’t the universal property of the human race, that’s literally never been the case. It’s just a thing, created to be observed and he bought it fair and square.
People shouldn’t be so comfortable saying the government should be taking things from people, they already have too much power as is.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Mysterious_Point9516 23h ago
Eh. It still exists. I don't place a ton of importance on the physical thing.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/chaosjace6 23h ago
Will the cremator actually go through with it though or will they be like, he's dead, put that ish back in a museum.
→ More replies (1)
2
1
u/sslothzz 1d ago
It's like buying a huge house with beautiful land surrounding it and burning it all down after you go
1
u/porschetaycan 1d ago
Let's say for argument's sake the humans responsible for creating laws were shitty and allowed a person to own the roman coliseum. The person wants to demolish the coliseum when he dies. Moral? HELL NO.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Any_Description1692 23h ago
The way in which property rights are conceived and understood under capitalism is the direct cause of at least 90% of the world’s problems
1
1
u/Qeiqoqy 23h ago
Japanese businessman wanted to be cremated with one of the final paintings made by van gogh? Is he stupid? Can we get the stupidity check subreddit? There are no benefits to anyone including the one getting cremated
→ More replies (1)
1
u/XMrFrozenX 23h ago
It used to be common practice to burn the still living slaves along with ther dead master - they were legally owned after all.
1
u/SnooPredictions3028 23h ago
Immoral and sad af. He is desperately trying to be seen by the world, even if it is through a hated action since he likely sees his own life as insignificant and forgettable, so he is tying it to someone already cemented as an icon.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Tablesafety 23h ago
imagine pouring hours and hours of your time into making a lovely work of art just to have some rich fuck burn it with himself sometime after you die- for no good reason but selfishness.
1
1
u/KZGTURTLE 23h ago
He paid for the privilege to hang the artwork in his home and is the responsible owner of shared cultural history. He didn’t pay for the right to destroy a shared cultural piece of history.
Actual disgusting behavior
1
u/UrbanRelicHunter 23h ago
He didn't actually creamate them... he told that to reporters because he was pissed off at the government for hitting him with a $24 million tax bill on the paintings. They were actually sold to a different collector around 1998.
1
1
1
u/Mephistocheles 23h ago
Fucked up and immoral. That's ancestral culture, you don't get to destroy it.
1
u/_vivaargentina 23h ago
I mean, I would have understand more if he would have wanted to be buried instead of cremated
1
u/bigRyan540 23h ago
Typical boomer, fuck giving money to his kids / chairity - he's taking those 160 000 000 $ with him straight to hell.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/stronkzer 23h ago
Remainder to locate wherever this old fuck's ashes are and throw them in the nearest trash bin.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Select_Design75 23h ago
In countries like Spain, art that is considered relevant is protected beyond "ownership".
1
u/Ornery-Worldliness96 22h ago
Immoral. Keeping the original artwork is import for history preservation.
1
u/Pipysnip 22h ago
There should be protection acts for paintings in the event of the death of the owners. Like have them be returned to the museum or something or in the person’s will
1
1
u/Useful_Charity1995 22h ago
Moral: the dude has rights to it that he paid for. At least now Van Gogh’s and Renoir’s artwork can’t be used as tax write offs for ridiculously wealthy people. The artist is dead and died of poverty. The rich benefiting from his works over and over to increase their wealth is immoral and perverts the artwork.
1
u/RandomFleshPrison 22h ago
Neutral. Art is subjective. Few people would blink if he wanted Hitler's watercolor paintings burned with him. Saying one piece of art is better than another, or that "art is for the ages" is needlessly subjective and beside the point. It's a canvas with oil paint on it. It's destruction is neither moral nor immoral.
1
u/Easy_Turn1988 22h ago
Amoral
It's uselessly selfish (like, literally, you're already dead dude, why do you care ?) but on the other hand, the guy paid 160 000 000 dollars
1
u/whittenaw 22h ago
Evil. Truly horrible.
2
u/6terabytes2k 5h ago
It was truly hyperbole. It’s an expression in Japanese when you really like something. He died in 1996 and the paintings were never destroyed.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/b14ckcr0w 22h ago
Immoral. Owning something of [significant] cultural relevance comes with responsibilities.
There was a case recently of a home renovation in Colombia where the owners/designers destroyed a staircase in a home designed and planned by a very relevant architect, and they were heavily fined.
1
u/Mega_Trix 22h ago
Immoral, you shouldn't be able to buy up human history with the express purpose of destroying it so no one else can have it but you.
1
u/Apprehensive_Yam2383 22h ago
Who cares? It was his. It was 1990. People could have taken pics of them.
1
u/sovietarmyfan 22h ago
It wasn't actually destroyed with him. They're rumored now to be in private hands.
1
u/PowerDreamer2493 22h ago
I think it’s fine. If it’s immoral for the owner to do whatever the fuck they want with their property, then perhaps it was immoral to sell it in the first place? Can’t have your cake and eat it too.
1
1
u/KarnexOne 22h ago
Imagine a cattle tycoon that orders all of his animals to be butchered and cremated with him. Like why the fuck would one want shit be destroyed after them.
1
u/Top-Woodpecker6696 22h ago
Immoral to believe you “own” a piece of art you didn’t create. He was a steward not an owner.
1
616
u/GuyFellaPerson 23h ago
It was a hyperbolic expression he didn't actually literally want to be cremated with them. Jesus its one google away this is why AI would take over the world people would just believe anything written.