Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hayabusaten t1_is9tsck wrote

Reply to comment by UncoloredProsody in Channel 4 buys painting by Hitler – and may let Jimmy Carr destroy it by kianworld

Art shouldn’t be considered divine. Neither should the expression of art. It’s an idealized notion to think that preserving art is preserving history, when at the same time society doesn’t care about preserving more important things that aren’t culturally functional to the prevailing zeitgeist. Art itself can be seen a gesture, and so is preserving or destroying it.

I mean personally I would preserve the art, but it’s a good debate worth engaging, but I honestly don’t think Jimmy Carr should be the one to facilitate it.

9

chiree t1_is9voeb wrote

It's not even art, it's an artifact. In 1000 years, people will still be talking about Hitler. He's not the kind of guy to just fade into historical obscurity. What survives to that time, no matter how irrelevant, will be priceless.

No one's sitting around saying: "I wish Ghengis Khan would have left less shit for us to study,' but, no, some museum probably has a comb of his or whatever. I say we save the painting and let history decide.

7

UncoloredProsody t1_is9ud1a wrote

Not divine sure, that wasn't my point. But this article at least made it sound like they plan to destroy it just because it's made by Hitler. First we should look at the art itself and then we can talk about whether if it's worth preserving or not.

But just because it's made by a controversial artist it shouldn't be destroyed. Even if it portrays hatred or racism, it can be examined and learned from. But ofc i'm not trying to pretend to be someone educated enough to debate this properly, but yeah, the debate about this is definitely a good thing. But destroying them - especially the audience voting on it - is just unnecessary and completely misses the point.

3