4 ms·

Or the painting gets sold to someone shady overseas for a private collection and it's never seen again. It's not like in movies, there's no romance or drama to

Or the painting gets sold to someone shady overseas for a private collection and it's never seen again. It's not like in movies, there's no romance or drama to it. Stolen art doesn't benefit the common good.

grecy 7y ago
> and it's never seen again ... until it's stolen again and the cycle repeats. Sure, it might take a few generations, but it will come around again.
- abiogenesis 7y ago
  Governments should finance teams of thieves to steal those back from private collections and place them back to public museums.
  - joecool1029 7y ago
    Who says they don't? China's likely smart enough to figure this out: https://www.gq.com/story/the-great-chinese-art-heist https://www.gq.com/story/the-great-chinese-art-heist
    - abiogenesis 7y ago
      They seem to have stolen my idea too.
  - KarlKemp 7y ago
    I can’t decide if I want to be on that team, or just play the character in the inevitable movie.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Zenbit_UX 7y ago
There is also no need to put "or" in your first sentence.
FPGAhacker 7y ago
Stolen art opens up the market for forgeries.
- brownbat 7y ago
  Dick's version of the Man in the High Castle has a good meditation on forgeries. Mostly when people buy art, they're buying provenance, proof that a celebrity artist in history touched this particular object. Forgers have gotten incredibly sophisticated, finding ways to duplicate the texture of historical paints and style of brush strokes of masters. I think we'd do a lot of good for the world by commissioning as indistinguishable fakes as possible for all famous works, putting them in a room where the originals are all shuffled in, then sending them out into the world so any museum or private collector can have one, with some chance it's actually the real thing, but mostly the value would collapse to however sublime it is to actually look at the work.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    The value of art is not just the ‘celebrity’ of an artist like he were an actor pimping out a cash-in film. Making a cultural contribution to the arts is a part of carrying your civilisation forward. The artist is valuable because they were the nexus point for many values and inspirations that speak highly to the culture that produced them. Cavemen don’t make the Mona Lisa or michaenglo’s David. These works (among many) stand as monuments to a time and place that produced a peak of artistic, scientific, technological and cultural success. Owning and safeguarding those art pieces connects you to the products of the success of that passed civilisation, you carry the memory and product of many people and imply a bright future for the sons and daughters of that culture by holding up their successes above the ravages of war and nature. Making copies defeats the point and is basically copying someone else’s homework and handing it in as your own. You stripped the point of doing the work to begin with for the sake of ‘spreading the wealth’. You didn’t make better artists that will produce new valuable works, you empowered lazy forgers who should be conservators of the past at best with that skill set. The aesthetic value is only part of what took and a lot structure and skill to create. Art is not about appearance.
dsaasdffd 7y ago
From someone's point of view, it was stolen from overseas!
zhte415 7y ago
A bit of a tangent, however mentioning 'private collection' reminds me of a 'private collection' that is today open to the public, a place that sat on my doorstep for years but I was unaware of. Free entry of course, like all museums, is relatively unknown in terms of galleries (certainly off the typical tourist trail), and well worth a few hours: Wallace Collection [1] [2]. If anyone's in London after the lock-down is over then it's well worth a few hours. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Collection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Collection [2] http://www.wallacecollection.org/ http://www.wallacecollection.org/

grecy 7y ago

> and it's never seen again ... until it's stolen again and the cycle repeats. Sure, it might take a few generations, but it will come around again.

abiogenesis 7y ago
Governments should finance teams of thieves to steal those back from private collections and place them back to public museums.
- joecool1029 7y ago
  Who says they don't? China's likely smart enough to figure this out: https://www.gq.com/story/the-great-chinese-art-heist https://www.gq.com/story/the-great-chinese-art-heist
  - abiogenesis 7y ago
    They seem to have stolen my idea too.
- KarlKemp 7y ago
  I can’t decide if I want to be on that team, or just play the character in the inevitable movie.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Zenbit_UX 7y ago

There is also no need to put "or" in your first sentence.

FPGAhacker 7y ago

Stolen art opens up the market for forgeries.

brownbat 7y ago
Dick's version of the Man in the High Castle has a good meditation on forgeries. Mostly when people buy art, they're buying provenance, proof that a celebrity artist in history touched this particular object. Forgers have gotten incredibly sophisticated, finding ways to duplicate the texture of historical paints and style of brush strokes of masters. I think we'd do a lot of good for the world by commissioning as indistinguishable fakes as possible for all famous works, putting them in a room where the originals are all shuffled in, then sending them out into the world so any museum or private collector can have one, with some chance it's actually the real thing, but mostly the value would collapse to however sublime it is to actually look at the work.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  The value of art is not just the ‘celebrity’ of an artist like he were an actor pimping out a cash-in film. Making a cultural contribution to the arts is a part of carrying your civilisation forward. The artist is valuable because they were the nexus point for many values and inspirations that speak highly to the culture that produced them. Cavemen don’t make the Mona Lisa or michaenglo’s David. These works (among many) stand as monuments to a time and place that produced a peak of artistic, scientific, technological and cultural success. Owning and safeguarding those art pieces connects you to the products of the success of that passed civilisation, you carry the memory and product of many people and imply a bright future for the sons and daughters of that culture by holding up their successes above the ravages of war and nature. Making copies defeats the point and is basically copying someone else’s homework and handing it in as your own. You stripped the point of doing the work to begin with for the sake of ‘spreading the wealth’. You didn’t make better artists that will produce new valuable works, you empowered lazy forgers who should be conservators of the past at best with that skill set. The aesthetic value is only part of what took and a lot structure and skill to create. Art is not about appearance.

dsaasdffd 7y ago

From someone's point of view, it was stolen from overseas!

zhte415 7y ago

A bit of a tangent, however mentioning 'private collection' reminds me of a 'private collection' that is today open to the public, a place that sat on my doorstep for years but I was unaware of. Free entry of course, like all museums, is relatively unknown in terms of galleries (certainly off the typical tourist trail), and well worth a few hours: Wallace Collection [1] [2]. If anyone's in London after the lock-down is over then it's well worth a few hours. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Collection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Collection [2] http://www.wallacecollection.org/ http://www.wallacecollection.org/