7 ms·

Can I recommend a podcast called 'Stuff the British Stole' by Marc Fenell (aka 'That Movie ... Guy'). It looks at exactly this, including situations where an ar

by anitil 4y ago

Can I recommend a podcast called 'Stuff the British Stole' by Marc Fenell (aka 'That Movie ... Guy'). It looks at exactly this, including situations where an artefact only exists _because_ it was stolen. http://www.marcfennell.com/stolen http://www.marcfennell.com/stolen (Sorry I couldn't find the RSS feed)

Ansil849 4y ago
- Cerium 4y ago
  Unfortunately a lot of the old art in the world only exists because by modern reconing it was stolen. Consider the fabulous collection at the palace museum in Taipei. Much just like it was destroyed in the cultural revolution.
  - Ansil849 4y ago
    Again... > That sounds like an a posteriori justification for stealing, like saying "see, that building ended up being bombed, so it's a good thing I stole all these Ukrainian paintings from the country last year". The logical fallacy here is using one unrelated bad event to justify another unrelated bad event. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument would be that we should constantly keep looting art left and right, because who knows where and what is going to be destroyed at any moment.
    - teawrecks 4y ago
      No one said it "justified" the theft.
      - Ansil849 4y ago
        > No one said it "justified" the theft. Nor did I say that anyone said that it "justified" the theft. What I said was that that line of argumentation "sounds like an a posteriori justification for stealing".
        teawrecks 4y ago
        So to sum it up this exchange: Person1: A You: This sounds like B, which is fallacious. Person2: A You: Again...this sounds like B, which is fallacious. Me: No one is claiming B You: I never said anyone claimed B. I said this sounds like B. Sound about right?
        Ansil849 4y ago
        > Sound about right? Yup, with the added bit: If you're not claiming that A is like B, then what's the point of you bringing up A to the discussion, at all?
        teawrecks 4y ago
        When an object is stolen from a cache which was otherwise destroyed, 1) that is by definition a statistical anomaly, and 2) it may contain information from a time/place that is otherwise irrecoverable, which could make it valuable. Between these two facts, I think it would be way weirder if everyone quietly ignored the historical record of a specific artifact just because it was stolen. Imagine walking through a museum with a tour guide who is able to give mounds of information about every piece on display, until you ask them about a certain bust, and they say "oh we don't talk about the history of that piece" and you say "why not?" and he says "because it's not relevant". Be honest, what you're actually saying is, "this information isn't relevant TO ME."
        Ansil849 4y ago
        I feel like there's some misunderstanding here. I am not at all advocating that the fact that objects had been stolen be suppressed. I'm advocating for the explicit opposite. What I am, however, saying, is that I find it odd that museums are allowed to keep these stolen artefacts, while the woman in the OP was not.
        teawrecks 4y ago
        Can I recommend a podcast called 'Stuff the British Stole' by Marc Fenell (aka 'That Movie ... Guy'). It looks at exactly this, including situations where an artefact only exists _because_ it was stolen. http://www.marcfennell.com/stolen http://www.marcfennell.com/stolen (Sorry I couldn't find the RSS feed)
    - Cerium 4y ago
      I guess, as much as I do hate theives, sometimes I can appreciate that I have benefited by their past work through my enjoyment of the arts.
- _jal 4y ago
  You seem to be confusing descriptive for normative. They're stating a fact, not asserting the fact justifies some behavior.
  - Ansil849 4y ago
    It's a glib fact (and in fact, not even a fact as you by definition cannot assert something that didn't happen as a fact) that detracts from the theft. But sure, yes, if they had not been stolen, certain items may have been destroyed. OK. And, so what, what's your point beyond this trite truism?
    - _jal 4y ago
      The point was to attempt to correct an apparent misunderstanding. What's the point of your weirdly aggressive hostility?
      - Ansil849 4y ago
        What do you see as being the apparent misunderstanding?
- dumpsterdiver 4y ago
  > That sounds like an a posteriori justification for stealing, like saying "see, that building ended up being bombed, so it's a good thing I stole all these Ukrainian paintings from the country last year" There's a difference between justification and acknowledgement. Just because people are able to acknowledge that specific artifacts only exist because they were stolen, does not mean that they believe the original theft was "right or reasonable."
  - Ansil849 4y ago
    > Just because people are able to acknowledge that specific artifacts only exist because they were stolen, does not mean that they believe the original theft was "right or reasonable." I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Yeah, if you hadn't burglarized my house yesterday, all my things would have burned up in the fire that happened there today. That's all well and good, except you still stole my shit. The fact that you inadvertently saved it from being burned is irrelevant to the action of the theft.
    - dumpsterdiver 4y ago
      > I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Why should anything beyond facile acknowledgement be expected from the average person when it comes to appreciating artifacts that still exist on our planet? Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Are people "justifying" that crime that happened before they were born, because they're glad that the painting still exists?
      - Ansil849 4y ago
        > Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. Hundreds of years later, the quilt is around the world, being seen by people who have absolutely no connection to it, meanwhile your great^n children no longer have access to this piece of their cultural heritage.
- na85 4y ago
  > a posteriori justification I believe you're looking for the phrase "post hoc", because a posteriori refers to knowledge that can only be gained from application of a test of some sort, whether logical or scientific.
- coffeecheque 4y ago
  Have a listen to the episode. It's called "Shots Fired" and looks at the history of the Gweagal shield. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-british-stole/shots-fired/12868096 https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...
coffeecheque 4y ago
Links: PODCAST MAIN PAGE: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-british-stole/ https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit... RSS FEED: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-british-stole/feed/12754606/podcast.xml https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...
- anitil 4y ago
  Ah thankyou I was looking on his page and could only see Spotify/Apple Podcasts
stormbrew 4y ago
The issue of "this is a convenient thing to think if you want to feel less bad about stuff being stolen" aside, it's worth considering that a world in which these things weren't stolen might also be a world where colonialism didn't run rampant throughout the world and the "destruction" they were saved from may have been a consequence of that colonialism. Anyways, I think to some extent our civilization is descending into a kind of mass packrat disorder. We seem to fetishize preservation to an unhealthy degree on both small and large scales. Sometimes things break, are burnt down, or are left unmaintained until they die. But new things are created all the time, and maybe sometimes we get a little too stuck on the old stuff and don't acknowledge the new.
- labster 4y ago
  Kids these days. If they’re not addicted to novelty and the social media algorithm, they’re freebasing historical preservation. I’m honestly not sure how you square the circle between obviously consumerist trends like fast fashion and mass-produced “collectibles” with fetishization of preservation and franchise-based popular culture. It kind of seems like different people like different stuff? Of course if you’re talking about architecture, there’s lots of fetishization of the not-very-old stuff from last century, because They don’t want you to know that we lost the building techniques of the Tartarian Empire. Or something.
  - ElSinchi 4y ago
    We should upload historical artifacts to the Blockchain and they will live forever as NFTs. Problem solved
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    Even within disposable consumer goods people stick random products from the 80s in plexiglass and call it precious and sell it for hundreds of thousands of dollars. There's an idea out there that actually "using" a product like an old video game is somehow debasing it. In the end though I don't think people have much choice on the consumer product side of things. It is what it is for various reasons. But really I'm talking about broader social trends and what we do at the society level. Yes, architecture. Mustn't tear down that building that no one has been able to live in for 20 years, it's sacred. But also relics, ideas, monuments to even monumentally stupid and awful things, etc.

by anitil 4y ago

Ansil849 4y ago

Cerium 4y ago
Unfortunately a lot of the old art in the world only exists because by modern reconing it was stolen. Consider the fabulous collection at the palace museum in Taipei. Much just like it was destroyed in the cultural revolution.
- Ansil849 4y ago
  Again... > That sounds like an a posteriori justification for stealing, like saying "see, that building ended up being bombed, so it's a good thing I stole all these Ukrainian paintings from the country last year". The logical fallacy here is using one unrelated bad event to justify another unrelated bad event. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument would be that we should constantly keep looting art left and right, because who knows where and what is going to be destroyed at any moment.
  - teawrecks 4y ago
    No one said it "justified" the theft.
    - Ansil849 4y ago
      > No one said it "justified" the theft. Nor did I say that anyone said that it "justified" the theft. What I said was that that line of argumentation "sounds like an a posteriori justification for stealing".
      - teawrecks 4y ago
        So to sum it up this exchange: Person1: A You: This sounds like B, which is fallacious. Person2: A You: Again...this sounds like B, which is fallacious. Me: No one is claiming B You: I never said anyone claimed B. I said this sounds like B. Sound about right?
        Ansil849 4y ago
        > Sound about right? Yup, with the added bit: If you're not claiming that A is like B, then what's the point of you bringing up A to the discussion, at all?
        teawrecks 4y ago
        When an object is stolen from a cache which was otherwise destroyed, 1) that is by definition a statistical anomaly, and 2) it may contain information from a time/place that is otherwise irrecoverable, which could make it valuable. Between these two facts, I think it would be way weirder if everyone quietly ignored the historical record of a specific artifact just because it was stolen. Imagine walking through a museum with a tour guide who is able to give mounds of information about every piece on display, until you ask them about a certain bust, and they say "oh we don't talk about the history of that piece" and you say "why not?" and he says "because it's not relevant". Be honest, what you're actually saying is, "this information isn't relevant TO ME."
        Ansil849 4y ago
        I feel like there's some misunderstanding here. I am not at all advocating that the fact that objects had been stolen be suppressed. I'm advocating for the explicit opposite. What I am, however, saying, is that I find it odd that museums are allowed to keep these stolen artefacts, while the woman in the OP was not.
        teawrecks 4y ago
        Can I recommend a podcast called 'Stuff the British Stole' by Marc Fenell (aka 'That Movie ... Guy'). It looks at exactly this, including situations where an artefact only exists _because_ it was stolen. http://www.marcfennell.com/stolen http://www.marcfennell.com/stolen (Sorry I couldn't find the RSS feed)
  - Cerium 4y ago
    I guess, as much as I do hate theives, sometimes I can appreciate that I have benefited by their past work through my enjoyment of the arts.
_jal 4y ago
You seem to be confusing descriptive for normative. They're stating a fact, not asserting the fact justifies some behavior.
- Ansil849 4y ago
  It's a glib fact (and in fact, not even a fact as you by definition cannot assert something that didn't happen as a fact) that detracts from the theft. But sure, yes, if they had not been stolen, certain items may have been destroyed. OK. And, so what, what's your point beyond this trite truism?
  - _jal 4y ago
    The point was to attempt to correct an apparent misunderstanding. What's the point of your weirdly aggressive hostility?
    - Ansil849 4y ago
      What do you see as being the apparent misunderstanding?
dumpsterdiver 4y ago
> That sounds like an a posteriori justification for stealing, like saying "see, that building ended up being bombed, so it's a good thing I stole all these Ukrainian paintings from the country last year" There's a difference between justification and acknowledgement. Just because people are able to acknowledge that specific artifacts only exist because they were stolen, does not mean that they believe the original theft was "right or reasonable."
- Ansil849 4y ago
  > Just because people are able to acknowledge that specific artifacts only exist because they were stolen, does not mean that they believe the original theft was "right or reasonable." I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Yeah, if you hadn't burglarized my house yesterday, all my things would have burned up in the fire that happened there today. That's all well and good, except you still stole my shit. The fact that you inadvertently saved it from being burned is irrelevant to the action of the theft.
  - dumpsterdiver 4y ago
    > I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Why should anything beyond facile acknowledgement be expected from the average person when it comes to appreciating artifacts that still exist on our planet? Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Are people "justifying" that crime that happened before they were born, because they're glad that the painting still exists?
    - Ansil849 4y ago
      > Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. Hundreds of years later, the quilt is around the world, being seen by people who have absolutely no connection to it, meanwhile your great^n children no longer have access to this piece of their cultural heritage.
na85 4y ago
> a posteriori justification I believe you're looking for the phrase "post hoc", because a posteriori refers to knowledge that can only be gained from application of a test of some sort, whether logical or scientific.
coffeecheque 4y ago
Have a listen to the episode. It's called "Shots Fired" and looks at the history of the Gweagal shield. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-british-stole/shots-fired/12868096 https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...

coffeecheque 4y ago

Links: PODCAST MAIN PAGE: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-british-stole/ https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit... RSS FEED: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-british-stole/feed/12754606/podcast.xml https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...

anitil 4y ago
Ah thankyou I was looking on his page and could only see Spotify/Apple Podcasts

stormbrew 4y ago

The issue of "this is a convenient thing to think if you want to feel less bad about stuff being stolen" aside, it's worth considering that a world in which these things weren't stolen might also be a world where colonialism didn't run rampant throughout the world and the "destruction" they were saved from may have been a consequence of that colonialism. Anyways, I think to some extent our civilization is descending into a kind of mass packrat disorder. We seem to fetishize preservation to an unhealthy degree on both small and large scales. Sometimes things break, are burnt down, or are left unmaintained until they die. But new things are created all the time, and maybe sometimes we get a little too stuck on the old stuff and don't acknowledge the new.

labster 4y ago
Kids these days. If they’re not addicted to novelty and the social media algorithm, they’re freebasing historical preservation. I’m honestly not sure how you square the circle between obviously consumerist trends like fast fashion and mass-produced “collectibles” with fetishization of preservation and franchise-based popular culture. It kind of seems like different people like different stuff? Of course if you’re talking about architecture, there’s lots of fetishization of the not-very-old stuff from last century, because They don’t want you to know that we lost the building techniques of the Tartarian Empire. Or something.
- ElSinchi 4y ago
  We should upload historical artifacts to the Blockchain and they will live forever as NFTs. Problem solved
- stormbrew 4y ago
  Even within disposable consumer goods people stick random products from the 80s in plexiglass and call it precious and sell it for hundreds of thousands of dollars. There's an idea out there that actually "using" a product like an old video game is somehow debasing it. In the end though I don't think people have much choice on the consumer product side of things. It is what it is for various reasons. But really I'm talking about broader social trends and what we do at the society level. Yes, architecture. Mustn't tear down that building that no one has been able to live in for 20 years, it's sacred. But also relics, ideas, monuments to even monumentally stupid and awful things, etc.