4 ms·
But you do know that the original one is the one in Louvre and saw a least a detailed photo of it, maybe even the real thing. Racist, misogynist or whatever, th
by okanat 3y ago
But you do know that the original one is the one in Louvre and saw a least a detailed photo of it, maybe even the real thing. Racist, misogynist or whatever, the art in its original form is still there.
When the books are censored the opposite happens. The original in the people's mind changes and the original nuances of the art is lost. Moreover we lose our understanding of progress. The change of the worldview and the values is an important part of understanding art.
If we would like to show the progress we made and our current values, we should create our own classics for generations to read and understand us, rather than muddying the water between us and the previous generations.
- awesome_dude 3y agoBooks aren't being "censored" Please show me where all the book burnings are taking place. Please show me where librarians are being threatened physically for stocking the originals. Please show me where laws are being made preventing you from owning/accessing a copy of the original.
- crote 3y ago> Please show me where laws are being made preventing you from owning/accessing a copy of the original. This one is just called "intellectual property rights". If you don't already have a copy of the original, you won't be able to get one if the rightsholder chooses to withdraw it from sale.
- awesome_dude 3y agoApparently me not selling you a copy is preventing you from buying any of the trillion other copies left in circulation. Also in no other industry is a company forced to sell you a version of anything, otherwise where can I buy me a brand new Ford AC Cobra
- low_tech_love 3y agoIf you think that a book is the same as a car then it seems to me that you missed the point entirely. Have you ever written?
- awesome_dude 3y agoThe point has been clear all along. No books are being censored. Nobody is preventing anyone from accessing the original version. The publisher is not, and should not, be forced by anyone to produce any version at all. If you had been an author you would understand that selling your rights to a publisher is no guarantee that the book will even be printed, there have been numerous examples over the decades of rights being acquired for a work and then never exercised such that that work is never published (this is especially common with movie rights), Complaining that you as an author want to retain a right on editorial actions is fine if you dont sell that right. But if you were an author you would know that that doesn't always happen. Complaining as a consumer makes very little sense. It's fine to air your grievance, but the truth is you have no right on what is produced at all.
- low_tech_love 3y agoThat’s precisely the point. Just because those things (which you associate with ”censorship”) are not being done, you are comfortable. But what is happening is happening and it’s just a matter of whether you agree or not, it’s how you build your own understanding and perspective of the world. Not everything needs to be all-in. Do you agree with art being instrumentalized and turned into something that can be ”retouched for the greater good” by the hands of people who couldn’t possibly publish a single successful blog post? Would you let HN mods retouch your comment if they found something offensive in it (for whatever spurious criteria happened to be trendy at any given time)? Those are all questions you should ask yourself. I live in a country where the children’s lullabies have been butchered and changed into bland, uninteresting versions of the originals, which were amazing records of cultural heritage. That heritage has been denied to my children (I try to sing the original ones but the school uses the new versions and so they don’t want to hear mine). They also use gender neutral pronouns and forbid us to take pictures in events but that’s a topic for another time.