3 ms·

Your property? The monument is no more yours than it is mine. And since you asked, it would feel like someone understood the relative importance of things. It w

Your property? The monument is no more yours than it is mine. And since you asked, it would feel like someone understood the relative importance of things. It would feel like they hadn't died in vain, for an unappreciative, lethargic citizenry. >appropriated for someone else's ends? Appropriated for the same ends for which the original memorial was commemorating. The ends are the same. Let's also include some perspective. The monument does not appear to be irreparably harmed. So, vandalism, technically, but definitely not comparable to the Sack of Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_%28455%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_%28455%29

pvaldes 12y ago
To change the point of view of a monument or previous piece of art in a easily reversible way is not vandalism in fact. Is art. Art is not a democratic thing at all. This is the same that Banksy does. Is also the "monna-lissa with moustache" from Duchamp, the picasso's versions of velazquez paintings, and the impresionists showing his pictures in the "salon des refusees". People changed his point of view for better and just learned to deal with it. What was claimed as inaceptable vandalism and breaking of the rules yesterday, is just culture today. More interestingly, the success of a work of art is not linked to the objet permanence. If damaged o destroyed will spawn more controversy and will spread the idea (the real work of art), probably spawning a miriad of "photoshop restaurations" on internet. A very smart move.