I Have A Problem With Endangering Art

[nudeyorker]

I don't own anything terribly valuable, nothing from A list artists but members of my family do and none of them have ever expressed anything other than immense respect for the work they own. When my aunt's house burned down I was the first person up on the third floor searching for two paintings which were stored in the attic where the fire started. I risked my LIFE to crawl up there with gaping holes in the floor to find them. A Marin was destroyed but a Utrillo was still wet from the fire hoses and, happily, salvageable. My aunt, however, was upset about two things: her late husband's WW I medals, which we later found, and that painting. Yes it was insured but she mourned its loss because it was irreplaceable to the world. As far as she was concerned, the world lost something beautiful and now no museum or gallery would ever see it again. I don't deny I'm probably influenced by her respect and love of art and craftsmanship and her sense of being a custodian rather than someone with a fat bank account who could burn them for fun.

I'm glad you're a Met member. I used to be before I was broke. Now I can't afford it. I used to be a MOMA member too until they started charging $20 admission rather than taking voluntary donations. I think MOMA's become an elitist institution bent more on self-congratulation than on actual public education and I won't support it. Keeping the hoi polloi out is not something I support in the slightest.

You might remember the Gardiner robbery where a Vermeer, of which there are only 36 or 37 in the world, and an important Rembrandt were stolen. Those paintings are still in the hands of the thief. The Gardiner knows who the thief is and the thief knows the Gardiner knows. The problem is the FBI knows too and they won't drop charges against the thief and thus allow the museum to get their pieces back. They were stolen for ransom, not for resale as they're far too hot. The Gardiner didn't buy anything else to replace the spaces on the wall. Isabella Gardiner prohibited it in her will saying the spaces were to be left as blank as the day the pieces were stolen to show the world how impoverished we become when great works are lost. I think she was right.

Jason,
Just a couple points. First of all I'm not a member, I'm a patron. Second. I have lost so much more in life that is so much more than something you can view, or lock away in a vault or proudly display.(Meanwhile I have things from my mother that are locked in a bank that I just don't know what to do with...but I'm sure as hell not donating them) So am I a criminal for keeping these things from the world because I don't want the rider on my insurance policy. Someday they will find their way back into the world, but whatever happens to them after they are no longer mine is not my concern. I in no way am trying to invalidate your view. (Willtom's is something else) All I have been trying to say is you can't put a price on anything whether it is life or art. Sometimes they are the same.

 

[Northland]

I'm surprised and disappointed by these replies. Apparently you believe art has no value beyond a dollar amount. That's really sad.

I suppose it didn't come across in my post. I do believe there is a value to art. Well, to the creative produce of all the arts- music, painting, sculpture, acting, comedy, literature. The value for me is not monetary, it is what it does for me as a person. Does it reach in and touch me. Does it make me think. What does it do? That is from where I derive the value. It could be worth a million dollars or worth less than a penny, I don't really care.

As I indicated, I have a couple of paintings which to most would be worthless- one is a DeHirsch Margules, which may or may not have some value. I don't really know and can't say I care. I like the piece, that's all it comes down to and I've enjoyed it for some 30 years, first in the home of a friend and then after her death in 1984, it has been in my apartment. Will someone take it when I'm gone? Who knows. I have books dating back nearly a hundred years, some never went beyond their first printing. I read them, enjoyed them and keep them on the shelf. I occasionally offer them to others for reading, they turn them down. I could perhaps take them to a bookseller and make a few dollars for them; I have no desire to. They are with me for now and may be disposed of upon my death, if that's what happens, then that's what happens.

To me, all things are temporary and all things must change. Each generation can enjoy what exists during their time, some items will be held captive for centuries, other things will be through after a handful of years-who can say which is better? Perhaps they are equal as they both have a time span, the same as people. Is a person worth less to the world if they expire after 20 years than a person lasting for 105? Everything has a value of some sort, and everything has an existance span-they are what they are and have a time span determined by the workings of the Universe.

 

[HellsKitchenmanNYC]

Art is better displayed in a plane or oon a yacht than hidden away in the Vaticans caverns or th royal family's basement. As much as I love art if you think long and hard about it it's just a painting.

 

[1kmb1]

i think it would probably be safer in the jet than in a house. how often do you hear of a private 727 falling out of the sky? i would assume they dont wear out as quickly as commercial jets, and trump probably takes better care of his jet too.

 

[justmeincal]

I suppose it didn't come across in my post. I do believe there is a value to art. Well, to the creative produce of all the arts- music, painting, sculpture, acting, comedy, literature. The value for me is not monetary, it is what it does for me as a person. Does it reach in and touch me. Does it make me think. What does it do? That is from where I derive the value. It could be worth a million dollars or worth less than a penny, I don't really care.

As I indicated, I have a couple of paintings which to most would be worthless- one is a DeHirsch Margules, which may or may not have some value. I don't really know and can't say I care. I like the piece, that's all it comes down to and I've enjoyed it for some 30 years, first in the home of a friend and then after her death in 1984, it has been in my apartment. Will someone take it when I'm gone? Who knows. I have books dating back nearly a hundred years, some never went beyond their first printing. I read them, enjoyed them and keep them on the shelf. I occasionally offer them to others for reading, they turn them down. I could perhaps take them to a bookseller and make a few dollars for them; I have no desire to. They are with me for now and may be disposed of upon my death, if that's what happens, then that's what happens.

To me, all things are temporary and all things must change. Each generation can enjoy what exists during their time, some items will be held captive for centuries, other things will be through after a handful of years-who can say which is better? Perhaps they are equal as they both have a time span, the same as people. Is a person worth less to the world if they expire after 20 years than a person lasting for 105? Everything has a value of some sort, and everything has an existance span-they are what they are and have a time span determined by the workings of the Universe.

Thank you. This is what I wanted to say, but didn't have the words.

 

[nudeyorker]

It's their money, they own it. They are under no obligation as far as I can see. Houses burn down more often than planes crash and yachts sink!

i think it would probably be safer in the jet than in a house. how often do you hear of a private 727 falling out of the sky? i would assume they dont wear out as quickly as commercial jets, and trump probably takes better care of his jet too.

Thank you! That's all I was trying to say earlier!

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

Hells! Ugh.


The Bible is man-made, yet it's a perfect example of a work of art that "touches" people's soul (I am a devout atheist -- or at least a free-thinker like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson). To many, this work of art (part history, part fiction) is more than "just a book".

I have recently starting reading E.M. Forster. His are more than "just books". The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is more than just a bunch of paintings.


These items represent part of the tapesty of cultural history of western civilization. Plato, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, the "art" of Galileo: more than "just" dialogues, just plays, just paintings, just science.

 

[2322]

Jason,
Just a couple points. First of all I'm not a member, I'm a patron. Second. I have lost so much more in life that is so much more than something you can view, or lock away in a vault or proudly display.(Meanwhile I have things from my mother that are locked in a bank that I just don't know what to do with...but I'm sure as hell not donating them) So am I a criminal for keeping these things from the world because I don't want the rider on my insurance policy. Someday they will find their way back into the world, but whatever happens to them after they are no longer mine is not my concern. I in no way am trying to invalidate your view. (Willtom's is something else) All I have been trying to say is you can't put a price on anything whether it is life or art. Sometimes they are the same.

A patron? Are you saying that because being a patron makes your opinion more valid than mine because the more money you give, the more you must value art? It comes across as rather crass.

Your things are your things. If they're great works then yeah, you should haul them out of a vault and either enjoy or unload them. Keeping them in stasis isn't doing you or anyone else any good. I say sell, since you refuse to donate them. I too am not equating art with money. The greatest works are truly priceless because they're useless if stolen and irreplaceable if destroyed. Sure you could auction them and some billionaire would eventually win them, but all the money in the world won't equal the value of their loss to humanity.

 

[HellsKitchenmanNYC]

Hells! Ugh.


The Bible is man-made, yet it's a perfect example of a work of art that "touches" people's soul (I am a devout atheist -- or at least a free-thinker like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson). To many, this work of art (part history, part fiction) is more than "just a book".

I have recently starting reading E.M. Forster. His are more than "just books". The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is more than just a bunch of paintings.


These items represent part of the tapesty of cultural history of western civilization. Plato, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, the "art" of Galileo: more than "just" dialogues, just plays, just paintings, just science.

I didn't mention the bible. I mentioned the works of art hidden away for eons in the Vatican basement archives. There are more paintings that have been destroyed or hidden away. If we can at least have a pic of them than it's better than nothing. Paintings aren't people and their loss could be sad but it's not the same as losing a person, even if it's a Rembrandt. Pics of them survive and people won't. I love art, I was an art student but I like to think it's in perspective of what's really important.

 

[thadjock]

A perfect example of why arts education in this country is so necessary and also an example of the effects of not having it.

thanks for dismissing me as uneducated, i relish the advantage of being under-appraised.

People have died to save great works from disaster and been hailed heroes for doing so.

define "great works" and get 10 art historians to agree on which 50 pieces of art the world can't survive without.

say Eirc Fischl is on Donald Trump's yacht, that happens to contain a significant painting by Mr. Fischl, the yacht begins to sink, you only have time to save one, do you save Mr Fischl or his painting?

 

[HellsKitchenmanNYC]

People have died to save great works from disaster and been hailed heroes for doing so.

JASON you know I love you but honestly, you really NEED to stop living in yr head and come into the world where people actually live and stop being so theoretical. Honestly man.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

Hells writes:

Paintings aren't people and their loss could be sad but it's not the same as losing a person, even if it's a Rembrandt. Pics of them survive and people won't.

--------------------

Why are we even comparing the loss of a person with the loss of an invaluable painting? It's a red herring. It's apples and oranges. You don't have to choose. It's like saying the loss of a person is greater than the "death of God" (psychologically, the Nietzschean sense).


Anyway, we live in a world where there are now, what? 1.7 billion people in China? You can't tell me that each of these individual lives is "worth more" than the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, even if we insist on comparing everyday lives to priceless cultural heritages.

 

[justmeincal]

Hells writes:

Paintings aren't people and their loss could be sad but it's not the same as losing a person, even if it's a Rembrandt. Pics of them survive and people won't.

--------------------

Why are we even comparing the loss of a person with the loss of an invaluable painting? It's a red herring. It's apples and oranges. You don't have to choose. It's like saying the loss of a person is greater than the "death of God" (psychologically, the Nietzschean sense).


Anyway, we live in a world where there are now, what? 1.7 billion people in China? You can't tell me that each of these individual lives is "worth more" than the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, even if we insist on comparing everyday lives to priceless cultural heritages.

I hope you aren't serious.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Planes crash, boats sink, houses burn. Precious objects are best preserved in an airless vault, away from light, moisture and vibration. But what's the point of having such an object, if not to have it around where one lives?

(Does anyone know how many original pieces of artwork have been destroyed in plane crashes, versus those lost in burglaries or house fires? Maybe they're safer in planes.)

Seems to me there are more important things to worry about...

 

[thadjock]

Anyway, we live in a world where there are now, what? 1.7 billion people in China? You can't tell me that each of these individual lives is "worth more" than the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, even if we insist on comparing everyday lives to priceless cultural heritages.

and where should we forward your mail, Mr Hitler?

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

I wrote each individual life. Is the life of one starving child in China more important than the cultural heritage of the West?

 

[thadjock]

I wrote each individual life. Is the life of one starving child in China more important than the cultural heritage of the West?

I'd hand you a shovel but u seem to be doing just fine with your keyboard.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

thadjock: You are obviously more interesting in looking at penises and posting on LPSG than helping the Chinese poor.

 

[thadjock]

thadjock: You are obviously more interesting in looking at penises and posting on LPSG than helping the Chinese poor.

well at least i'm not eager to snuff one out to save the sistine chapel ceiling

 

[thadjock]

thadjock: You are obviously more interesting in looking at penises and posting on LPSG than helping the Chinese poor.

if you had a rembrandt, worth say $50mil, and you could trade it to save the life of one "individual" starving child (chinese or otherwise) would you give it up or see the child die?