• FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    If you destroy privately owned art that the public couldn’t see, does it make a sound?

    • Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The concept of private ownership is weird, if you think about it. It’s like penguins collecting stones they’ve found and not letting anyone come close

      • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Private ownership of things made by people is perfectly reasonable; the person who made the thing should own it and be able to sell or transfer it as desired. So a rock you found isn’t made by people, so yeah, but a painting, or a chair, etc, was.

        It’s land that wasn’t made by people where private ownership gets really ridiculous.

        • Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I can relate to that, but even in this manner, most of the goods made are the result of vast investments of time efort and money of lots of peoples over decades, just for few individuals to be the owners of.

          (Btw, English is not my main language)

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Well, under a free market economic system, each of those people is paid for their input to the thing, and only participates in that when they decide it’s worth their time to do so.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          But land is literally the first form of property. Territory is defended in life’s history long before any moveable object.

          If anything, the conception of certain objects as being part of a person’s territory is the stranger step to take.

          • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            I kinda get the feeling that food was the first form of property. Land (by way of good shelter) was probably a close second with good rocks and sticks.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes a penguin that owns some stones would indeed not want other penguins grabbing them. Glad we’re on the same page with how private ownership works.

        • green_square@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I think they’re talking about art specifically. Like what’s the point of owning art if you ain’t showing anyone? And why should anyone care if ou destroyed art you weren’t willing to show it anyways?

          • Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Thanks. Original art have some kind of intrinsic aura, by the art proccess itself. That’s the difference between arts and craft or even art and design. The fact that concept of having the right to destroy art just because you’ve paid someone, sound so obvious and natural to people is weird…

        • Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah I know how it works. I said the concept is weird, but it benefit some share holders, so I guess we’ll have to live with it

      • Ikelton@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        When you describe it like that… I feel like it makes more sense. Like, of course the penguin is gonna want his safety stones. I buy that.