• Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Instead, the artist added, he is trying to spark a discussion over why “destroying the life of people means nothing but destroying art is a huge taboo in the world”.

    Well played. If people care more about inanimate objects than someone being tortured by the western powers, their priorities need to be highlighted.

    • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      That was my take when XR was throwing soup on art. Even if the art wasn’t protected, what value does it have if there’s no one left to experience it in 100 years? I wondered why more people didn’t mention this - it seemed like the whole point of their symbolic action to me. Of course if could be that the pro-XR messaging was overwhelmed. They got a lot of pushback even on collapse boards.

      I’m glad to see the artist recognized this logic and was able to turn it into a performance. And it’s worked - we’re here talking about it. Talking about Assange again, who I haven’t seen mentioned much recently.

      It’s depressing to think, though, that this rich alternative of XR’s more working-class approach is likely more socially palatable even though the art is actually at risk. People get really weird about private property and ownership.