Private Collectors

[Kuu]

I was reading the other day about an art theft in Brazil. Art theft is planned and carried out by pros, usually for hire by wealthy private collectors (since you just can't go around selling stolen art).

Thinking about private art collections, I think they are terrible. Its just plainly stupid egoism. I think these people are so self-centered and vacuous, that they enjoy the feeling of possessing something, that they need the feeling of exclusivity, even to the point that I suspect they know or care absolutely nothing of the artworks, other than they are quite expensive...

Seriously, they are taking away and hiding very valuable parts of human history and culture that would be better in museums or in the hands of scientists. Ancient manuscripts, fossils and other artifacts that would help us better understand our past. Amazing artworks that make us wonder, fear, smile, or inquire.

Am I wrong? Is there some redeeming quality about private collections that might make me think they are something other than the petty whims of the rich?

 

[ShaiGar]

I was reading the other day about an art theft in Brazil. Art theft is planned and carried out by pros, usually for hire by wealthy private collectors (since you just can't go around selling stolen art).

Thinking about private art collections, I think they are terrible. Its just plainly stupid egoism. I think these people are so self-centered and vacuous, that they enjoy the feeling of possessing something, that they need the feeling of exclusivity, even to the point that I suspect they know or care absolutely nothing of the artworks, other than they are quite expensive...

Seriously, they are taking away and hiding very valuable parts of human history and culture that would be better in museums or in the hands of scientists. Ancient manuscripts, fossils and other artifacts that would help us better understand our past. Amazing artworks that make us wonder, fear, smile, or inquire.

Am I wrong? Is there some redeeming quality about private collections that might make me think they are something other than the petty whims of the rich?

I'm a private collector... I collect reproductions of paintings I admire.

I agree with your point of view regarding those who have paintings stolen for them... although to be frank if I could afford to have Starry Night, Starry Night on the Rhone and perhaps Rydens The Creatrix stolen for my own personal pleasure... I would.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

Nope. They're just really self-centred.


A certian star trek episode comes to mind. (I know. Please don't judge me. I'm a real person, I swear. It's just a really funny series.It's always taking the piss out of itself.)
Some guy steals Data for his private collection, and ends up killing his wife with a ray-gun.




Actually, that's pretty irrelevant.



Oh god no...






I'M NOT A TREKIE!

 

[Melkor]

Okay.
I'm officially branding you a trekkie.

 

[Jesin]

To prevent this thread from being derailed, I would like to remind everyone that the topic of this thread is not what Cabbo and Melkor just said. Please carry on the original discussion.

 

[loveofreason]

Art.

I can understand how some private collectors might think... imagine the process of rationalisation that holds up the hermetic asylum of the perfectly tended private sanctuary against the throngs of great 'unwashed' beating against the priceless object with sullying gaze. I can imagine there are some obsessed with beauty who would see their private collections as preserving the worthy from the ignominy of public exposure. I can imagine there are some who have the time to to contemplate, who are reaching for some special revelation through private study of works that display a glimpse of the human soul.

I have very rarely seen creations that embody such a facet of mystery, but such creations can not be appreciated in the middle of a throng. I imagine that many of the wealthy are merely expressing this desire to stand alone with whichever window into mystery has grabbed them, to stand alone and be in silent conversation with something inexplicable.

Yes, this denies others the opportunity. But I suspect that in a public place no-one really has the opportunity. Given the chance I cannot say I would not do the same.

 

[Aphasia]

Paradigm: You must own something. Owning stuff gives your life value, and the more expensive and exclusive, the better.

Opinion: I'd donate art pieces if I can get a hold of them, unless I can take better care of them somehow (I'm rich, right?). I don't like the idea of noisy gawkers at a museum experiencing a masterpiece merely at surface level, though.

 

[ShaiGar]

To play devils advocate:

Anything which has been created is owned immediately by the creator, and then by whoever takes ownership afterwards. Nature grants us two rights; rapio and contego. If the private collector has managed to seize the painting then he owns it by right. Anyone who takes it from him owns it by their right. Similarly the original owner may choose to sell it, thus s/he loses all rights of ownership of the artwork and it becomes the property of current owner who may dispose of it as s/he wishes.

Just because something is pretty and heaps of people like it, does not make it inherently public property... Or else Aria Giovanni and Gillian Chung are public property and I want my ride!


Aphasia: Art IS only surface level, any direction it diverts you is your mind reacting to an object, not the object moving you.

 

[Kuu]

I have very rarely seen creations that embody such a facet of mystery, but such creations can not be appreciated in the middle of a throng. I imagine that many of the wealthy are merely expressing this desire to stand alone with whichever window into mystery has grabbed them, to stand alone and be in silent conversation with something inexplicable.

Yes, this denies others the opportunity. But I suspect that in a public place no-one really has the opportunity. Given the chance I cannot say I would not do the same.

Why not pay the museum for private, after hours visits? I do think it also depends of the public place, and the popularity of the art piece. But some (dare I say most) pieces that are stolen are relatively obscure to the throngs of art-ignorant tourists... and therefore it IS possible to contemplate in silence...

Paradigm: You must own something. Owning stuff gives your life value, and the more expensive and exclusive, the better.

Opinion: I'd donate art pieces if I can get a hold of them, unless I can take better care of them somehow (I'm rich, right?). I don't like the idea of noisy gawkers at a museum experiencing a masterpiece merely at surface level, though.

Bad paradigm, bad, bad, BAD!

If you are rich, I guess you could make your own museum and allow art appreciators entrance on tourist-free mondays, when the museum "closes"

To play devils advocate:

Anything which has been created is owned immediately by the creator, and then by whoever takes ownership afterwards. Nature grants us two rights; rapio and contego. If the private collector has managed to seize the painting then he owns it by right. Anyone who takes it from him owns it by their right. Similarly the original owner may choose to sell it, thus s/he loses all rights of ownership of the artwork and it becomes the property of current owner who may dispose of it as s/he wishes.

Just because something is pretty and heaps of people like it, does not make it inherently public property... Or else Aria Giovanni and Gillian Chung are public property and I want my ride!

Natural law, and human law. What has that got to do with the issue? It's not about who rightfully owns the object, you see... it's beyond that. It's about the ethics of sharing knowledge.

Aphasia: Art IS only surface level, any direction it diverts you is your mind reacting to an object, not the object moving you.

I would disagree. Art is made with intention. It is specifically made to make your mind react. The object does move you. That's the whole point of making art.

 

[ShaiGar]

I would disagree. Art is made with intention. It is specifically made to make your mind react. The object does move you. That's the whole point of making art.

A car moves you, a bike moves you, a painting does not. You are moved by your own thoughts or emotions which may be instigated by a painting.

 

[ShaiGar]

Natural law, and human law. What has that got to do with the issue? It's not about who rightfully owns the object, you see... it's beyond that. It's about the ethics of sharing knowledge.

Art is not knowledge. Knowledge is self replicating and doesn't require the original. Art is an object, objects are owned by someone.

 

[Kumori]

A car moves you, a bike moves you, a painting does not. You are moved by your own thoughts or emotions which may be instigated by a painting.

True, the only thing that can move you is yourself.

 

[ShaiGar]

True, the only thing that can move you is yourself.

That's why I buy reproductions.

 

[Aphasia]

Aphasia: Art IS only surface level, any direction it diverts you is your mind reacting to an object, not the object moving you.

Okay. But I was talking about people who don't appreciate the time, skill and creativity needed to craft most masterpieces, and don't think about the piece, just seeing/ hearing/ tasting/ feeling things without registering much about the experience within their (sorry excuses for) brains. Sorry that I couldn't find a shorter phrase which was clearer. I didn't talk about being moved. Also, I found the choice of words somewhat offensive somehow. Perhaps it was the capitals and the implication that the mind is always greater than its creations (and the implication that I am silly based on the last parts of the phrase).

Thoughts, memories, heuristics and behaviors are influenced by the mind, but the mind is influenced by stimuli received up its current point of existence, not to mention other things. Any physical occurrence can be quibbled as surface level. But without ugly dirty outside stimulus, shiny little brains won't have anything to tinker with. I'm assuming guilt by association.

Anyway, if my mind accords emotional/ intellectual interest in something physical, why can't it be said to move me? Define your reasoning in terms of the fields of linguistics (your argument fails instantly, unless you speak of physical movement, which isn't even applicable for mental constructs), philosophy (arguments over semantics: tiresome. Maybe I should reconsider this challenge) and whatever others you choose.

True, the only thing that can move you is yourself.

What form of the word 'move' do you mean? If you mean movement on a purely physical sense, your statement is pretty silly, while if you mean conscious stirring of emotions, that is false, since it implies total control of the mechanics of your mind, genetics, random mutations which may have occurred to you during the span of your life, mental diseases and many other things. And if you speak of mental reactions of the brain (where they can be registered) due to specific occurrences/ stimuli regardless of conscious thought, you could say the same of Alzheimer's and strong concussions. Double entendres are a linguistic hobby of mine, so please clarify your sweeping statement. To the both of you, I'm listening.

Note: I doubt I'll have the sustained interest to argue with 2 people over an indeterminate length of time. But who knows.