I'd probably help a Hitler in that case but I 'd tell him to grab the Rembrandt on the way out. My reasoning is that Hitler may repent or be brought to justice, I mean he can still make moral choices and be subject to those made by others even if he's otherwise helpless.
WC ________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:50:16 PM Subject: Re: Why is it that some people believe that artworks have to be saved ? The cat or a Rembrandt is easy as a choice. What if the choice is between Hitler unable to help himself and a Rembrandt. mando On May 5, 2009, at 11:40 AM, William Conger wrote: > Why is it that some people believe that artworks have to be saved? From > what? If from certain destruction or damage, the reasons are primarily for > the sake of value or sentimentality. If from oblivion, for anticipated value > or sentimentality. If for pride, then for the sake of culture and > sentimentality. The real question is, What is worthy about sentimentality? > > As for the cat or the Rembrandt, assuming it's an authenticated Rembrandt > painting and not a restruck print (can be rather cheaply acquired) I'd choose > the painting because the cat is animate and evolved to provide for itself, > more or less, and therefore has a fighting chance to escape while the > painting is inanimate, defenseless, and more valuable. From a cultural > standpoint at least, it has more sentimental value that the cat. > > We live in a material world and value everything in material terms. We also > live in a world of values and spiritual aspiration. The two should be > happily blended, whenever possible since the extreme of each is destructive > to both. This was Goethe's theme and it's not bad. So who says one can't > cheat in a desperate situation and grab for the cat on the way out with the > painting snugly held? > > WC > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:31:51 AM > Subject: Why is it that some people believe that artworks have to be saved ? > > Luc asked: > > "why is it that some people believe that artworks have to be saved ? or > rescued?" > > > Kirby touched on this question a few years ago. > > A house is burning, and all you can rescue is either the Rembrandt on the > wall or the kitten on the floor. Which would you choose ? > > Being the good Lutheran that he was, Kirby chose to save the living, beloved, > somewhat human creature -- while being an aesthete, I would rescue the great > painting. (even if, as a cat lover, I realize that every cat, like every > painting, is unique and irreplaceable) > > My reasons? > > They're really no better than Kirby's. > > It's just that I love paintings more than cats, am grateful that people have > saved them for me, and feel somewhat responsible for saving them for future > generations. > > Though, arguments could also be made that art works help create a sense of > cultural identity that is the fabric of social life. I think this is the role > that calligraphy was given in traditional Chinese civilization, and why it was > patronized by every imperial court. > > Aren't similar arguments still being made to justify various kinds of > institutional support, above and beyond whatever an open ,free market might > provide? > > Though in our polyglot society, such arguments are a bit weaker. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Proven Hair Replacement Options. Click here. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxVAiBzXfwzXtH5xRyoeiPRwD > j6ZKaixScrxup24TQpVtQJd1slacY/
