Yes, I agree with Michael. It's not an interesting topic. However, it does throw light on the fact that people do find self-identity in external objects. Saving belongings from destruction is therefore a quite natural impulse, as much about personal salvation as just running to safety. When the plane went down in the Hudson a few months back a few passengers stopped to grab their overhead luggage before exiting onto the wings. That may have stuck us -- watching the frightful event after the fact on TV -- but for those actually involved, a spontaneous action like that is understandable.
Maybe one's affluence, like insurance, has much to do with how one would react. If money is not an issue, and insurance is paid up, then to hell with it all, the precious paintings, Hitler, the cat, and grandma's silver. Anyhow, it's really amazing, how little of anything survives a generation or two. Think of all the stuff from, say, 200 years ago that has vanished. Very few people can point to some hand-me-down that's 200 years old, let alone 50 years, or even less. Almost all new artworks around today will be gone in 50 years, to say nothing of books on crappy paper, cheap discs, obsolete electronics, etc. Our civilization won't be preserved. WC WC ________________________________ From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:14:14 PM Subject: Re: Why is it that some people believe that artworks have to be saved ? On May 5, 2009, at 8:23 PM, Luc Delannoy wrote: > why do you think anyone will come up with this question: saving this or that > ? taking this or that ? can't you just let the house burning ? can't you just > live alone ? The original problem was highly specious. Oh, why be shy: it was asinine. I was just expanding it to inlcude more possibilities, more complexity, and more facetiousness. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [email protected]
