12mo ago

Artist says he will destroy $45 million worth of Rembrandt, Picasso and Warhol masterpieces with acid if Julian Assange dies in prison

www.cbsnews.com Artist says he will destroy $45 million worth of Rembrandt, Picasso and Warhol masterpieces with acid if Julian Assange dies in prison

"In our catastrophic time - when we have so many wars - to destroy art is much more taboo than to destroy the life of a person," Andrei Molodkin says.

Artist says he will destroy $45 million worth of Rembrandt, Picasso and Warhol masterpieces with acid if Julian Assange dies in prison

161 comments

Ok.
I mean, it sucks to see art destroyed, but I guess if you bought it, you can destroy it.
If that upsets you, then maybe we should reconsider allowing art to fall into the hands of wealthy collectors. If it should be preserved for future art lovers and historians, then to quote a great philosopher of our time, "It belongs in a museum."
I don't know what it has to do with Assange.
- "To destroy art is much more taboo than to destroy the life of a person" - the artist doesn't like how the world works and he wants to raise awareness. That's what the connection is
  
  I understand the meaning of the quote, but if this artist said he was going to execute hostages, that would be an entirely different conversation.
- It depends on the country. In the US an artist has rights and deliberately destroying an artwork can get you sued.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act
  
  Rembrandt, Picasso, and Warhol do not have any rights anymore. They have all died.
  
  These artists are all dead.
  
  What's the reason for that? Tried googling but couldn't find anything on the reasoning for the law
  
  right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation
  not exactly
- The fact this guy owns this art is actually kind of disappointing to me. I thought he was just picking a set of famous art and going rogue with it.
  A terrorist, but instead of threatening blood only threatening the loss of priceless cultural artefacts. Going beyond mere property damage and loss of value, but still stopping short of violence.
  Still a bold move on his part. More impressive, really. But somehow less exciting.
  
  Considering he could make forgeries (considering he has the perfect reference) and destroy those, increasing the fame of those pieces, and their value should he save the original... Something tells me that there's too much financial incentive not to pull a stunt like that and sell the real paintings later.
  Do I have any proof that's what's happening? No. But it's not unrealistic.
- In the long run, none of us truly owns anything. We all share the same fate, Assange and this clown included. It’s a shame that this clown is holding western culture hostage to his terrorist demands. If he destroys the works, he’s no different than the Taliban or ISIS destroying pre-Islam archeological discoveries.

If you destroy privately owned art that the public couldn't see, does it make a sound?
- 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
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
- "I'm gonna destroy my toy collection if someone dies in prison"

¯(ツ)/¯ it's not in the public sphere but your private collection, so you do you chap.
In my opinion privately owned art of a high enough cultural value should either not be allowed to be privately owned, or if it is then it should have to be on permanent loan to free admission public galleries. But that's not the case.
- Yeah more government intervention is what the world needs.
  
  Yeah cause leaving companies and the super rich to self regulate has worked so well.

But wealthy people need to buy those and store them in crates in overseas storage so they can dodge taxes!
- Most are in museums where all kinds of people stand in line to see them.
  
  That is absolutely not true. Museums themselves only display like 5-10% of their collection - the rest is locked away. Most art is in private storage

Its an interesting point that some historical art being destroyed is more upsetting than a person dying. Of course if we're going to make this point, why Assange, and not, say, Gazans?
- why not both?

Warhol would probably approve of this, tbh

Oh no!
So anyway…

That's a weird reason to give for it, like it's obviously not going to change anything. The Justice system isn't going to be held up by an artist threatening to destroy some paintings (and it could be years before Assange ever dies in prison), it seems like it's being done as performance art. Pretty much like Banksy trying to destroy one of his works right after it was sold at auction, it's being done for the attention/message of the act itself.
If there is more of a taboo around destroying art over human lives, it's not for the sake of the "Art" itself, it's for the sake of the arbitrary, yet quantitative value of money that those works have attached to them, because of how ridiculously inflated the price of artwork is (for money laundering purposes or whatever financial hijinks the wealthy are using artwork for). The historical value to humanity probably plays into it as well, but that's not nearly as big a consideration. Otherwise though, you've got governments like the Taliban which will happily destroy history just as easily as they'll kill people, that's the kind of society we could have where art is given equal weight to human life.
Meanwhile, the people that our society deems worthy of death are people who don't really have much income or wealth to their name. If you looked at the average wealth of individuals on death row or who have been executed in the US, it's likely to be lower than the wealth of average Americans. So Art is valued more than human lives because, quantitatively, some pieces of art are probably worth more than some people would make in a lifetime.
- Reminds me of the African billionaire that wanted to bury his cars to advocate for organ donation.

It's a pretty well conceived piece of art, because it's actually saying something and provoking a reaction. And it's fascinating that it's building on and dependent on other masterpieces.
- I love the way the comment above you translated your comment for the young'uns, and just says "Based"

cool film it

Seems kinda pointless, I don't think anyone involved in deciding whether or not Assange dies in prison would change anything due to this.
- I imagine the point is to raise awareness of Assange's position with people who care about the artworks, in an attempt to inspire others to campaign for his fair treatment.
- I wonder if they might now get involved, though. This is the kind of thing that makes it to the cocktail party circuit chatter.
  
  But like really, would anyone pardon a crime because they were being blackmailed with the destruction of art? Would a parole judge really take that into consideration? Seems more likely to me it would make them less likely to help Assange for fear that it looks like the threat worked, but most likely of all they would just continue based on the law and ignore this guy.

I think a lot of us only roughly remember the details (or didn't follow the later revelations) about Assange. My memory was weak, too, so here is a short refresher (with links!)
Pre 2015 Wikileaks did ethical releases of leaked information (vouched; cleaned of names and details that would expose individuals to danger) and exposed generally diplomatic and military-industrial dirt.
Trump Campaign Assange and thus Wikileaks sided with the GOP. Wikileaks had a line to Trump's campaign team. They also sat on a trove of DNC E-Mails provided by Russian hackers. Wikileaks timed releases to blot out news that could hurt Trump. In one case, the Trump campaign urgently asked for a leak and got Wikileaks to act within 30 minutes. Wikileaks also refused to publish leaks harming Russia.
From the private chat logs (more in the Business Insider article linekd above), some things Assange said to his, until then, progressive aides
Assange: "We believe it would be much better for GOP to win. Dems+Media+liberals woudl [sic] then form a block to reign in their worst qualities."
Assange: "Russia is absolutely terrified. Kalingrad, Crimea, and its only foreign naval base, Syria are all under threat and are not protected by Russia’s strategic depth. Meanwhile the US hacks the hell out of it"
It looks to me like Assange got suckered in by Russian propaganda rather than sell out intentionally, but that's just my own guess.
Rape Charges In Sweden, he used his fame to obtain sex from two women, both times trying to refuse condoms. He was creepy and pushy with both. Woman A suspected he manipulated his condom. Woman B woke up in the night to find Assange had climbed on top of her for "second servings" without asking and had penetrated her without a condom.
From my own memory: neither woman went to the police, but when they talked about it (to press?), a public prosecutor in Sweden was duty-bound to start a rape investigation.
It gets too messy from there. The US had an interest in Assange's extradition and may have plausibly exerted pressure. The women received threats and hate. Russia fanned the flames under everything to fuel division and turn more Wikileaks supporters against the US.
The rest is history. I don't know where to stand. Assange and Wikileaks were once forces for good. But, in my opinion, he got played, never realized or never admitted to it, and is now just another lackey aiding Russia.
- I think we can separate the question of whether he ended up working for Russia from the question of how to treat him fairly. If we would want a certain level of humane treatment for a journalist publishing leaked information, that should apply whether or not we approve of the agenda behind what they're doing, and whether or not we think they're being played.
- He's a journalist and a political prisoner.
  Who can say where one should stand? 🤷‍♂️

If these art pieces are in a private collection that can't be enjoyed by everyone already: Was anything of value to culture really lost? 🤔
Would the very fact that destroying them would be meaningful, as well as publicly documented, be more artisticly valuable than keeping the artwork locked up in a vault?
- A lot of the art that is currently in museums was once donated by a private collector. Many private collectors will also lend their art to museums for special exhibitions.
  Some art in private collections stays private but once it's been destroyed there's no chance it will ever get to the public.
- Extremely short sighted view of reality.

At the current rate it is almost certain that Assange will, eventually, die in prison. Instead the collector should set a timer on it so that the art is destroyed if Assange is not released by a certain date.
- Perhaps that date is Julian Assange’s natural lifespan?

Sorry, we don't negotiate with performance art terrorists.

This is a thought-provoking stunt. There's a desire to get upset about the deliberate destruction of art, but getting mad about what it would mean if the art was destroyed is directly tied to a world where Julian Assange dies in state custody, and it makes little sense to care about 16 paintings more than a human life, or the implication that we are not free to speak out against authority.
- to care about 16 paintings more than a human life, or the implication that we are not free to speak out against authority.
  I just wanted to pull this quote, because it's on the nose. With either passive or active participation, the mere suggestion of this act is polarizing and says big things very loudly.
- Assange is a russian asset, let him rot in prison.
  
  You're an American asset, I hope you rot in prison.

Based move. Art is only good if it says something. This art says something.

Oh, no! The thing Russian used to money launder before bitcoin or a person Russian used to selectively leak information! Which will we choose?

Based

Can’t he sell the painting and then spend 45milion on a lobbying and awareness advertising campaign? That might help more
- I don't think $45 million would get you much attention, SuckMyWang, but destroying "priceless" art definitely would. And has.
  It's like what that famous old cathedral burned down? Rich fucks love all that old western canon shit
  
  If 45 million spent completely on getting attention won’t get much attention, how much would he need? And I mean he could still do that. He could change his mind and decide to sell it instead of burning it having already received a heap of free attention

Now that is some real performance art! Hope he records it. I vote for tannerite as destruction method.
- I'm voting for napalm dropped from a private plane out in the desert.

what happened to the days when drama queens like this just went on a hunger strike, instead of destroying things people actually like
- julian assange is a political prisoner with deteriorating health. i would give everything rembrant, warhol, and picasso made to free him.
  
  i don't give two shits about Julian Assange either way.. he's a narcissist and a criminal..

As long as the US has the Hague invasion act along with some of the most inhumane sentences and prisons no country should extradite a non US citizen there. I'm pretty sure the only crime he committed was in Sweden anyways so they should have him.

At least this guy is being creative

Personally, the Rembrandts get to me because I hate seeing old things destroyed :(

Do this instead: sell those works, or maybe half of them, and give the money to Genocide Joe to bribe him to pardon Assange. Hell, if he lives long enough to see Trump elected, it would probably only cost half of that.

Well... bye.

Remind me, why do you guys not like Assange (or WikiLeaks by extension) again? Is it just the Clinton leaks stuff?
- If he were interested in bringing things to light he would have released all the information he had, but he didn't, he held back for US Conservatives. He did right-wing politics in the US a big favor.
  He has an agenda, and it's not press freedom.
  
  If he were interested in bringing things to light he would have released all the information he had, but he didn’t, he held back for US Conservatives. He did right-wing politics in the US a big favor.
  what makes you think he had something to release?
  
  THERE IT IS. The acceptable conspiracy theory of the left. Thanks
- You? Who are you talking to? I, for one, like him
  
  Oh no I like Assange. I have heard some people before saying negative things about WikiLeaks and by extension Assange so I asked. My understanding was they think/thought it's beholden to the Kremlin or something.

At least the cops know who to watch, but it's a pain to have to.
- Not pieces in someone else's possession / ownership, ones he was donated. To the best of my understanding this is perfectly legal.
  
  He spreads around human blood when he is an "artist" and it's only a matter of time before he does something truly stupid.

Is it worth looking up so assange is? Is it okay to read it as ass Angie?
- How educated you want to be is entirely up to you.

161 comments