WhyWorryAboutThat

WhyWorryAboutThat t1_isj9px4 wrote

I didn't mean for it to be a straw man, but if you know there are nazis, why did you say there aren't?

> My guess, you crave power, you love holding power over people.

Not only am I not the one destroying a painting, I don't even intend to watch it. Chill.

Describing Hitler as "an artist" and one of his paintings as "a piece of history" is a really bad look. He is regarded as an average artist at best, it was a hobby he wasn't good enough at to turn into a profession, and there's no special artistic or historic significance to this piece in particular. He's no more of an artist than me and this painting isn't history any more than my sketches.

1

WhyWorryAboutThat t1_isejf9m wrote

Oh, you're one of those people who thinks there are no more nazis since World War 2 ended. Well I had a nice discussion about whether it can ever be acceptable to destroy art with you. But now I just have to tell you that you're wrong. Nazis hold rallies and protests to this day in my country. They back politicians with bigoted platforms, radicalize young people online including in spaces that exist for my own hobbies, and occasionally try to kill people with a car or bomb or gun.

Losing a painting by a mediocre artist is a price worth paying to remind them their goals are not accepted. They've become far too emboldened in the last few years.

1

WhyWorryAboutThat t1_isbd05x wrote

The nazis were burning history books about the groups they targeted, books of scientific research which contradicted their perceived superiority, and political books supporting platforms that went against their own. The loss of access to that information was devastating and the performance art of public burnings was in service of a nazi regime. Destroying Hitler's painting isn't keeping anyone from seeing the image and is performance art in opposition to nazis.

5

WhyWorryAboutThat t1_is9zoxo wrote

Burning books is evil because it restricts access to information and infringes on a right to speech. Destroying temples is bad because it restricts the right to assemble and worship freely. Not because all art is sacred and destroying it is a crime against intelligence. Unsold books get pulped and recycled and ancient statues lose their paint and look completely different than intended. Even if there was still some artistic merit to get from an original Hitler that we haven't found yet, the act of destroying it wil be performance art making a more powerful statement of its own. It's not preventing people from expressing or sharing ideas nor is its destruction a tool to oppress anyone.

10