• intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Jax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.