Piccaso's painting. Just a question...

L I N K - T O - S T O R Y.

OK I drive, make a mistake, hit the pedestrian, my fault out of negligence and not intention. The guy goes gets a sharp teeth lawyer, sues me is entitled to all of my life gathered asset if his damage is sever enough.
A guy who can't see well, has enough money to buy anything in the world, while careless play with a none replaceable art peace such as Picasso's painting that he owns because he can buy it and don't let a right organization such as a museum take care of it, makes a H O L E in it...

Is this right? Well he owns it.

Don't I as a citizen of this world have a right to a unique non replaceable art artifact, same way as every other member of human population in the world village, with the hope to see our offspring can see it and inspire by it too?

What punishment he deserves if any....?

Just a simple question and like to know your opinion as photographer interested in Art.

Punishment? Last I knew...it wasn't illegal to damage or destroy your own personal property unless you are trying to defraud someone by doing so. It may be sad that a senseless and tragic fate befell such an interesting work of art, but the crime is no different than if you put a match to one of your 4x6's. Much as many people would like it to be...stupidity is not a crime.

"OK I drive, make a mistake, hit the pedestrian, my fault out of negligence and not intention. The guy goes gets a sharp teeth lawyer, sues me is entitled to all of my life gathered asset if his damage is sever enough.
A guy who can't see well, has enough money to buy anything in the world, while careless play with a none replaceable art peace such as Picasso's painting that he owns because he can buy it and don't let a right organization such as a museum take care of it, makes a H O L E in it...

Is this right? Well he owns it. " Exactly. He owns it.

"Don't I as a citizen of this world have a right to a unique non replaceable art artifact, same way as every other member of human population in the world village, with the hope to see our offspring can see it and inspire by it too?"
No. He owns it.

"What punishment he deserves if any....?" Even to a billionnaire, a potential 139 million USD loss is pretty severe punishment for momentary inattention. Besides, he owns it.

I love to look at nice photographs. If you ever accidentally drop or otherwise damage one of your lenses or other equipment, expect a call from my attorney seeking compensation for the potential deprivation of the sensory enrichment that I, as a citizen of this world, could have, perhaps, under the proper circumstances, derived from the images that you, at some undetermined time in the future, might have produced had you not been so careless. And don't even think of deleting an image from your hard drive, photo viewer or CF card.

samsen wrote in post #2139671
A guy who can't see well, has enough money to buy anything in the world, while careless play with a none replaceable art peace such as Picasso's painting that he owns because he can buy it and don't let a right organization such as a museum take care of it, makes a H O L E in it...

That guy you mentioned isn't just some guy, he happens to be Steve Wynn. Incase you don't get to vegas often, he's the one that owns the big curved copper colored building that says "Wynn" on it and cost 3 billion dollars to build. It's not like he lost 139 million, he was gonna sell it, now he's not, his casino makes that much in a few months, not to mention the loot he made by selling the Mirage and Bellagio. He's not some drunk idiot with a bum eye from huntin' he has a medical condition with his eye, and as he said "better him than someone else" And he wasn't carelessly playing with it like a tennis ball with a dog, he was pointing out another Picasso that he owns.
Is the painting worth less now? yeah probably, but what about 100 years from now? when people retell the sorry of Steve Wynn accidentally putting a hole in it, having it fixed and keeping it, all while letting the buyer out of the contract. Oh, and I highly doubt the insurance he has on that painting doesn't cover such an event.

If I had more money than God and decided to buy every famous painting that I could and then used the canvas as kindling in my fireplace, NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.

Once I have ownership of a priceless, irreplaceable work of art, it's mine to do with as I please.

The only thing that can be done to prevent it is if the artwork was deemed a "National Treasure" or some such legally protected work.

Lastly, it's a matter of worth. It's wood, canvas, oils and pigments. Beyond aesthetics, it's only worth is that it'll keep the rain off your head or plug a drafty hole in the wall. We, as intelligent creatures, assign worth to art based on variables that are meaningful to us on non-practical purposes. Is it a shame that the painting was damaged? Not to me. I'd never seen it before and I have no appreciation for Picasso's work. I wouldn't hang it in my house because I don't think it'd improve the look of any room. I'd only hang it in my house so people could say "Holy Crap! Where'd Bill get a Picasso?" I'd only keep it so my kids could sell it off when I die. It has no worth to me.

He didn't deliberately damage it. And even if he did, like runninmann said, he owns it.

BillsBayou wrote in post #2140955
Once I have ownership of a priceless, irreplaceable work of art, it's mine to do with as I please.

IMHO(And pls prove to me I am wrong) it is a shame to feel this way. Egocenteric attitude to the power of infinity. Wouldn't ethic draw a line at some point?

BillsBayou wrote in post #2140955
Is it a shame that the painting was damaged? Not to me. I'd never seen it before and I have no appreciation for Picasso's work.

Next time coming to LA, I invite you to pay a visit to "Jean Paul Getty" Museum. You can see some of most beautiful works of thousands of most famous artists of various area, all kept under state of art optimal conditions that assures their preservation for generation to come, spend many days to cover the place including nice gardens exhibits, research projects and get ready, its all free. Yes FREE. Getty was one millioner similar to Wynne but probably could see well out of box, not blind by retinitis pigmentosa or green dollar bills or gold coins. There is a reason Getty will remain for ever and another person could turn into an infamous creature. I am not saying that for Wynne as form what I read and hear, the guy is not only smart but very generous to his Casino and otherwise employee with top salaries and benefites. Also respect for his facility guests, is involved with many charities along with his wife.
What I want to understand is why if own a book that I can not read or understand, or have a bird that I do not know how to feed and take care off, why shouldn't I give it to some one or some organization that can, with my terms set forth.

deadpass wrote in post #2140095
Oh, and I highly doubt the insurance he has on that painting doesn't cover such an event.

For your information, famous artifacts such as Picasso painting is not insurable. In oder words, no insurance company accept assigning such risk for the reason that is exactly my point in asking this question here. This holds good for every major museum, just ask from your own or email authorities in Louver etc. There are things that money can not simply replace.

I would love to see a right lawyer if not representing people of Spain, at least representing civilized human society gets involve in such issues. Do any man has the right to own something of this nature?

What makes me to be even more worry is that what if the painting that Wynn bought for about 40 million dollar and was estimated for about 139 million dollar, is in need of some tricky publicity to increase the potential value if it is put for sale.... Scary though that works on mathematical formulas....

samsen wrote in post #2139671
Don't I as a citizen of this world have a right to a unique non replaceable art artifact, same way as every other member of human population in the world village, with the hope to see our offspring can see it and inspire by it too?

I think the only "right" you or any of the rest of us that just happen to be born have is to die. Sucking wind for a few seconds doesn't really buy you any other right. Everything else is just gravy.

Bummer about the painting, for sure. But so far the world hasn't quit producing idiots so I guess this type of thing is to be expected. I hope if it's important to you to own such a thing, you get to some day. I think people like the guy samsen mentioned are more honorable in wanting to share it.

So did I mention how much I like gravy? hmmm.

JaertX wrote in post #2143744
I think the only "right" you or any of the rest of us that just happen to be born have is to die. Sucking wind for a few seconds doesn't really buy you any other right. Everything else is just gravy.

Death is the fact of life, the moment an egg is fertilized. Not a right.
Looking at society as it stands today before us, I see very very deep seated, may be invisible to necked eye roots, set by our forefather who had the vision to go far beyond their life span. Some of us are responsible in every area, or some are more responsible than others. We wouldn't otherwise be here in first place.

JaertX wrote in post #2143744
I hope if it's important to you to own such a thing, you get to some day.

I would not be able to live if I had owned one such thing knowing my incapability in handling it as it deserves. If the painting is given to me today, I make sure it gets its safe way to the museum that I know can take care of it right. It surely doesn't belong to my home wall.