From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Wed Jan 30 2002 - 22:57:40 MST
> That's my point - at some point, even in a libertarian government, someone
> needs to have personal responsibility for the artistic appearance of
> public buildings. There is nothing wrong with Ashcroft taking charge of
> the appearance of his building. Curtains are not "vandalism" and he is
> not destroying his predecessors' efforts, just temporarily switching them
> off. Sure, Ashcroft's decision may only be temporary; sure, we may
> disagree with it; my point is that is that it is legitimately Ashcroft's
> decision. How would we feel if a transhumanist Attorney General were
> mocked in the media for putting a curtain over, say, a painting of God
> judging sinners?
Fair point. In a /truly/ libertarian society of course, there /are/
no such things as "public" buildings, so the problem doesn't exist.
But I suppose since we do have to compromise on that point a bit, we'll
have to compromise on the public art issue too. And just for the
record, I'd leave that painting--as I'd leave one depicting slavery,
or war, and other despicable things--they're still my history if not
my future.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:37 MST