Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Culturally or Historically Significant Artwork Be Property of the State?
Culturally or historically significant artwork should become the property of the state.
Defining what is culturally or historically significant allows a government to present a particular historical narrative that works in their favour.
This is an opportunity to repatriate artwork to the country where it came from.
This allows the government to pay homage to specific cultural groups in its society.
When owned by the state, the art can be put in museums and galleries and can be accessed by the public.
It is unfair to private owners and collectors for their property to be forcibly bought from them.
This removes the cultural value of artworks by putting a price on them.
It would cost a lot of money for the state to buy this art off private owners and collectors.
No, this artwork can be property of the state if the artist lets it, but it is the right of the artist to give it to whom ever they want.
For culturally significant artwork that was owned by local indigenous groups, it would be perceived that the state is taking their culture away from them.
Should Culture be Supported by the State?
Should Art Made By Abusers Be Removed From Cultural Institutions?
Should we judge the quality of artwork based on the conduct of the artist?