I heard a person speak of the value of a painting in terms of human life. This fellow posited that a painting is never worth a human life, nor 10 paintings, nor even the entire Louvre is worth blood. I found this take to be both cowardly and ridiculous, and it made me curious if this was his real opinion or just a virtue signal. Wars have been fought for far less. And humans die from causes much less noble by nature. Perhaps it would be fairer to posit that people would rather die protecting Starry Night by Van Gogh than die from cancer.
The truth is, most people die ignobly from natural maladies. It is quite clear that the loss would be softened if parties hurt by it knew that the individual died for a reason; that reason being to protect something both precious and beautiful. Even the killed individual should feel better knowing he died for something. Dying for nothing, as most people do, is a tragedy. While dying for something is an honor that should be welcomed and celebrated.
Therefore, let's dispense with the sanctimonious "art isn't worth a human life". It absolutely is, and the overvaluation of life is both troublesome and pathetic. Death is not so bad as to excuse cowardice. If you believe in an afterlife, then you should be secure knowing your place in it. If there is no afterlife, you are simply returning to the void that you were in before you were born. Either way, death causes no harm to you. You may raise an objection regarding unfinished projects and grieving friends and family, but death strikes everyone, so it was always going to be the case that misfortunes would occur.
In any event, I know Starry Night is worth my life. Whether I would be brave enough to offer myself in exchange is another question, but that doesn't change the value of the painting or of my being. A single individual's bravery does not affect the equation. Of course, I wouldn't conscript anyone to die for Starry Night, but people should not be scared to die for beauty and aesthetics.
Comments
Post a Comment