▲ 26 points
back
67 comments
Supreme court chief justice Oliver Wendell Holmes identified Boston as “The Hub of the Solar System", which is still somehow how people in the area think of themselves in my opinion. I live in the area. So it would be this:
https://www.gardnermuseum.org/organization/theft
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-things-know-a...
The British museum collection
was going to say, it's apparently only theft if it's from a museum or collection, and not say, WWII plunder, or the whole music industry.
I was going to argue generative AI, but the British Museum collection is definitely a good contender.
The British museum (and other museums) preserve what would have otherwise been destroyed had it remained wherever they took it from. The nations they recovered artifacts from probably don't even exist anymore. The artifacts only survive because the museum discovered them.
The nations they recovered artifacts from probably don't even exist anymore.
I've heard they even preserve a whole group of islands next to Argentina among other places.
They are certainly preserving the right to self-determination for the people who live there…
Wales, Chile, Greece, China and Egypt aren't countries? That's news to me. Its even more surprising since all of those imaginary countries have museums that hold ancient artifacts that did survive the British museum's "preservation".
Even if you accept the argument that the British Museum "saved" these artifacts, what argument is there now to keep them? Greece has gone so far as to build an entire world class museum in anticipation of the return of the artifacts they claim.
Sarcastically: If there is real concern about these artifacts wouldn't it make sense to remove them from an insular island monarchy with unstable governance and a declining economy?
Let's see.
China, destroyed whole of things during "Cultural Revolution". "Cool and traditional" you see there is just there as a tourist attraction.
Countless ancient sites and artifacts were destroyed during the Syrian civil war.
Egypt...they literally created art destruction before Christianity and then Christianity really speed things up. Look up "Pharaonic Iconoclasm". Then there was take two in 13-14th centuries. Many monuments were destroyed to reuse materials.
Nearly every country that was under communism rule long enough had their heritage destroyed.
Too lazy to lookup Chile and Greece, but I bet Greece would be a pretty different relationship with its past if KKE won.
While Brits did steal a lot, can't argue that they did preserve plenty.
Your defense of British colonialism stealing art is that it preserved culture?
I think that a lot more culture would have been preserved without British colonial genocides.
If China wants to destroy their cultural heritage, that's their right. Same with Syria, Egypt, India, Africa, wherever. No one owes colonizers the gift of their heritage, culture or artifacts.
Sure, the British preserved plenty, but that isn't relevant when none of it was theirs to preserve.
The Nazis put up some stiff competition when it comes to the wholesale theft of art.
What about art in museums all over the world that is requested back by the country of origin?
They should sue as anyone else can for goods back, if they have proof they own it .
There have been many articles written about this, you should read them. But in some of the more egregious cases, I would ask you this: how do you sue a government for plundered art when the government has passed laws that prevent you from suing the government?
You're talking about publicly possessed (stolen or not) art where the public won't vote to allow consideration of patriating the art abroad?
You said lawsuit. In many countries, a lawsuit is not feasible.
I said sue, not lawsuit. In some countries you use a lawsuit. In others, it merely means to seek legal redress such as petitioning a dictator.
Impose tariffs on their exports.
Perhaps what's going on now with AI?
Art theft implies actually stealing something from someone. IE taking something away from someone else. So that they no longer have access to that thing. For instance the occasion discussed in the article is about art being stolen from a museum. So that people can no longer go to that museum and look at that art.
I hope you can see the difference between that and the "theft" of "intellectual property" that is so hyped today.
>Art theft implies actually stealing something from someone.
This implies art is by definition a physical thing, which is not something I or many others would agree with. Art can be many things, some of which are tangible, and some which aren't (A live performance, a digital painting etc.).
While the article is talking about physical paintings, I posit that the biggest art theft in history is happening now via AI training. AI which is endangering the very same artists that unwittingly trained it for nothing in return and benefit for others.
>This implies art is by definition a physical thing
It doesn't, you're reading something that isn't there. It defines "theft", not "art". Regardless of what you think, theft has a pretty clear definition, and intellectual property cannot be stolen. It can be "damaged" by other means - call it plagiarism, data laundering, copyright infringement, commoditization, losing distinctiveness (trademarks can be lost that way), impersonation, but whatever you call it, it's specifically not theft, neither legally nor logically. It was discussed a million times and trying to retrofit theft onto intellectual property is manipulation.
I truly hate how people try to worm their way out of these discussions with their "um actuallys". I'm extremely confident a majority of artists did not consent to this use of their work. You can define whatever you want or make whatever shitty legal argument you want, the AI companies knew what they were doing was unethical or they would have released some provenance with respect to their training set. This is very new and a legal grey area. I don't think we need to mince a lot of words to state that clearly the work of artists is being exploited here without credit, consent, or compensation. These models simply would not exist without alienated labor. These products are clearly intended to be a substitute for artists work. If it's determined to be legal, fine, but society doesn't have to pretend you're not a piece of shit for doing this stuff.
The OP is about physical museum heists. Any actuallys belong to those who are trying to bring the %current_event%-related snark into the discussion in the first place, especially while ignoring a pretty important distinction which hurts those discussions and tends to turn them into emotional shamefests with little substance.
This is missing the thrust of my argument. By stealing a physical painting you are removing the ability for other people to look at that painting. When a digital painting is used in the training of some AI model it is not removed from the internet. Anybody can still go look at that digital painting wherever it is posted. Nothing is being stolen from anyone in this scenario.
The argument then is that the AI model is stealing potential profits from the artist who posted the image. This also doesnt make sense because the artist is not charging to see that image. It is posted for anyone who has the link and a web browser to see it.
Artists make public portfolios to find work and get jobs. Being available to view publicly is not the same thing as the artist giving you permission to do whatever you want with their work. In fact, I saw a blurb under one of these posts from an artist that explicitly said they did not want their work used in any ai training, earlier today.
The problem that you're ignoring is that these models can substitute for the product these artists were making. Why go to a particular artist when you can train an AI model on their public portfolio and reproduce their style? That's the argument that this isn't fair use, it damages the market and reputation of the original artist.
Absolutely AI will change the market nobody is denying that.
Calling it theft or wanting to ban it is absolutely ridiculous though.
Technology changes markets. Photography changed the art market. The internet changed the art market. The printing press changed the art market.
Notice people still paint, do caligraphy, do linoleum block printing etc.
AI will not destroy art and im sure it will change the art market but thats just how things are.
Someone call the University and shut down the art department. All of those students being trained off of examples from other artists before them are nothing more than thieves!
Not a single instance of theft but Stéphane Breitwieser is probably the most prolific art thief. I read Michael Finkel's 2023 book on the thefts and it was a riveting read.
Sadly, not even close to the biggest...
https://www.apollo-magazine.com/red-army-trophy-art-germany/
Also probably in contention is the plunder of the Aztecs by the Spanish.
And let's not forget all the things that the British Empire stole from its subjects across the world.
Or consider the Old Summer Palace in Beijing by Anglo-French forces during the second opium war.
Don't forget the Incas!
Ever seen The Monuments Men?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monuments_Men
No. Is it any good?
“In 1990, the estimated value of the stolen collection amounted to $200,000, but thirty years later, it exceeded half a billion”
Feels implausible. Maybe a typo.
Probably the theft of the Mona Lisa
A.I training models...
How is this big?
I thought that was the stealing of the Amber Room from Leningrad outskirts by Nazis.
Needless to say it was never recovered. Perhaps it has burned in transit or in 1945, perhaps somebody else is enjoying it to that day.
Disney