Paul Clapham wrote:And come to that, why is the Mona Lisa "great art" anyway? As far as I can tell it's just a Kardashian, famous for being famous and nothing else.
Winston Gutkowski wrote:I don't think it can simply be based on "do I like it?", because there are plenty of artists (Van Gogh for me) and paintings that I'm not wild about - including old Mona - but I'm happy to concede are great.
Stephan van Hulst wrote:Why? What makes them great?
Paul Clapham wrote:And then presumably people keep creating more "great art" as time goes on. There isn't an infinite budget for preservation so presumably some of the old stuff will have to be tossed out when the consensus decides on which of the new stuff is "great art".
Winston Gutkowski wrote:I also believe that in cases like Venice and the Great Wall of China (you may be able to think of others), where huge sums of money are required to "keep" it, and it can be reasonably argued to have "world" or "human" significance, we should ALL be prepared to pay a bit towards its maintenance.
Stephan van Hulst wrote:I would argue that the economic boost from tourism would partly pay for maintenance.
Winston Gutkowski wrote:To me, it's a simple equation: either the Pyramids and the Parthenon and Venice - not to mention all those paintings we've been talking about - belong to us all or they don't. If they do, and we want our grandchildren to enjoy them, then everybody should pay.
fred rosenberger wrote:So you are suggesting a global tax paid by every citizen in the world for these things?
Someone working at or below the poverty line is not going to go to the Lourve, Egypt, Manchu Pichu, China, Italy, Greece, and everywhere else.