Discover and share stories

of adventure, connection, and change making.

6 people think this is good

Discuss

  1. {{attachment.file.name}}
  1. {{fields.video_link.url}}

Ready to post! You’ve uploaded the maximum number of images.

Your video is ready to post!

Oops! Nice pic, but it’s just not our (file) type. Please try uploading a .jpg or .png image.

Well, this is embarrassing. Something went wrong when posting your comment. Care to try again?

That image is too large. Maximum size is 6MB.

Please enter a valid URL from YouTube or Vimeo.

Embedding has been disabled for this video.

{{c.errors.other}}

Posting comment...

  • Tom Maybrier

    Challenging question - at the end, I think that without an explicit artist's statement there isn't an answer.

    At some point, the artist's work may or may not become the property of the public or institution that owns it. These works that are designed to change with time represent a unique challenge with respect to their handling.

    • Alessandra Rizzotti

      I think this is more of a question about preserving history. When the Nazis destroyed a lot of art during the war, I imagine we lost some really important artifacts. Now with the digital age, we can preserve things with a picture online, but there's so much value to a tangible piece of art. If we can preserve, why don't we- or is that taking up too much space and should we really be spending money on something like that when we should probably use science to conserve our environment? It all depends on what we value-- and what we think is important...and maybe we should all start unifying over what we think is important?