A story out of New York intrigued me and came back as a question as to what I would do. I thought I’d ask for your opinions. “Picasso’s Unmovable Feast” in February 13th’s Wall Street Journal recounts the foibles of one Aby Rosen, a NYC real-estate developer whose company owns the Seagrams building wants to remove (and thereby collaterally destroy) “Le Tricorne” a painting by Picasso. The full story is here: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304104504579375293785466778.
He has every legal right to do so although there is still some rangeling going on and the painting, on a large theater curtain might be preserved by the Museum of Modern Art. But here’s the question:
Is any art, formerly thought of as a masterpiece, protected for all time? Is it only great master art that’s protected and revered (who determines the artist is a “forever master”)? Is everything such an artist ever done thus protected. Does hindsight have anything to do with it? Do current mores, tastes, culture, politics (OK, I’ll take that one back) allow for a “protected” art work to be destroyed, removed from the pantheon of culture? This not only applies to Picasso like work. What about, say, Nazi art or truly socially offensive art.
Is it ok to destroy bad napkin drawing by Dali if everyone agreed it was trash? I understand he did a few for the bucks.
Not sure at this point how I would answer except to say that not everything is forever, always.