A Thunk is a beguilingly simple-looking question about everyday things that stops you in your tracks and helps you start to look at the world in a whole new light. © Ian Gilbert
Thunk 38
If you were cold, would it be ok to burn a renaissance painting for warmth?
60 comments:
There are many factors that must be considered in order to answer this question. Firstly, I’d like to say that renaissance art is one of the earliest forms of art that have been created with such detail, such precision, and all of it came together to create masterpieces like the Mona Lisa. Coming to the argument – not happening. If I was cold, I’d probably go to the extent of pouring hot coffee on myself, which seems better than such a stupid act. I say this because firstly, this form of art has way too much value and sentiment in today’s world, giving it some sort of meaning to people of this century. Secondly (and this one’s my favourite), instead of lighting a painting down to ashes just for warmth, I’d rather just sell it off and buy myself a sauna, or ten of them, because honestly that seems more sensible. What I’m saying is, save the painting, or better, sell the painting, but for the sake of common sense and humanity, don’t burn it!
I imagine Raphael in Vatican City spending hour after long and tedious hour painting The Madonna of the Goldfinch. I picture Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel painting with such vigor and vitality that it left the people of Italy speechless. I visualize Leonardo Da Vinci as a young boy learning to paint, his eyes lighting up when he first began his apprenticeship to artist Verrocchio.
Now I envision their talent and genius in flames. And for what? For a girl who can only draw a mildly alright, mostly terrible stick figure at best. As someone who cannot contribute to the world of art and culture what the greats of the Renaissance did, I do not believe my moral compass would let me burn one of their paintings to simply keep myself warm. I would not be able to tolerate the ache that the warmth would bring forth with it. Neither do I think the warmth would compensate for it.
So really, I would rather be a cold, frostbitten individual with virtue than let guilt and remorse blanket my conscience.
The only way i would be burning ANY painting , would be by accident!! One would have to be inhumane, immoral or simply out of their mind to consider burning a century old piece of art, that took a lot of time, patience, dedication and skill, merely for warmth. Bare the cold, or like Chirag rightly states, sell it off. You would make enough money to buy a life supply of sweaters and heaters to keep you warm!
Well, there are a few things left to be considered. How cold am I, exactly? Where am I? Who am I?
Well, dealing with the first question, I'll assume, for all intensive purposes, that I am EXTREMELY cold. To be fair to me, if I was that cold, you could forgive me for burning a work of art. If I was just "chilly", I most probably wouldn't burn the painting.
So, assuming I'm extremely cold AND I was in a big metropolitan city - I would go ahead and find someone to sell the painting to. A renaissance painting could go for a few million dollars, and that would probably be enough for me to buy an apartment with a heater (or even just a heater with a generator). However, if I was extremely cold and in some remote, rural area, I probably wouldn't be able to make any money off it, so would burn it for heat. In the end, I would view my survival as a higher priority than that of the renaissance painting.
Lastly, let's assume I am stuck in a rural, extremely cold part of the world AND I am a renaissance purist - a man who has a passion for renaissance art and values it above most, if not all, other worldly things. Common sense would tell me to burn it, but the renaissance painting may just hold too much value for me. I would rather die than see a painting like that destroyed. And so I don't burn the painting, and I die of hypothermia. However, the extremely cold, rurally-located pragmatist would probably do what he needs to survive. He would burn it, and might just survive.
The choice is reflective of one's state of mind. Self-preservation prevails - despite what they say.
I believe the answer to this question is simple, no, it won’t be alright and it doesn’t matter if you are just a little cold or about to die of hyperthermia; it would probably be the worst mistake of your life to burn a Renaissance painting. Renaissance paintings are one of their kind, each one painted by the greatest artists to ever walk the surface of the earth using new found materials that have never been used before, and each with the fingerprints of their creator.
We have tried very hard to preserve and maintain the integrity of these paintings to great success even centuries later and today, these Renaissance paintings are worth many millions and sometimes even billions of dollars with security to the extent of being encased with bullet proof glass and several security guards on call (in the case of Mona Lisa, for example). Burning such prestigious paintings just to keep you warm would be a really selfish act. The worst part is that it won’t even keep you warm for that long. All the hard work destroyed in mere minutes. On the other hand, think of all the benefits to you if you save the painting. You could sell it for millions of dollars/pounds/currency and probably retire early, live life to the fullest, do stuff you probably never could etc. Basically, it would do you more good to save the painting than not.
I choose to make sacrifices for various reasons. Firstly, I sacrifice things for the wellbeing of myself, and for my loved ones. I make sacrifices when I believe that I will benefit from my decision in the long run. I make sacrifices as an act of prioritization. Sometimes, it is impossible to have both things, so I choose what I want most, and what’s in my best interests.
First, lets set the most extreme of circumstances to this situation, so the answer isn’t so trivial: I am stranded in Antarctica, and have been hiking for seventeen hours straight, wearing a coat, tracks, hiking boots and gloves. I have no hope to be rescued at this time of night, and the only method of transportation is walking. I know that there is a ranger-station two hours away, but when I try walking, I black out from tiredness. The only way to save myself and survive the night is to burn the Renaissance painting I have found in the snow.
So lets weigh both sides: on one side, you have a classic Renaissance painting worth billions of dollars. Most importantly, the painting embodies the nature of the Renaissance era and it is a tribute to an artist’s hard work, dedication, and it personifies the true prodigious class of the painter. It is some of the only evidence of that person’s involvement in the field of art, and some of the only evidence to prove their existence. On the other side, there’s me: my life, my goals and aspirations, my dreams, my loved ones, my experiences.
The question is: what should you value more? Your life, or the painting?
I love art. I love the way art can bridge the gap between colour, tone and emotion. In particular, during the Renaissance era, art was truly acknowledged as a form of expression. Renaissance art captures the true essence of the use of elaborate technicality in order to convey a poignant message that is preserved on an easel for generations, and generations to come.
However, I would not say that I value a Renaissance painting over my own life. It’s not only the inherent animal instinct and impulsiveness that makes us do whatever it takes to stay alive. That’s not the only reason why it would be ok to burn the painting. With all due respect, it’s more about the fact that it’s inanimate versus a real life person, a person who lives and breathes and has a beating heart. Everyone deserves the right to life, a right that can’t be compromised, even for a Renaissance painting.
I know that right now, I am not worth as much as that painting, in an economic sense. As of now, I have not made a long-lasting impact on the world, the way the painting has, and I have not put in the hard work into a profession, the way the artist has. But hopefully one day, I will achieve these things. It would be ok to burn the painting in faith that my life does have the potential to be as valuable than the painting. It would be ok to burn it because we all have the potential to touch the lives of people and make a revolutionary impact on the world, the way Renaissance art does.
I believe there are two important conditions that need to be contemplated before this question can actually be answered: How cold am I? Where am I?
Undoubtedly, if I was just a bit chilly and could survive on other things, I wouldn't burn the painting.
But, if I was extremely cold, and a few hours away from death, I think I would burn the painting...
If, for example, I was in a forest or a place wherein there were alternative things to burn to create heat, I would definitely use them and preserve the painting. Conversely, if I was trapped in an unbearably cold environment with nothing else to burn, I would burn the painting.
I feel a little guilty saying that I would burn the work of past artists that we look up to today, because there is a certain admiration people acquire for giving their life up to preserve something. It's seen and treated like a heroic act, and rightly so.
However, it all boils down to how rare these paintings are. If the painting I had to burn was the only renaissance painting that existed, I would probably preserve it and neglect my personal needs. But currently, we have many renaissance paintings to admire and appreciate. This sheds a different kind of light on the situation...
Assuming the situation is as follows: you're so cold even cryogenic storage wouldn't keep you alive, you have one match left and the only possible thing you can light is a renaissance painting (yes, you're clothless).
Let's be cold and calculating about this. We're valuing the (possibly timeless) work of an artist, against your life. Perhaps you're noble (/foolish). Perhaps you value your life much less than you value the painting.
Let's tweak the scenario a little.
Imagine you're in the final scene of Titanic. You somehow manage to make it onto the raft (which I always thought should have been the story anyway), so both you and your Jack/Rose (the apple of your eye) are clinging on to life together.
You wanted to be romantic, so you snuck a renaissance painting out the first class art gallery and a box of matches out the kitchen, right before the ship began to fill up with water.
She/he is slipping away.
You light match after match, trying desperately to keep them from sinking into the abyss. You're down to your last match. You may never meet a match like him/her again. The only thing keeping your significant other breathing has been the heat of your love and the matches.
You have a choice to make.
Do you burn the Renaissance painting? Or do you snuff out your last match, along with the love of your life?
Perhaps this second scenario will make the reality of the situation clearer. Whether you're being cold and calculating, or warm and emotional, we're weighing the value of a painting against the value of a life. I cannot, with a clean conscience, value the former over the latter, no matter whether it’s my life, or someone else’s. The significance of a painting is variable. The significance of a life is not. And it (almost) always beats a painting.
I say almost because many noble people have died for their beliefs and ideals (ala Socrates). If that painting represented an ideal I'm willing to die for (that I could not personally propagate by surviving), I wouldn't burn it. The reason I included this as a possibility is because I'm not aware of every Renaissance painting - however, from the ones I'm familiar with, none fit my "worth dying for" criteria.
In any other situation but pretty certain death, it wouldn’t be okay to burn the painting. It seems safe to say “suck it up” if you’re feeling a little nippy. Come over to my place with the painting, and you might even score some hot chocolate.
The painters of the Renaissance would do the same. They were humanists. Their works emphasized the beauty of the human body and spirit. Lifetimes of their work would be meaningless if we sacrificed humanity for it.
The main struggle for one would be choosing between the significance of one's life over the importance of artistic masterpieces. I personally value human life.Many would argue that we are far much less significant than a great painting done by masters. I would beg to differ. We as humans have infinite potential to create, we may not be able to recreate the greatness of renaissance art, but we would have the ability to contribute to a better world. We may think we need more paintings to help further our knowledge and expand our horizons, whereas the truth of the matter lies within believing in the significance that one person may cause a lot of change. Simply, a painting might cause one to ponder over worldly matters, while a person's life would be far more significant if he/she entered into someone else's life and made them a better person, or changed their existence to the better. Yes, in a tragic situation, if highly required, I would consider burning a painting if it meant saving someone's life. Although due to lack of experience,thankfully, we can not truly determine our own reactions at moments of severe deprivation.
As so many have said before me, it truly does depend on how cold one is. To answer with a mere 'yes' or 'no' would be neglecting the broad scale of potential situations at hand.
Of course, if I were in a moderately cold area and was not restricted to that one area only, I wouldn't burn the renaissance painting that mysteriously ended up in my possession.
However, if I were surrounded by four walls radiating (oh, the irony) nothing but ice cold air (like in a freezer room), or even if I was stranded in the arctic tundra with nothing but the renaissance painting and a lighter - I would burn it.
Sure, I'd like to believe I wouldn't burn the renaissance painting. I'd like to believe I would instead die a martyr in the name of art. Unfortunately ( fortunately) that's not how reality would play it's cards even if the oil painted ashes promised me only a few more minutes on earth.
In situations as harsh and brutal like this, we humans will take ginormous strides towards shelter. Some of us wouldn't. Some of us would even die protecting objects that hold sentimental value.
But I'm not among that 'some'.
There's this really interesting video by jason silva that I watched a few days ago. He was talking about the extreme lengths humans would go to in order to experience cathartic emotions. How we are willing to do just about anything to give birth to art. Jason ended the video with a question for us to ponder upon:
"can we be destroyed by art, our own art?"
And although he was talking more along the lines of experiencing catharsis, I do believe we would be going to extreme lengths by preserving that renaissance painting in our frostbitten embrace.
Ultimately my aspirations, memories and experiences matter more to me. I wouldn't be thinking about the hard work those artists exercised, I'd be thinking about warm blankets and fireplaces.
But as I said in the beginning, if the situation isn't elusively extreme and life threatening, I wouldn't burn it.
Well according to me, it merely depends on how cold the conditions are. A renaissance painting would be nothing but a pure and true piece of art which deserves a certain level of respect and appreciation. So until the conditions are extreme, which would obviously mean lethal. I wouldn't even think of putting renaissance art to ashes.
Let's paint a picture here; I'm in the Arctic on an expedition gone completely wrong, stuck in a raging blizzard and have taken shelter in cave; I'm literally freezing to death, starving and my fingers are about to fall off. Yet there is hope! In the cave, there is a forgotten renaissance painting and with me I have a lighter. now as much I would like to be the hero and say that I would not burn the painting, logically speaking I probably would. My primitive instincts would have kicked in and the dominating thought in me would be to SURVIVE. So yes in that situation, I would have definitely burned the painting because all I would want in that moment is to survive (even if it's just for a couple of hours). Besides wasn't the renaissance an epoch of celebrating human life and how wondrous it was (and still is); wouldn't it be ironic of me to give my own life away to salvage a painting that's fundamental message is about celebrating human life and existence? (;
On the other hand, if it was a slightly chilly December morning and the breeze was blowing and I just happen to have a renaissance painting with me as well as my trusty lighter, I would definitely not burn the renaissance painting. first of all I'm no sadist and I will be in a rational state of mind during this situation, therefore I would know the amount of time and effort that these artists exerted to make these sheer masterpieces, so therefore I would not be burning it.
Would i burn a renaissance painting to keep myself warm?
Think about the months of work, the detailed lines, the expert precision and the unwavering commitment of a renaissance artist, creating an absolute master piece with his own hands. The emotion involved in every drop of paint and the immaculate skill required to craft such works of art.
Yes, renaissance paintings are beautiful and can be the epitome of artistic perfection. HOWEVER, to me, survival and self-preservation is second to absolutely nothing. The ethics of burning a 400 year old painting are debatable, based on what sort of conditions we are talking about. If I was simply "feeling cold", the answer would definitely be no. In contrast, if I was borderline hypothermic, I wouldn;t hesitate to burn any renaissance painting, no matter how valuable, simply because to me, my life is more important than the Mona Lisa.
In conclusion, the answer to this question largely depends on the degree of discomfort you are subjected to. In my opinion. put yourself before anything else. Your life is far more valuable than a square of canvas.
Is it ever okay to burn a painting? A painting is a piece of artwork that consists of hard work, passion, thought and the personal expression of the artists experiences and feelings. It's the collaboration of hours and hours of work and contemplation. All in all, meaning art is precious.
On the other hand, a renaissance painting should be considered even more precious and valuable then any other. Renaissance art is one of the earliest forms of artwork and contains various types of art forms that were created during the renaissance period. Imagine someone of such great importance like Michelangelo or Da Vinci spending hours creating a masterpiece only for someone to BURN it!?
And how much warmth would a single painting create anyways? Why burn a masterpiece that the world could revel in for a few simple, selfish minutes of temporary warmth?
If I ever would be in a life or death situation, isolated and with only Sandro Botticelli’s Primavera to keep me company; the only thing that I could burn which would allow me to survive the cold for at least enough time for the rescue team to get me; would I burn it?
The answer is no. Renaissance paintings such as the Primavera are a celebration of life. They are cultivations of emotion that represent the human condition. To simply have a private moment with such a painting would make me behave like an over excited crack - and so, because of these exact emotions that this piece would draw from me, I would want to extend my audience with the painting for as long as possible. It would be an honour to die surrounded by exquisite beauty.
On the other hand, if I was in this terrible scenario, if I faced death by hypothermia alongside someone I loved, that painting would go down in the blink of an eye. If I could save their life by giving up what is dear to me, dear to the world, I definitely would not hesitate.
When considering the destruction of a masterpiece over the end of my own life, I choose to view the situation with an utilitarian viewpoint: what action would result in the greater good? Obviously I would think the painting higher in importance, compared to me, both in terms of money and significance in the wider community. However when considering the life of a loved one, I would adopt a deontological view. Love would drive me to be moral and ethical, along with a selfish desire to preserve that which is more important to me.
So I’m stranded in Siberia in the middle of snowy winter night and I have limited warm clothing and I’m dying. As bizarre as this situation seems, it’s been made up solely to answer this Thunk. And a fascinating way to answer it might be to relate it to the evolution of Art and its Appreciation.
Art 4000 years ago was restricted to crude cave paintings of animals and men, mostly because everyone was concerned with their survival from predators and starvation and not with the aesthetic features of a wooly mammoth. 3000 years ago, when civilisations began to consolidate themselves, a surplus of food and a security from immediate danger was established and art in the form of writing flourished. Fast forwarding to the Renaissance 600 years ago, Italy became a wealthy land where there was a plenty of everything and Art thrived and painters became rich. Today, people spend entire lives studying and dedicating themselves to Art and it’s protection.
The pattern is obvious. Art only flourishes when there is a surplus. Without a surplus, as was in my case in Siberia, my survival became more important than a canvas that is the subject of praise and admiration only in the context of plentiful sustenance. Context is very important in the evaluation of any substance because ‘one man’s junk is another man’s gold’. Thats the premise our entire economy functions on. Simply put, a human life is much, much more valuable than an oil painting, especially when that same human has the potential to become another Isaac Newton or Michelangelo (when he’s not dying, of course).
In my opinion, a painting from the renaissance age is priceless and irreplaceable. A ripple in time which iignitied some of the best mindsets adopted by the future generations, the renaissance era was really one like no other. So if I were cold, and had a renaissance painting at my disposal. the last thing on my mind would be to burn it to keep warm as that would be extremely selfish. It would be desteoying something precious for your own comfort and consequently, a crime against humaniry.
If you could live with the guilt.
Of course, in extreme situations, no one really thinks about guilt.
Or consequences.
Or morals.
Or what would be considered to ‘ok.’
For it to be ‘ok,’ you would need to define a level to what is ok and what is not.
In different situations and scenarios, the very same action can either be ok or not ok.
Take for example, shooting a human being.
If you randomly walked up to a person on the street and shot them straight through the head with a bullet – That’s not cool dude.
But if that person cornered you in a dark alley and was attacking you, and all you had was a gun to protect yourself and you shot them – That was a smart move bro.
What defines what is ok?
The situation does.
So simply asking the questioning if it’s ok to burn doesn’t suffice.
If you’re in the freezing Antarctic, with nothing but your Renaissance painting to burn and provide warmth and keep you alive until your team comes to save you – It should be ok.
But if you’re sitting in the comfort of your home, and have run out of wood for your fireplace and decide to burn a Renaissance painting because you’re too lazy to go buy some more. – That’s probably not ok.
Before stating an action as acceptable or not in society, people need to learn to look at each individual situation and assess using their beliefs, morals and principles whether what is happening is 'just' or ‘ok.’
As they say,
Never judge a book by its cover.
Before seeking solace to such a thought-inducing dilemma I would like to make some conditions certain. Here, by 'cold' we are referring to extreme temperatures that are completely detrimental to our very own survival. We are also dealing with an instance where the Renaissance painting is the ONLY source of heat in our disposal. In simpler terms, I'm a naked man holding a painting (hopefully not the Vitruvian Man),alone in the North Pole.
If you take a look inside the brain when making such a decision, a very intriguing phenomenon follows.
The left hemisphere of the cerebral body is responsible for processing and solving problems in a linear or logical manner to ensure our immediate survival. After the detection of a cold environment, it initiates the process of homeostasis, where your blood vessels constrict to prevent heat loss and your muscles contract and relax at rapid rates to generate heat (shivering). It then sends impulses to your prefrontal cortex, where decisions are made, making it the voice in your head telling you,"Burn that painting or you will die!!"
Let us now look at what the right hemisphere is doing. This constituent of the brain initiates intuitive, holistic and creative thinking. The right side of the brain completely ignores the primitive survival instinct of the left. It reminds you of the painting's value, history and prominence in society. It tells you that even if you burn the painting it will only keep you alive temporarily. It argues that the painting unlike your life, has withstood the test of time and nature, and so burning it will result in two losses instead of one.
A new question that now arises is: which side do I favor? A study in December 2013 which involved 1,012 brain scans showed that, given equal circumstances, males tend to utilize the left side of the brain while females utilize the right. But even this is not sufficient in predicting the outcome of a situation where a human's very life is threatened. The evolution of our species has ensured that ,if ever faced with such a decision, it will lean to the side which benefits our survival (the left side). This is due to the fact that a hormone, adrenaline is released which would essentially block out everything from the right brain at that moment in time, and have you lighting a splint, looking hungrily at the painting.
So although it may make me a selfish, immoral person to burn the painting for my own intrinsic needs, there is science to prove why.
The first thing that comes to mind when I was asked this question were “SURVIVAL INSTINCTS”, I am sure that as much as I may like to preserve the makings of history, and sacrifice my life to the greater good; I don’t believe that when it comes down to it, that many of us are capable of giving up our lives to preserve someone else’s legacy. In a simple heat of the moment decision, we would all succumb to the primal instinct to survive & BURN THE PAINTING.
It can be argued that the value of life is always greater than that of any materialistic object; which is why burning the painting to survive would seem like the immediate answer. After all the painting maybe a work of art, but then isn’t life too?
However it can also be considered that eventually it will burn out, eventually the painting will turn to ashes and… the what? Eventually, you will be left in the cold again, freezing to death. This poses the question, does burning the painting actually allow you to live significantly longer, or is it a question of a couple of hours. Some might say that eventually everyone is going to end up dying (as of now), we all have to die one day, whereas the painting can theoretically survive forever.
The painting has given a lot of meaning to many people through many centuries. Which is why I am sure I would find myself thinking; will my survival-assuming burning the painting will provide more time to my rescuers-mean that I will be able to leave a similar scale of impact on the world, as the painting did? I would like to think yes, of course, however, it is more likely that I will not end up leaving as big an impact on the world as the painting once did.
I don’t think I can really say whether I would burn the painting to survive, I would like to think and believe that I would never be so selfish, however, the circumstances under which I make the decision may change my stance. Having a successful career, a happy life, a family would impact the decision I make in the end, which is why I don’t think, I personally could reach a conclusion as to what I would do should I ever be in those circumstances.
Never. Not even if I were to freeze to death I would never burn a renaissance painting . Im not going to reiterate standard arguments . I feel that this painting derives it value because either is the representation of am ear in humanity where there was a drive to discover more and more knowledge and a renaissance painting is a ever lasting monument to the collective genius of the menew and women who dedicated their lives in the pursuit of knowledge . Even when Nazi tanks stormed and crushed the freedom of the notoriously patriotic French people , they didn't burn their paintings from various era's including the Renaissance. The very same people who would rather die than hand over precious national heritages to a foreigner realized that if they were to burn their paintings they wouldn't deprive the Nazis of the painting but the rest of humanity of the efforts of men and women who lived over 500 years ago
A Renaissance painting holds a great value, or does it in the face of survival?
Personally, I would never dream of burning a renaissance painting, purely because of sentiment and the knowledge that I possess. However, in dire situation, which has the possibility of the loss of life, one is tempted to throw away that value for something so common as existence on earth, which every single person physically possesses.
There are countless variables to consider before burning that priceless painting to ashes: the extremity of the cold, the area that you are in, the value of the painting that you hold, the level of clothing, the distance to a town, the knowledge of the people of the place, and numerous other things to think about. Through this knowledge and assurance, one can properly make a valid decision.
If I were this poor unfortunate soul, stranded in the middle of the Antarctic, with minimal clothing, and miraculously bestowed with a priceless Renaissance painting, presumably the Lady with the ermine (painted by the Renaissance man himself), I would definitely try not to burn it. But, how long would be till I find civilisation amongst the white, brutal desert? How long would I be able to withstand the pain of starvation, hypothermia, frostbite and dehydration? What are the chances of finding someone, who is aware of the and passionate about the value of the painting? All these questions make me think. In this response, everyone will thoroughly and earnestly state that it would be impossible to commit such a thing, but in that situation, everyone will do otherwise.
When reading the question I found it quite vague, and the first thing that came to mind was, "just how cold would i be?", having lived in Dubai for the past five year, I get cold whenever the temperature is lower than 20 degrees, but in such circumstances it would be very unreasonable to burn a renaissance painting, not only because of the history behind it and it's symbolic value but also because of it's monetary value. If I did possess a renaissance painting, it would have taken me years of hard work to get enough money to be able to buy the painting, and it would mean a lot to me, so i wouldn't burn it just because I was in a situation where i was a bit cold. But many answers took being stranded naked on Antarctica as an example, in which case the cold is killing you, so I'll go with that. First of all what would you use to ignite the fire, if you are in a situation where you have let's say a match you would probably have access to other material that you could burn for warmth. But let's say you can magically light the painting on fire, if the painting is an actually renaissance painting, as in it is hundreds of years old,the fumes from the fire would be toxic so you might as well freeze to death. So no it would not be ok to burn a renaissance painting not just because of it's emotional, historical, symbolical and monetary value, but also because I would be killing myself.
If you were cold, would it be ok to burn a renaissance painting for warmth?
The answer to this question is very subjective and situational, and assigning a definite yes or no would, at the very least, be irrational. If by cold you mean merely uncomfortable then that would be a definite no because I realise the amount of effort and hard work put into the creation of one of these paintings would make burning the painting an incredibly selfish act.
However, If I was freezing and on the brink of death due to hypothermia and/or frostbite, I would probably consider burning the painting, no matter how valuable, as a viable option, because to me at that moment, the heat is more valuable than the painting (which I wouldn't be able to appreciate if I wasn't alive) just as an apple would to a starving man than say, the Mona Lisa. Others might disagree and say that they might lose a part of culture and history or that they have withstood the test of time and probably will for far longer then I will ever, but these paintings can easily be duplicated with unprecedented accuracy that are virtually indistinguishable from the original, whereas I, cannot.
This question on the surface, seems quite answerable but it raises a much deeper and possibly unanswerable question, how much is life worth ?
It might be getting a bit redundant at this point but this conundrum, so to speak, can only be answered if there were more details given. Now, if I was just a little cold, I wouldn’t dare to burn a painting that may be so valuable that it may very well fuel the heaters for the rest of my life.
But, let’s draw another picture. A picture of yours truly (me) as a shivering wreck deserted somewhere in a cold desert with nothing but a painting of all things and with absolutely no sign of civilisation for miles in every direction (how I ended up there would be… interesting, to say the least. I’m thinking spies and double-o-seven!). Then, my dire situation may tweak a few screws in my brain and let’s say that I won’t be as heroic and virtuous as I would originally want to be.
So I assume that I will burn the painting. The first challenge I will face is the puzzle of actually lighting up the painting, which might be a little hard considering, and I reiterate, there is literally no civilisation around me! But say I, very conveniently, just happen to have a match box in my pocket, I will light up the painting.
But to what gain? How effective is the Renaissance painting in burning anyway? I did some research and this is what I found. The Renaissance paintings mainly consist of an oak support, the canvas, some animal glue, chalk and oil paints. The oak will definitely burn to provide some heat for sometime. The canvas may also provide some additional heat. But unless the painting happens to be a massive one (in which case, I would have abandoned it half-way through my quest to find civilisation) the oak will barely be enough to keep me warm for long. The animal glue is in bare minimum and can be neglected. The chalk contains little to no combustible particles and hence will be of little use to me. The oil, however, is a different story. The oil paints, depending on how much is used, will burn and let out toxic fumes which will most likely knock me out and I will probably die out of hypothermia while I'm passed out.
The situation looks pretty dire for me either way. Theoretically, I should say that the chances of me surviving either way are very little and hence should say that I will let the painting survive. BUT, I’m no hero and I’m no more virtuous than the next guy. My instincts will scream at me to survive and survive I shall.
However, I have found a small LOOPHOLE.
As mentioned above, it is mainly the wooden support that provides the heat. I will most likely tear out the canvas from the wood and light the oak on fire, while using the canvas as extra protection for my skin or face or ears etc. That way, I am increasing my chances of survival while also saving the Renaissance painting from vanishing from existence!
Seems like a win-kind of win situation doesn't it? I just hope I will never have to find out!
It depends on how cold the weather can get. I could bear the cold weather and try to seek warmth by trying to find other items to burn instead of this glorious painting. But if I was on the verge of death and this painting is my last hope to stay warm, I think it'd be foolish of me not to burn it. Even though I'm an art enthusiast and I love and appreciate art, I still think it's not as important as survival, if one would survive there'd be a chance to make more art or even better art. Besides, according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, this painting wouldn't appreciated well enough if one's basic and fundamental needs are not being met.
The winds are howling with anguish across the desolate desert, with the chill piercing my skin pores like a scalpel, bringing about chilblains. My triple-layered clothing is unable to withstand the juggernauts that are the weather gods, and I despair.
I suddenly come across a rust-covered sheath, and upon closer inspection, it turns out to be an artwork. This is my only chance available to provide some much-needed warmth to my tortured body.
However, with a closer look, I can make out this painting to be the renowned “Healing of the Madman” by none other than Vittore Carpaccio. The delicate brushstrokes, the subtle-yet-evocative hues, and the touching symbolism of the painting evoke a gasp of appreciation under my mist-filled breath. The effort of Vittore must have been painstaking to say the least, and a momentary pause of guilt stops me from using the painting as a source of fire, for now.
All the same, the pragmatic monster within me takes over reins, as all of a sudden Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection suddenly becomes apropos. It is those who adapted to surroundings better who will be able to survive the in the world which is in a constant flux, and I am not interested in leaving my physiological state any time soon. It is a need for survival versus a rigid adherence to principles, and I feel that principles can be sacrificed for survival. After all, why would insignificant principles matter if I didn’t even exist, I muse, in order to try to debilitate the severity of my deed.
With a remorseful countenance, I seek out to burn an inseparable part of the Renaissance, and I constantly seek for forgiveness from the renaissance gods as I proceed to carry out this heinous crime. Perhaps, if the cold weren’t so wretched, I would have not done this act. Sorry Vittore, maybe I’ll pay you back in another lifetime…
A single, golden-brown ray of light shines on ' La disputa del sacramento ', heaven testifying to the significance of Raphael’s renaissance fresco.
My eyes devour the depiction ; a scene spanning both the heavens above and the earth below. There was a continuity in the realms, a stark contrast to that in my body. Portions of my anatomy were thawing away to the cold and I was no longer a whole.
God the Father sits on his throne, his beloved son Jesus below with the Holy Spirit at his toes. Adam, John and over a dozen of biblical figures are seated on the clouds, serenaded by the little winged cherubs with harps.
On the earth, the founders of the Latin Church flank the Holy Sacrament. And a gasp escapes my mouth as I spot Dante.
It wasn't the first exclamation of awe that had left my lips. The entire painting was a symbol of finesse, an aesthetic promise ; pleasing to both the eyes of an ordinary observer and more so, to those of a Christian. I was both.
It was a masterpiece.
And I was cold.
So I light it up and watch the canvas crisp and burst into flames, no second-thoughts at all save one :
If I had MORE of these renaissance paintings, I would have had MORE warmth.
Now, you regard me with the eyes of judgement. Burning one renaissance masterpiece seems heinous enough but this nobody is more than willing to burn more of history’s finest relics?
Well, yes. And believe me when I say this : Irrespective of how self-righteous you are, with no one’s eyes to watch and your own life hanging by the threads of a work of man, so would you, my friend.
So would you.
And that's okay.
The pragmatic in me screams in advocation for the burning of the painting, why sacrifice this gift of life just because the value of a piece of art may depend on it. However, just like beauty, value is in the eye of the beholder. Thus it is relative. If to me in that unfortunate situation the value of a painting is slim to none I am likely to burn it. In fact even the poet in me justifies such an unthinkable act as tribute to the artist, giving them the power and pride of having saved somebody's life. It is debatable what is correct and what is not. But when it comes down to survival, basic human instinct is not to be underestimated. We as humans will do anything to survive.
At the end of this, I do beg the question what kind of situation could I possible be in where I encounter a renaissance painting yet am also dying of possible hypothermia?
Although Renaissance paintings hold immense value, should they be at the cost of survival?
So what would be the questions I would place before I make my definitive decision? The extremity of the cold, the value of the painting, my clothing are simply few out of a countless list of things to think about. By carefully weighing out these options presented, one can make a truly justified and reasonable decision.
But the more I think about this situation, the more these questions almost seem irrelevant. To me, no matter the extremity of situation, my survival would place be placed at the utmost importance over any painting (even if it was a Da Vinci original). The statement 'survival of the fittest' is almost primitive and intrinsic to us and if burning a valuable painting would increase our chances of survival, as humans, nothing should come in our way.
Even if the result of my actions could possibly lead to temporary discontentment and possibly outrage from the artistic world, at the end of the day, I can answer with great certainty, that even Da Vinci wouldn't think twice to burn the Mona Lisa into nothing more than ashes.
Would I burn a renaissance painting if I were cold? Well, that would completely depend on the extremity of the cold and whether I would be able to survive and remain capable of steering through life after such a battle with the enemy of the moment: cold.
A painting from the renaissance is something priceless as its from an era where various ideas too birth, where some of the greatest polymaths, artists and architects created some of the world's finest and most iconic creations that still carry a breath of awe and excitement when mentioned of.
Now considering the historical and artistic value of the painting, I would deem it unfit if I burnt the painting unless it was a matter of survival and if my life was completely dependant on it.
But if I were able to survive such an ordeal and not burn the painting for my comfort, then I would have saved a remnant of an era of great intellectual upheaval and save the pain of carrying the guilt my entire life.
In conclusion, I would only burn the painting if my life depended on.
Freezing and lingering on the verge of death, any man would forget the value of objects in monetary terms and just asses them of their immediate value. A renaissance painting is no exception - so what if it has fancy brush strokes coating it? It's nothing more than a flammable good. Edging towards delirium, numb from the cold and short of breath, burning the paper would sound pretty reasonable to someone in those conditions.
Yet, if you were to take a step back, you'd realise that if you had the potential to start a fire in the blistering cold, there's much better things to burn. Even a flimsy cloth would burn stronger and longer than worn out parchment. Taking this into account, I personally wouldn't burn the painting due to the relatively low survival boost it would provide me paling in comparison to its historic value.
If I were cold would it be alright to burn a Renaissance painting for warmth?
Before this question can be answered, the factors that require consideration are, how cold am I? Am I on the verge of dying from hypothermia or is the cold bearable? Can I wait until I am warm, is there a time limit? And Where am I?
Once these questions have been answered and a situation has been ascertained one could consider whether burning a renaissance painting for warmth would be logical or not.
Renaissance paintings are centuries old, rare, priceless and exquisite. I personally love michaelangelo's Sistine chapel painting. It wouldn't be wise to burn one for multiple reasons like value, money, sentiment etc.. Although if you were dying a sacrifice comes to play. Is your life and warmth as important as a centuries old painting?
Some would consider this a selfish act, but the answer lies in the persons priorities. Mine wouldn't be the conservation of a token from history. It would be my life & well being. Regardless of how much I adore Bacchus and Adriadne it would just be illogical and irrational to save a Renaissance painting and die instead.
Imagine taking a piece of history - something that defined us. Something that reminded us of the past. And destroying it. If you are cold, stay cold! Or should you stay cold...?
would you forever regret the decision to burn a part of history? That depends on the extent to which you are cold. If you are on the verge of death - burn the thing! If it is a means of survival, it is paramount that you burn the painting. Think of it like this - how much pleasure will you gain from aesthetics when you are in a dire situation that may possibly lead to your death? Surely none! This is why I believe that the value of a renaissance painting should be completely disregarded when faced with an extreme situation. Even if you don't think you will survive, burning the painting will give you a fighting chance...
The question is too vague for straightforward response. How cold am I? Am I alone? Where am I? If I were alone in the Himalayan mountains and freezing to death or in a similar extreme situation, then and only then would I consider burning a Renaissance painting to keep myself alive. Initially I would try my best to burn anything else which is replaceable to keep myself warm. When I have no option left then I will consider burning the painting to keep me alive. But even then questions such as, ‘How long will the flame last?’ will come to my mind. Burning the painting would only delay my inevitable death. Besides the painting is representative of a Golden Era in human history. As Henry Longfellow would put it the painting is someone’s ‘footprints on the sand of the time.’ I couldn’t possibly bring myself to erase that footprint that has lasted all these years and possibly inspired many more people. Thus due to the above reasons I wouldn’t burn the Renaissance painting.
The intellectual development during the Renaissance resulted in its art being perceived as a royalty of ancient traditions. Celebrated artists, such as Raphael, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and many more, employed the humanist method in study and searched for realism and human emotion in art. The Renaissance art is especially significant because during the Renaissance period a new conception of reality and life was born. Art itself was the result of this new way of thinking in which the individual started to be more important than the community, and attention was paid not only to God but also to men. Therefore, it only makes sense that the art of such a dynamic era would be considered one of the greatest pieces of work mankind has seen and to preserve such pieces of art would be highly important.
But what if you were cold? Would it be okay to burn a Renaissance painting for warmth?
If there is another way to keep you warm, then obviously the Renaissance paintings should be preserved instead of burnt for warmth due to its importance as a marker of a dynamic period. However, I am going to consider a situation where there is absolutely no other resource that can keep you warm. If one ever has to face a situation where Renaissance painting is the last resort, then yes, it would be okay to burn a Renaissance painting for warmth. Granted, the Renaissance was a very important period that marked the beginning of a new way of life and the transition of the Middle Ages into the Modern World and thus a painting of this era should be considered a prized possession simply because it was created during this period. However, time does not stop here and neither does progress. Mankind has to move forward, develop more and create newer things; and survival of mankind is highly important for this to happen. Thus, while burning a Renaissance painting would not be okay in casual situations, if at all, one is faced by an extreme situation of do or die, then yes, for the survival of mankind, it would be okay to burn a Renaissance painting.
I would absolutely have no regrets burning a painting for my warmth. I imagine myself lying on the cold wooden floor in my shed, crawling around scrummaging for blankets or pieces of clothes to wrap around myself with. I finally find some cloth to cover myself with, the cloth was covering this painting. As I look closer I realize, it's the Assumption of the Virgin by Titian! I hold the painting closer and come across these marvelous strokes and the intense amount of detail put into this work of art. Would I really burn this masterpiece that has taken so long to finish, would I really do something like that? Well yes, I would burn it. I need as much warmth as possible to survive in these harsh conditions that i'm placed in at the moment. It would feel so wrong, but i'm at current risk of possible death by hypothermia. I need to survive throughout the night, I grab pieces of flint lying around and set the first spark on to the painting.
Imagine being stranded on a cold winter’s night with nothing to comfort you but a canvas, by taking a calculated risk you have determined that by burning this canvas it will provide you with warmth for several hours and enable you to keep living.
However unbeknownst to you this painting traces back to the 14th century with great historical significance, so the question remains is it acceptable to burn this painting for warmth?
First of all a tossup must be considered between preserving your own life or a work of art of unknown value and prestige, one should appraise their own self-worth in conjuncture to that of the painting. The average life expectancy is estimated to be at around 72 years with the common person struggling to achieve their goals during that time period, whilst a painting can evidently survive for a multitude of centuries and undergo the test of time unscathed and remain a learning tool for future generations which enables humanity to learn about their culture that would have otherwise been lost.
To conclude I believe that in the long term saving a piece of human history bears greater importance than saving the life of one human.
It is unlikely that a rational, informed individual would burn a historic painting just because he/she was feeling a bit chilly. For the sake of argument, let’s build a hypothetical situation with extremes. You’re shivering violently, and your complexion resembles the hue of a blueberry. Your fingers are icicles – you’ve nearly lost all sensation in them. It is hard to ignore the sickening intuition that you are on the verge of death by hypothermia. If, the only the only object you had access to at this point was a renaissance painting, your survival instincts would kick in, and you would most probably burn it for warmth if you had the means of doing so (assuming that you are still physically and mentally capable).
However, the primary question still remains: is it OK to burn a historic masterpiece for survival? Answering this would involve making a huge value judgement. Is a piece of old, colored parchment more valuable than a human life? Or does the worth of a living being pale in comparison to an exquisite work of art that has weathered the centuries? This is, of course, highly debatable. What one thinks is “right” will depend on a multitude of factors - the perceived importance of which being completely subjective.
Personally, I would assert that the value of a human life, no matter how “important” in societal terms, trumps anything – even a cultural artefact that stands to inspire millions. (It should also be noted that renaissance paintings are appreciated by only a certain segment of the population, namely the upper class and the “cultured” middle class. Many millions, especially those in the non-western world, would therefore be completely unaware of these paintings or indifferent towards them; they do not in any way stand to benefit from them either) Therefore, I would say that it is ok to burn a renaissance painting for warmth - although future generations likely wouldn’t thank me for it.
Save a Renaissance painting or possible death by hypothermia? As important as a person you can be, a Renaissance painting has had a significant impact to humanity and to think all those months of derived hard work with flaming passion and patience to create an art piece one would never dare to even think about spitting upon and then there's you and your life at stake. At such a time, my brain would force me to do in order to survive(survival instinct). But whats vital to understand is that its a matter of choice although you have none, because it is your only option. And much as i would like to believe there are people willing to give their life for a painting made 400 years ago, it would not be easy to swallow. Basically, you have a need to conserve your existence with a sense of slight disregard (which is forced) over Mona Lisa's hard years of being on the grind and almost unreal artistry.
Renaissance paintings were creating in the late 14th century to the early 16th century, which include works on Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael. The renaissance art sought to capture the experience of the individual and the beauty and mastery of the natural world. Many works depicted religious images, including subjects such as Virgin Mary. Today they are viewed as great works of art that are priceless as they address these issues in such an integral manner and they provide us with in an insight of the occurrence during the renaissance period. These paintings are a part of history which have helped us understand the time of the artists, each painting is much more important than a life of an individual and burning a painting would take away a great part of history. If the circumstance are very extreme this may be acceptable as human life is very important, but burning one painting wouldn’t be able solve the extreme temperature conditions and provide you with enough warmth. I believe that burning a renaissance painting is unacceptable because of the artistic thought and envision in them along with its historical value.
If you were cold, would it be ok to burn a Renaissance painting for warmth?
Assuming we are talking about an influential paintings such as the Last Supper by DaVinci, the School of Athens by Raphael, The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo, The Birth of Venus by Botticelli, or the The Betrothal of the Virgin by Raphael would be a terrible crime. These paintings are marks and milestones of the development of the Renaissance art and a proof that there was a revival of greek and roman art techniques such as symmetry and the vanishing point. These show how we went away from the Medieval art techniques into a new and better way of creating art. These painting are symbols of human progress and remind us to always try to find new ways to create things and to always innovate in our field of expertise. If you are simply cold it is not a good enough reason to burn away valuable and significant paintings that symbolize progress and innovation in our human History.
I believe that the question is quite vague: In my opinion it would depend more on the situation I am in, so there is no fixed answer. If I was freezing to death, and the only source of warmth available to me was a renaissance painting, I would be more inclined to burn the painting. As much as this magnificent work of art symbolizes many achievements in those times, that value still does not match with the value of a human life. In all honesty, I would not be thinking of the many achievements depicted in the painting and the symbolic meanings in it, if death was just mere minutes away from me.
If in the same situation, I am given more options than a renaissance painting to use for warmth, if I can manage with a cold temperature, and if the situation is not life threatening, it would seem ludicrous to burn a renaissance painting. I would argue with roughly the same points about value which I just discussed above.
It depends how cold it is. We look back to historical paintings and associate the term reverence with them. This is because they often display ingenuity, creativity, and inspiration to others. However, if I was freezing to death and the only source of warmth I could achieve would be through burning a Renaissance painting, I'd do it in a heartbeat. My survival instinct won't be suppressed just because the painting is valuable. On the contrary though, if I was to choose between a life and an incredibly important Renaissance painting, I'd /hesitantly/ choose the person. That's quite important because with a regular painting I'd choose the person in a heartbeat, but something as important to culture and history really puts the importance of a single life into perspective.
The most obvious solution to the cold would be to sell the painting to buy something else that would help keep me warm. But if we were to assume I am unable to sell the painting and it is literally the only thing available that could provide me with warmth, the answer would not be that simple anymore.
In such a case, the most crucial factors to consider are how cold it is and for how long will I be this cold. First and foremost, if there was any chance at all that I could die of hypothermia, I would burn the painting without a second thought. According to article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to life". And I truly believe no material object has any value over the life of a person. No matter the historical, artistic and sentimental value of said object.
The other case where I would not condemn such an act would be if one were extremely, unbearably cold for an extended period of time to the point where it could almost be considered 'torture'. Although if it were me in this situation, I would try as much as I can to postpone the burning of the painting in an effort to save it. After all, desperate times lead to desperate measures. All in all, it depends really on the person and how much cold they can bear.
Of course, my first course of action would be to ask how cold this hypothetical situation would be. If it were moderate, or tolerable without me getting hypothermia/freezing off to death or like a caveman, for the sake of preserving the most jubilant turn of times in human history, I would not burn it. However, like any other human in the situation itself, removing social desirability bias, would burn the painting, unless they have an inexplicable affection/connection with it, which would even lead to their own death. Depending on what you think of warmth, be it the Safety block on Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, or the Physiological block, being placed in alarmingly cold situations would conflict with either one of those blocks. Therefore, being the humans we are, if we are in recognisable danger, we would try our best to avert ourselves from staying on the same course of that which harms us. Even if it may be the Mona Lisa, I myself would definitely burn it to save myself. Although this may be a big blow to the stakeholders of the Renaissance, we live in the modern world. Even though it may not be the exact, original, 100% genuine, extremely precise and perfect lookalike counterparts can be produced, making it seem like it was never gone in the first place.
In conclusion, yes it would be okay to burn a Renaissance painting for warmth.
The Renaissance was a magnificent time in history where creativity flourished. The artworks created during that time are, to this day, some of the most precious pieces ever created. However, to answer this question reasonably, I’d say that it all comes down to necessity. If I were sitting in my house and felt cold, I probably wouldn’t burn a painting to stay warm, I’d just turn off the air conditioning, maybe even wear a sweater if I was willing to get up and get one.
Now suppose I was in the wilderness. Darkness is falling and taking the temperature with it and I have only one match and, by some twisted miracle, a Renaissance painting. Would it then be justifiable to burn said painting? I think the answer comes down this: What is more worth preserving? A painting that is centuries old, or your life?
In an odd way, I think that unusual and highly unlikely situation would inspire me to live a better life, in a sort of homage to the masterpiece I’d destroyed. It would serve as a reminder to make my life into something as beautiful as that painting once was so that maybe it wouldn’t have perished in vain.
The importance of a Renaissance painting to one who truly is educated about this value and beauty is different than to someone who doesn't know either. And furthermore being stuck in a dire situation where there isn't warmth to save one's life, I think the answer is clear. Yes it is a beautiful work of art that holds history and cultural value but one's primal needs would obviously be put into focus first.
Burning it would mean letting go of a valuable and incredible part of our past but if it meant helping possibly save a life then it becomes a pretty simple choice to me.It is imperative to think critically and logically about one's survival if they were to be left with no warmth, a simple basic necessity of life.A beautiful painting it may be but at such a dire moment it would lead me to try and save my own life.
In the end it would make me thankful that a painting was able to prove not thing just a thing of beauty and historical value but in this case a tool for my survival.
First off, the answer to this questions is solely based on the details of the situation. Are you simply feeling a cold breeze? Or are you at the edge of death? Are you stranded on a deserted land? Or are you amongst a civilized city?
There are many points you should take into account before proceeding with any action. As many of my fellow Cohort mates mentioned, you could simply sell the painting, get the money and buy clothes or a heater to keep you warm. Thus saving yourself and the painting.
What I’m trying to say is, whatever decision we make in life should be carefully interpreted to be advantageous in many ways as possible. If we sell the painting and buy something to keep us warm, then no actual loss is faced.
Nevertheless, if I was hypothermic, and found no path that can be 'advantages' to both me and the painting, then I would, without doubt, burn it.
Of Course, some might argue that the weeks of hard work and effort put in by our ancestors, the deep meanings of the rich colours used are extremely important, but I would simply ask them, ‘Did those rich colours, deep meanings and hard work help save my life?’. No. But when I added a little fire to it, then yes, they did.
Being as selfish as a human being is, my life is more important to me than a Renaissance painting.
Another reason for people to argue is that, why burn the painting to save yourself if you are going to die anyways?
Look, Renaissance artwork gives us knowledge, and once that knowledge is achieved and stamped inside our brains, it is no longer a use to us, so why save the painting if you already obtained its teachings?
Moreover, do not forget that we live in the times where new talents arise every passing day and technology advancements are faster than light. A duplicate the image, that our ancestors took weeks to make, can be made within seconds. It won’t be original, but would still carry the same message. A digital picture of the image is more than enough to pass on its teachings for dozens of generations to come.
All in all, if no other way is possible at that severe and unbearable moment, then I would burn the painting to keep myself warm. And alive.
Like many of my fellow mates have already questioned, is a historic Renaissance painting more important than a human life, and how dire is the hypothetical situation?
Objectively speaking, the argument can go both ways. For instance, if the cold is unbearable and I am on the verge of freezing to death, then yes, I would burn the painting without a second thought. Perhaps it could keep me alive for a few more hours, but what if I die in the future? Eventually all humans die, so was it worth stalling out the inevitable rather than preserving a legendary work of art that will teach and inspire the future generations? Even though at the time my survival was the utmost significant, people can argue that the knowledge, inspiration and overall benefits of safekeeping the Renaissance painting overshadow the value of my life.
On the other hand, a Renaissance painting may have inspired several generations, but it most certainly did not paint itself. A human, with the exceptional organ called the brain, is what really created the painting. It is obvious that a human is most certainly capable of producing creative works with the same -- or even higher -- quality as the painting. Would it still be worth to protect an inanimate object instead of the intelligent human being? To really put my point across, take this situation for example: suppose Einstein were the one in my place. Would you still justify that the painting should be safeguarded? The world today would be a lot more different without the push Einstein gave to the development in Physics, Math and Science in general. Of course, since we know his accomplishments, it would be easier to say that is much more beneficial to save his life. But be it me, or some other person, no one can simply decide that their life means less than a mere painting simply; you never know when you might have saved another Einstein.
Although the question is a little vague -- there are lots of variables to account for when making such decisions -- but ultimately, I believe that value of a human's life eclipses a Renaissance painting. You can learn from the past, yes, but there needs to be people who can build the future.
First of all, the answer to the question depends on the severity of the cold. Is it just slightly cold and you feel like lighting a fire or are you dying of cold and have no other way to get warm? Is a renaissance painting more important than a human life? How could you justify burning a renaissance painting?
First off, if you are just slightly cold and feel like lighting a fire than no, burning a renaissance painting is absolutely not justified. Renaissance paintings are a view into our history and ways of living in the past.
To be able to justify the action of burning a renaissance painting, you would have to have no other ways of surviving than by burning it for warmth. Meaning that you are in the middle of a freezing desert that has no towns or cities around and that if you do not warm up, you will die, then yes, there it is justify to burn something of such cultural importance.
However, if you are anyway going to die because you only have one painting and are not close to finding population or warmth and will end up dying anyway in the desert then no.
Therefore, since renaissance paintings are so important culturally to be able to understand our past and the life before us, it is crucial to keep renaissance painting. However burning a renaissance painting can be justified if it is a life or death situation.
The student in me cringes at the thought of burning, such a significant milestone of human achievement, a Renaissance painting. But if I were to assume that this was a life or death situation and that there was no alternative for me to live other than burning this painting. I would have to choose to sacrifice a piece of humanity’s past rather than the actual human. And to justify this further, I would like to assume that if this truly was a monumental piece of art than I can assume that there would be replicas of the piece. I mean, Pablo Picasso burned many of his early paintings and drawings just to stay warm.
At this point, I am certain that we all agree that in particular life threatening, and dire, circumstances burning a renaissance painting would be justified.
Even though I wholeheartedly understand the intrinsic value of a renaissance painting and the pivot part of our history that it signifies, I do feel that the original painting is over hyped. Presuming that the scenario here is talking about the original paintings, like the Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci, there is no scarcity of art in the status quo. We have seen amazing interpretations and knockoffs of the Mona Lisa and now have access to scanned and online copies of the original painting.
Burning the original one for warmth in a situation where my life is in question, would only lose the painting's symbolic value but wouldn't affect anything like the history associated with the painting or any educational value it would have. We have learnt from and can continue to learn from the inspirational figures and artifacts during the renaissance regardless of the whereabouts of the original painting.
Let us first establish, to take an initially self-serving stance on the question, whether or not burning a Renaissance painting would be effective at all. During the 15th century, walnut and linseed oil increasingly began to replace egg as painting media, and the paintings that we now attribute to the Renaissance typically span both. Though I cannot confidently comment on the exact nature of the ways this affected the potential flammability of the paintings, I’d wager that the oil bases – linseed in particular – would have only added to it. It goes without saying that the fabric on which the paining was made, cotton or canvas, would be a fairly easy affair to ignite and would constitute the larger proportion of its flammability. The frame of the painting – wooden, as it were – is only more kindling to add to the fire.
Thus established that the painting should burn marvelously in its entirety, let us examine the motive for burning the painting and the circumstances that may lead to it. Placing the sensation of coldness on a line from ‘comfortable’ to ‘frozen solid’, it can be asserted that from the former end of the spectrum to where the chill could be considered merely inconvenient, the average person would not think to burn anything for their own comfort and, thus, we must therefore assume that this choice only appears to those who are in dire need of warmth, if the lack thereof would result in their death or even serious bodily harm. Moreover, it can again be asserted that this same individual would not consider burning a Renaissance painting if other potential kindling were within their grasp and, thus, we must assume that they are faced with the choice of either burning the painting or suffering deeply and irreversibly.
Having determined all of the above, we are now left with the question of whether – under these circumstances and with this knowledge – it is apropos to take a lighter to a Renaissance painting. The apparent question is a value judgement: is a human life worth more than a painting? It is easy to answer ‘no’ and, in the belief that a human life is, if not infinitely so, exceedingly valuable, I am tempted to answer the same. The painting, though a deeply important historical and cultural relic likely representative of themes and motifs their artists, other enthusiasts and idealists might be willing to die for, it is eclipsed by the grand scale of thoughts, ideas, feelings, experience and information condensed into the expanse of even a single human life (wherein I derive its value). However, a comparative assessment of what is most valuable between the two might not accurately reflect the optimal utility that abstaining may entail.
We’ve investigated how well a Renaissance painting would respond to a lighter; now, let’s evaluate how useful this would be to the person. Given the extreme circumstances that the person is facing, what are the odds that, having burnt the painting, enjoyed the brief moment of warmth, the person will survive the ordeal? I’d imagine that the exact odds vary from case to case but, in each scenario, it is likelier that once the painting has run its course, the person will probably die. In light of this, I’d argue that if the act of burning the painting is futile insofar as saving the person goes while, on the other hand, being a tragic loss to the world of art and culture, the best option is to leave the painting be. The best possible outcome – if the person is to die regardless of the painting’s status as kindle – is if they have not burnt it at all; this way, if their corpse and the painting can be found, they can be remembered as a martyr of the arts rather than a tragic victim of the elements.
Unless, of course, the person is in a room created by shady New World Order plutocrats to watch a confused and hypothermic middle-class man struggle with the entirely arbitrary question of whether or not they should burn a painting for their own amusement. Then again, there’s no accounting for what the Walton family get up to in their free time.
When you compare Bellini from Constantinople, Antonello da Messina from Sicily and Leonardo da Vinci from Tuscany working tirelessly hours after endless hours with an idea in mind and paintbrush in hand, to someone of my stature, someone who cannot contribute to mankind what the Renaissance did, it is far easier making such a decision.
Renaissance paintings are inimitably precious, each one painted by grandiose artists using new found materials that have never been used before, and each with the fingerprints of their creator. Each painting is a tribute to an artist’s hard work, dedication, and admiration to the idea. Moreover, it is some of the only evidence of that person’s involvement in the field of art, and some of the only evidence to prove their existence. For centuries, we have tried very hard to preserve and maintain the integrity of these paintings to great success.
Each painting worth millions of dollars. Which begs to question – is human life worth millions of dollars?
I am thoroughly inspired by art and the way it can bridge the gap between influence, sentiment and manner using the blend of hues and tones. But would I sacrifice my life, my goals and aspirations, my dreams, my loved ones, my experiences for a Renaissance painting?
I could argue that it is the primal instinct and imprudence to do whatever may be needed to stay alive, but that’s not enough to authorize the destruction of something this precious. If I were to burn the painting, it would have to do with the fact that it is a lifeless, inert object versus the breathing and beating body of a real human soul. The right to life cannot be compromised even if it were over a million dollars. The economic world would be mortified, but I hope that they view my life as potential to one day make pioneering change. Atleast that way, my life could have the revolutionary impact on the world that Renaissance does.
Life is an experiment, the biggest experiment of all. A famous quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson states, "All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make, the better." Working with the scientific meaning of "experiment", we all have a personal hypothesis set and a particular method that we follow - each experiment is different and unique as well as this experiment they each person lives cannot be easily replicated and will never be the same as another individual. The independent and dependent variables of the person will also be different, this can be posed when a person tries to copy another role model - how much ever they try, the experiment will never be exactly the same just like in reality. All of us individuals have different results, (raw and processed data), and drawing different conclusions. The evaluation of the experiment is similar to how an individual reflects upon themselves. So yes, life is an experiment - the biggest one of all - non-replicable, unique and of extremely high ecological validity.
OMG SORRY I PASTED THE WRONG COMMENT -- real one
Before considering history and the importance of the renaissance painting, one must consider their own health and wellbeing hence I believe that yes it would be correct and just for an individual to burn a renaissance painting for warmth. The extent for this would also be dependent on how cold it is as well as is it really necessary to burn the painting. If it is a weather that is survivable, then it wouldn't be extremely needed to burn a part of our history but if the individual is struggling in the cold and there are no other available resources for the health of the individual - it would be just to burn the painting as an individual's health is much more important than the value of the painting as to realise the value of the painting, the existence of the individual is needed to understand the history but if there's no individual than there is no purpose of the painting to exist therefore if the individual's survival is dependent on the burning of the renaissance painting then it has reason to do so. On the other hand, if the individual can survive the cold or there are other resources that he or she can use, then definitely he or she should use those other resources. He or she can even us the painting as a blanket for cover if flexible and preserve the historical. In conclusion, depending on the background of the individual; it can be debated if it is right to burn the renaissance painting or not.
The lack of detail here makes the question somewhat harder to answer. Is it my painting? Is it considered an important work? Is the cold just a discomfort, or could it be life-threatening? If I did have to answer without knowing the answers to those questions, I would burn the painting for my warmth, as I don’t place much value in paintings, and certainly not more than my own comfort.
The way the question is phrased implies that burning a Renaissance painting—for any reason—is wrong. And while many may share the same sentiment, we have to dive into what makes something valuable.
What gives the Renaissance painting more significance than my discomfort? Would it be the same if it were an old newspaper in its place? What if I was about to die?
The answer is muddled within all the different variables.
Obviously, if my life depended on it, I would burn the Renaissance painting. No question about that. I value my life more than preserving the original copy of a painting that has scanned copies and backed up photographs. It will live and continue to inspire even after being burnt.
It all boils down to how much we value something over another, and like many things, our hierarchy constantly changes based upon our given circumstance. What I value over another may change completely under the right situations.
Post a Comment