Should Artworks Last Forever (Again)

In a previous blog a discussion was struck about whether artworks should last forever or not. The opinion on that was leaning towards the question being answered as no, they shouldn't last forever. Valid points were discussed but there are also reasons that go with the question. Points can be made that suggest positive outcomes in letting artworks last forever. Some points include profit, legacy and leisurely enjoyment.

Old artworks gains large economic value and therefore have a large reason for being kept forever. This value is also impacted upon whether the artist of the work has passed away or not. Money is what makes these artworks desirable as well as why they are kept alive. Legacy is a large factor because it is more of the artists decision whether he wants a legacy to be made on earth or if they don't want a legacy but just to be recognised as an artist that pleases his audience and does not look for a legacy. They would of course be making profit while they are dead and for that reason and there would be no point as to why they would do that  be making a profitable legacy. An artist that is recognised as one that pleases their audience like Banksy, a street artist that illegally does street painting or Miso and Ghost Patrol.They please the audience with their forms of art and each have their own styles and meanings. An artist that wants an artwork to last forever for his audiences and their pleasure has a different purpose however and tends to care about the reactions they get from their audiences as a way to explore different methods and ways in which they can implement the things that the audience liked into their next artworks.

These points prove that it is valid to let artworks last forever but also not for physical gain but mental gain which is gaining a new message about society or anything at all that might catch peoples attention, whether it be an individual or a large group.

Feel free to comment on what you think!