To answer you AzC...
no, there wasn't anyone family-wise who could have been to blame. All the various nieces and nephews were just kids beyond that just parents and grandparents. But I do remember that my parents were interviewed. The whole thing was just a sad sad shame. I hope the pieces ended up in good homes somewhere, I'd hate to think they ended up ruined.
But, who knows...maybe I'm a modernist now because of it. I do have a hand-painted Japanese fan made with bone, silk and Hinoki wood that is truly lovely. It's so far from the trash you see in an asian imports store, truly a piece of art. My sister ended up with a puzzle box, also Japanese. So at least we have something!
...and funny how persons of 'faith' can make any conversation a reason to impose their beliefs on others.
Distinction
Just to draw a quick distinction between what happened with Olive - clearly a theft for profit, and the mischievous idea of 'adopting' something clearly neglected and putting it in a lovely home.
I certainly wouldnt steal something for profit, and I'd almost certainly try to find some way to legitimately acquire any said objects.
That being said, I have -on occasion - been known to exaggerate my reasons for wanting a certain piece. Instead of telling someone that an Eames DCW is an Evans production from 1946 I might disguise my enthusiasm by saying "I've got one of these at home and I've been searching for EVER to get a pair!!!"
Well, I'm a person of faith...
Well, I'm a person of faith and I don't give a hot damn what any of you believe! There are exceptions to the rule, and perhaps more than you think. It's just that those that do not impose on others do not make themselves known .... because they don't impose on others.
Here's to diversity without adversity!
.
It got a bit touchy there for a minute didn't it?
I did like what Azure said though. When I pay $1.00 for a jacobsen teapot or as is happening now less than half of what its worth for a lathe I do feel like I'm taking advantage of other peoples lack of knowledge, I'd hate to be a dealer.
Oh dear!
please note the use of quotation marks bracketing the word 'faith' in my post above. Those that are honestly believers are much as whitespike says, not up your nose informing you of the souls they've been saving.
And LuciferSum, I agree, saving things from neclect and/or landfill is certainly different from what happened to my family. Just be sure that your definition of neglect doesn't mean the owners are just on vacation! 😉
.
Not to get up anyones nose as Olive puts, those people are infuriating but Paul Davies is a scientist who bridges the divide well without being a reactionary, his Templeton Prize speech is well worth a read too.
http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publications/books/mind_god.htm
on getting and giving
economic freedom implies people can buy and sell for a price they see fit. if someone happens to offer the sale an item for a fraction of its market value, i honestly don't see an ethical imperative to inform them of that fact. of course, i am free to do so, but i'm unaware of any prevailing compulsion that would dictate my doing so.
the same would be true if the item were available at several times its market value. i am free to buy, to walk away or to engage the seller in a conversation regarding the asking price. my liberties, however, do not require any particular action; i am free to do as i see fit.
i do think this is an informed view, but i do admit to having a fairly decent history of 'getting good deals' at rummage sales and flea markets, so i'm at least open to the notion that my personal conviction on the matter is at least influenced in part by--well, i hate to suggest it--greed and/or opportunism.
i grew up in a blue-collar home where getting the most bang for the buck was believed with as much fervency as a strong work ethic. cashing in on a 'good deal' had equal footing with finding a five-dollar bill in the front yard. "lucky me" was the automatic response, with little thought given to the unlucky loser of the five. [i'm not so much defending this attitude, just revealing it.]
the conscience is a strange piece of machinery because it cranks out the goods in keeping with what it's been fed. i think it can be rightly said that some folks can be hyper-sensitive, feeling guilty about almost any good fortune that comes their way, while the conscience of others appears to be melted into a big paperweight--almost nothing seems to bother them.
and speaking of gray area, stealing ain't right. i know we're sometimes here using 'stealing' as a euphemism for rescuing [which i think we all zealously support], but there are better options to pinching. asking the owner will always produce a better outcome in the long run.
have i entertained the idea myself? without question. but i'd rather ask the owner and buy that saarinen coffee table for a single dollar than tote it away in secret under the cover of darkness.
on the tangential issue that has been kicked around, nobody likes anything rammed down their throat, even if it's good. i don't like anyone imposing [forcing] the tenants of their faith on me, but i certainly am not offended if they expose [reveal] it, either. anything done with disrespect is out of bounds. conversely, a sincere exchange of views is always worthy of respect, regardless of the specific content of those views.
.
rock the casbah! Its a small thing really, snaffling a rotting chair from a backyard or parking lot might not be perfectly legal but indeed completely legal and respected professions engage in behaviour that is totally reprehensible and causes immense damage. Look where we are now! And the people who encouraged this and speculated with other peoples money (with their own foolish complicity) don't even do so much as an hours community service.
The person who drives the hummer/humvee (what are those monstrosities called?) throws their hamburger wrapper out their window and goes home to a little discrete domestic violence, well its all relative don't you think? Or are moral absolutes back in fashion?
Personally I could not do it, or would have great diffuculty, not becuase I'm bound to behaving in that way but I just couldn't be bothered with the stress of being caught and having to explain such a bizaare action. Anticipating the drama is enough to stop me in my tracks, but thinking about it is fun.
on morality
the consequences of amoral activity are varied. as an extreme example, i would rather hear of a terrorists bomb destroying the lives of two people than those of twenty, and by comparison, the neighborhood bully stealing my son's bike seems almost unworthy of mention.
but all of the above are wrong; one is not 'more wrong' because of its more devastating effects.
morals are about as fashionable as natural law. when at the top of my extension ladder trimming the dead wood from my maple and oak trees, i have a disdain for gravity, and my confidence is mixed with legitimate fear. my desire to temporarily suspend or modify the law is understood, but my feelings have no effect on its existence or force. i am left with no other desirable choice than to operate within its established confines.
moral relativism is a slippery slope; i've seen the 'better-than, worse-than' argument in support of relativism break down pretty quickly under even a modest load of scrutiny. this is not to suggest moral absolutism is heartlessly easy and simple; life as we know it is simply not that way. but the complexity of situations and the conflict between choices and their anticipated outcomes are not justifiably eased by a compromise of the standards, no less than is one's adjusting the bathroom scale to suit a desired weight.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com