Hacker News Reader

> art should not be ephemeral

Why not?

It'd be a sadder world if modern audiences could no longer enjoy Homer, or Shakespeare, or P.G. Wodehouse, or Firefly. It'd be a poorer world if current art could no longer build on or remix older art. Does this really need an argument?

Good art can and often does contain topical references which are mostly ephemeral, but I can't think of anything I've ever seen which was both a) entirely ephemeral and b) worth a damn.

>a) entirely ephemeral and b) worth a damn.

I can look back to some really really good fireworks shows.

Fair point, although this example is ephemeral by necessity rather than by design. If you could experience those shows again whenever you felt like it, maybe via some improved VR setup, and share them with your friends/kids/postman, wouldn't that be strictly better?

Of relevance, Sand Mandalas are intentionally destroyed after completion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_mandala

Not by necessity, but by design. The world and life are transient - I see no fault in embracing it (for certain things)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com