He paid for it, it's his art to destroy now.
If you don't like that, or think I'm being insensitive, then maybe we shouldn't let rich people buy and hoard art.
If they're culturally or historically important, why are they in a private collection?
Is it sad to see? Yes, absolutely. But not any more sad than it falling into the hands of a private collector in the first place.

Instead, the artist added, he is trying to spark a discussion over why “destroying the life of people means nothing but destroying art is a huge taboo in the world”.

Well played. If people care more about inanimate objects than someone being tortured by the western powers, their priorities need to be highlighted.

“I’m not trying to destroy art, and I don’t believe I will have to,” Molodkin told the Guardian, adding that the project, called Dead Man’s Switch, was itself a collaborative artwork like any sculpture or portrait.

Dammit why do I see his point?

Instead, the artist added, he is trying to spark a discussion over why “destroying the life of people means nothing but destroying art is a huge taboo in the world”.

Let him cook.

Well, yeah, he could destroy the art whenever he wants. He doesn't have to try at all.

Adjusted for inflation, OJ Simpson's legal fees during his murder trial were about $10m. I wonder what kind of lawyers you could get for Assange with $45m.

I very seldom like installation art but this project has merit. Good for him.

Is someone high up in the decision making process a huge art lover or something? It seems like he is just setting fire to a huge pile of money otherwise.

He's planning to try and destroy art? What a poorly worded headline...