[sonofhans]

That is a common attitude. Consider also that “worth” is relative. I’d burn the Mona Lisa for heat to keep my family alive, but that doesn’t mean it has no worth.

The writer & engraver William Blake, one of the most influential artists of the last few centuries, was so poor that he had to melt down his copper printing plates once he’d used them. He couldn’t afford to buy more copper. Blake’s technique was unique in all of printing, and a little insane, and fantastically detailed. Having all his original plates would be glorious.

So was it that those plates were worth nothing? Not at all. He had to feed his family.

And note that no one — no one at all — is arguing to “remember every single pointless thing.” That’s a straw man. You’ll have better discussions if you avoid such things.

[glofish]

Imagine that Mona Lisa was lost shortly after its creation ... do you think we would not have something else like Mona Lisa in its place?

Society created the value of Mona Lisa out of nothing. It is not such a unique thing - there are tens of thousands of paintings that could be just as valuable.

[johnwalkr]

OK and saving a bunch of film reels or tens of thousands of Mona Lisas takes a tiny amount of space in a salt mine warehouse or some megabytes or gigabytes taking literally zero space. It's not a zero-sum game where disposing of this stuff makes more room for future artists.