This is a rear subject because many renowned people die rich and get decent send off. The Polynesian connection article talks about an artist by the name Paul Gauguin who died as pauper in 1903. The local residents reacted to the unrecorded grave and picked a site in the old cemetery lying on the island to mark as the burial place of the artist. In 1973, locals embellished the site with a replica of the Tahitian goddess. Up to date, the grave is a major tourist attraction as he inspired many people with the south sea paintings. The connection in subject is therefore between Paul the artist and Polynesia.
I tend to disagree with the whole article because there is no reason for looking after somebody when dead already. If they wanted the connection of the paintings and the culture to be a good source of income through tourism, the locals would not have allowed the situation to worsen to the extent of letting Paul die a pauper. No body can answer the rhetoric questions that the artist posed before his death and it is just unfair that the locals are getting a good image and money from a dead person’s hard work. It is unfair to recognize the seriousness of the artist after death because there is no better word than unfair to describe the situation. The visual arguments were misleading and uneasy because the artist could not have seen all the sculptures. It was impossible that he could have known the meaning of all of them if he were alive. The carvings made were just for tourism trade because some portraits do not seem real. He could not have done the whole work especially because by the time he moved there, the population of the island was not populated and the cultures depicted by the carvings were no longer there.
Works cited
ARTNEWS. The Polynesian connection. Web. 2012. Retrieved on 3rd July. Available at http://www.artnews.com/2012/06/28/the-polynesian-connection/
