It may even be that the images of destroyed artifacts are more effective than those depicting executions, because they are televised everywhere and not relegated to the depths of the Internet

I can't help but thinking over and over about that statement.

1) Do we relegate human lives to the depth of the Internet?

2) Are we, the western world, more sensitized about destroyed art than human executions?

3) As Bill Leonard said on We steal secrets: "The ultimate power of image is that it helps people understand what it is"

i thought the same thing, and recall thinking that about the taliban back when they destroyed what were then the largest buddha statues.

while it sickens me too, the main justification i can think of for it is that these artifacts represent the human story much more than any one person can. they are the collective achievement of thousands of years of progress and invention, and in seeing them destroyed we see our very history and future threatened more so than any one person's death can.

while i can't say i feel fully comfortable with a human life being worth less than a thing, this is one way of thinking about it.

I see your point and I find it reasonable. In fact, a good way to see it's those sculptures are the touch of a human being and, destroying them, they're also destroying the essence of the human lives that created them. Something we'll never recover.

What scares me is how the Islamic State got to the conclusion they could attract more attention by destroying art than killing human lives. As if they'd have simply measured their acts and they'd think they could get a higher impact by destroying artifacts...