little bit shit about an artist who says "this is my art, and only my art, and nobody can ever change or expand upon it."

But isn't that what copyrights are meant for? Usually they enter public domain X years after the death of the artist. That seems quite fair to me. Pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't allowing other people to perform his plays in his time.

I understand why you would argue that all art should enter public domain straightaway but why limit that to art? Why not hold tech companies to the same standards? Do you think Apple would be as successful as it is if all their IP, copyrights and patents were revoked?

It's a bit entitled to think that artists should give up their works for interpretation and adaptation just because it's "art". Artists often have a deep connection with their art. Haven't you heard of artists who regretted giving up control of their art because commercialisation changed the interpretation? I'm not sure how much it would soothe them to know "it's part of building a new culture". It's not like they don't want people to appreciate their work but there isn't another way to preserve their connection with the art and also make them money from it.