Well, I’m going to guess that neither of us know whether employees of a community center in KS are public employees, but I think I can guess where you are going with this.
My PoV is that both parties have responsibility. I don’t really care who has more responsibility and I don’t think there’s a fixed answer to that. But as someone else upthread observed, a child is not being supervised if he or she can climb on things and cause damage - even if that thing should have been secured better.
I’ll admit, the invterview clip of the mom saying, “I thought it was like $800. But $132,000? We’re done here?” has biased me against her. What a shitty attitude that displays, color me unsurprised that the kid of someone with that attitude is climbing on artwork. What she said there was that because she thought the art was of low value, she didn’t care if her kid wrecked it. It’s just some shitty art, right? I don’t care if the art was worth $20, respect people’s work enough to keep your kid off of it ffs.
Mine too, and they are vastly unequal and inverse to the gist of this story. Not 50/50. Maybe a citation and a new policy, but this is blameshifting to literally an innocent child from where it belongs, a corporate entity who employed an adult who nominally knows how to run public spaces.
Art is a has highly subjective pricing. If they have insurance (an earlier article said they didn’t), they might be saying “I make X per hour and it took Y hours to make. My materials cost Z” Give me $135K. No one in the fine art world would give them that for the work, but that doesn’t mean they cannot fake out a non-art world expert when looking for payment.
People attending an art exhibition or museum should have a reasonable expectation that a moment’s clumsiness or a short period of inattention should not bankrupt them. The reason for this is not that stupid people should be protected, but that the exhibitor should take the risk if they actually want anyone to come and look at their stuff.
I’m okay with taking out insurance when I travel. I’m not okay with needing to take out insurance whenever I’m in close proximity to “art”. If it becomes a general understanding that “you break it, you bought it” extends to publicly exhibited items with a price tag larger than a typical mortgage, people will find other activities with a lower risk profile, like Lawn Darts.
I had a package insured with UPS and they sent an inspector out to see the damage, said “sure, we’ll send you the money”, and then six weeks later when I called to see why I didn’t have a check they claimed that they had never heard from me, never sent an inspector, and owed me nothing since I’d not contacted them in time.
But I had pictures of the inspector, copies of my communications with them including phone recordings, and eyewitnesses willing to sign affidavits, &etc. so eventually they paid me.
Sometimes it’s nice to work at a place where all phone lines are recorded. You can make business calls on your lunch break and then pull the recordings for your own purposes
It wasn’t at an art exhibit or a museum. It was at a community center.
And regardless the same two rules apply. Either the person who broke it is culpable and liable for damages. Or they are not. The not being for any one of a number of reasons.
You’re anger and outrage is misguided in this instance because you are clearly misreading my comment. I didn’t say the insurance was for the person walking into a community center. People are not required nor need insurance to walk around in public and be covered in case they trip and break something. The community center on the other hand being a public building, should carry property insurance to fix accidental damages to its property.
That’s how that entire system works and why it exists.
You come over my house you don’t carry “personal damages insurance” in case you break one of my windows. I on the other hand carry home owners insurance to cover such things as needed.
I have full coverage on both my house and my cars, and I’m pretty sure neither extends to my kid knocking over a statue in a museum (unless he does it with the car).
This seems like a perspective that could lead to… ridiculous things. Because by this definition, nothing even slightly risky should ever happen under any context. Nobody would ever bear personal responsibility for things, if the bar is set at “the dumbest thing you could ever imagine happening.” So long common sense!
I might argue “the parenting” part. I’ve been to plenty of museums where not every piece of art is 100% secured against any and all damage that could be done by a rambunctious, unsupervised child.
There are loads of weird-ass insurance policies that clever insurance salespeople will try to talk you into getting, but it is universally acknowledged that personal liability insurance is the one single type of insurance nobody should ever be without. And that applies especially to people with kids.
Having said that, $132K for that thing does seem generous. One wonders why the insurance company didn’t ask themselves “exactly who is that person whose quite expensive art is exhibited in a g.dd.mn community center and why have we never heard of them before?”
Entirely the fault of the people making the display. Kids will climb on things they’ll pull things, that what kids do…especially 4 year olds. They’re less trainable than cats in that regard.
You put things in public spaces…you make sure they’re idiot and child proof. Because that’s the public.
A few years ago a company made a information board for the Birmingham Airport and didn’t secure it and it crushed not just a kid that was atrracted to the bright lights. But injured four others.
This was also my first thought. And last thought. Really, this is what insurance is for, and thinking about this shouldn’t go past “Insurance company pays out, adjusts rates or rules for the insured”. End of story.
