I’ve been a docent at two different museums, one space one art. The art is generally partly vulnerable due to it also needing to be accessible.
Like an idiot I did touch a display last time I was at the Nelson Atkins, but in my defense it was a very non-traditional work where it was contained within the wall and had glass and a beefy frame around neon and mirrors and I touched the edge of the frame.
Parents were attending a wedding there, but the area where the kids ran off to was not decorated, and there were a few ‘civilians’ hanging out in the chairs. This leads me to believe that the art area was not part of the wedding area, thus the kids were out of bounds.
In the community center where my band rehearses they have sculpture exhibits in the common areas quite frequently, with many appearing quite fragile or heavy. There are kids running around there all the time, yet for some reason nobody (to my knowledge) has thought it would be a good idea, even the totally feral kids riding scooters indoors, to climb on the exhibits.
What I’m saying is, the kids were completely undisciplined, completely unsupervised, and completely out of bounds. They (their parents) ought to be responsible for whatever their kid breaks.
“Why didn’t they secure it better?” Who Cares? Does it belong to you? No. Don’t climb on it or touch it.
Why is this so hard?
Does the artist deserve $132k in compensation? Who’s to say. It’s incredibly shitty to take pot shots at the quality of the work. Talk to Mark Rothko or Jasper Johns about how much their art is worth for what it is. It could also be that the artist knows there’s no way he’ll get paid what he’s asking for after insurance takes their cut, and taxes bla bla bla, so he’s playing the game just like everyone else is.
Let’s reframe this for a second. Say the kids were riding their bikes around in someone’s driveway and the scratched up a parked car. Should their parents pay for the bodywork? Yes, they should. So, what difference other than cost does it make if that car is a Camry or a Rolls Royce?
The Lacoon of Albany, Cheyenne’s Feeling-a-Bit-Better-Now-Just-Winded-Thanks Gaul, the Winged Victory of Ft. Lauderdale, Mars di Sacremento…
I’d say that you’re kinda stretching the meaning of the word “accidentally” there, judging from the video. If only they’d take him down south, and introduce him to a few statues of Confederate generals. Kid has a real talent for destruction.
You apparently only have to do it once to be up $132k.
Oh, god yes, this. I cannot tell you how sick I am, every time I do something stupid and injure myself (or just fall victim to the simple fact of getting old and busted), I have to be subjected to months of insurance douchebags spamming my phone trying to get me to implicate somebody else. I already feel like a dumbass, but thank you so much for making me admit that to you repeatedly before you go away.
I mean, if I’m sick of that, and the insurance company caused that, then they’re liable, right?
So, yeah, I just decided I am now an artist, and my avante-garde medium is building houses of cards, only all the cards are glass. Something about not throwing stones or something. Every one of my pieces being unique and irreplaceable, I think they are worth half a mil each, and because I am so dedicated to public enrichment, I intend to put them in airports, bus stations and elementary schools.
I dunno, I feel like there’s a difference between “unsupervised” and “looked away for five seconds.”
Can we agree that there isn’t really one horrible villain here? Parents should teach their kid not to climb on shit (but kids will do it anyway), parents should keep an eye on their kid (but it’s impossible to do that without ever looking away for a few seconds), and the community center should have anticipated unruly kids because it’s a community center.
I don’t think it is a binary proposition. I think that this is the kind of case where determining percentage of liability is justified. The kid shouldn’t have been using the artwork as a playground - his parents would be charged for merchandise he broke in a store, so that applies here to the sculpture. And a sculpture that is that valuable in a venue rented out for wedding receptions should not be set in a way that it can easily fall over on people (nor, maybe, be in an un-guarded community center that is rented out at all). I do think the parents should be on the hook, and so should the community center. Percentages to be determined by a trial on the facts. And actual value of the sculpture to be determined, too.
ive never understood.
if i pay car insurance: it’s insurance for my car. someone runs into it, insurance pays. that’s the way i think it should work anyway. ( and i know, late stage capitalism?, it doesn’t work that way. )
if i wanted simply to sue everybody that ever did my things damage, shouldn’t i just hire a lawyer and save the middle layer?
from my view the insurance company is abrogating their basic reason for being.
Yup.
“Child hit with $132,000 bill for accidentally knocking over sculpture”
Did you see the same video I did? That looks anything but accidental. Kid put a lot of effort into knocking over that sculpture. he certainly didn’t just jostle it while running by or something.
Not even that. I think he is just a very bitter man.
“How will it be fixed?”, and “What is its insurance value?” are standard questions on all artwork consignment forms. That these questions were not part of the discussion before the work was placed on that plinth is evidence of his lack of cachet/experience. Every sculptor working in the > $ 100,000 range will have a standard consignment form they insist on having signed before consigning their work to an exhibition. This form again would have ensured that the gallery fixed the art properly to the plinth.
That’s trespass.
Remember, arguably the community centre wants people to come see their overpriced exhibits.
Let’s reframe this to: Say an employee was using a piece of equipment worth ten times their annual salary in order to do their job. If they break that equipment, should they be forced to pay for it? No. Should they be fired? Maybe. But if an employer billed their employees every time something broke, no one would be able to risk working there.
Then it falls into the “they pay for it”. Agreed that it may not be they pay for none vs pay for all. My “binary” stance is…they are liable or not. Whatever the degree is.
This incident reminds me of that time when an interactive piece of art, a beaded curtain, had way too much interaction with the mechanisms of my daughter’s wheelchair at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. Having to extricate and then hand out a separated string of beads to a museum caretaker was a little embarrassing, but they didn’t kick us out or asked us to pay for it.
Not at all. And nor is it a slippery slope to ridiculous things. If you have an artwork worth $100k plus in an an open area with a wide variety of members of the public, inc kids, roaming free with almost no control over who they may be, and you fail to secure it, the fault is all yours. RIsky things are fine, where the risk is understood and has a purpose. Not understanding this sculpture was a risk and/or deliberately or negligently leaving it at risk is the ridiculous thing here.
(And ref your comment below, this was not a museum. Expectation ad context are significant factors. People expect (largely) to need to supervise their kids more closely in a museum with valuable artefacts all around, not so much in a community centre at a social gathering.)
Actually they are subrogating. Which is one of their reasons for being. 
Your statue fell an hit my child on the head. I’m suing for $264,000.
It appears to me the child was struck in the head. Time for a counter suit.
