I was once a chaperone for a school group in the National Gallery in Washington. A child touched one of the major paintings (“look at this guys, see this here?”) and I might’ve screamed in horror louder than the laser-triggered alarms that went off. The room’s armed guard had just stepped out and he came back in like his pants were on fire, while I pretended nonchalance and hustled the kids out.
3 Likes
Yeah, some capital-M museums have guards that almost have the enthusiasm of Terry Tate, Office Linebacker, which from this painter’s standpoint, I find amusing.
4 Likes
That’s a reference I haven’t heard in a while
3 Likes
They should discover a latent injury as a result of the statue and/or mental trauma that has resulted from the whole incident. Then, countersue because of this obvious “attractive nuisance”.
1 Like
Aw man, they never allowed us to be that aggressive… 
2 Likes
It might be the payout but it’s not the value. They can make a claim to that amount but they can’t enforce the value based on the insurance payout. It’s for the courts to decide the actual liability . You can’t make other people liable for an arbitrary amount based on your say so, otherwise what’s so stop, say, a bar insuring its bar mats for a million a piece and suing if someone gets bored and tears one up?
1 Like
It feels like this is some sort of test in situational ethics. So, on the one hand:
- The CCTV footage indicates the boy who knocked the sculpture over wasn’t being supervised when it happened, despite what mom says. (After it fell over, both boys ran away.)
- It doesn’t look like an accident. It looks like the boy was intentionally grabbing it.
On the other hand:
- This is a community center, and they probably rented the space for the wedding. They knew or should have known that children would attend the wedding. And that kids will be kids.
- If you had a piece of artwork that you thought was actually worth $132,000, wouldn’t you put it in a glass or acrylic enclosure so it couldn’t be harmed?
- If the community center admits that the sculpture wasn’t “permanently” (read: securely) attached, they’re admitting that it was partially their fault that the statue fell over. And it could have hurt the kid when it fell.
I’d say the parents (and their insurance company) have a better case than the community center.
2 Likes
Waiting to be attacked for being where it shouldn’t?
1 Like
Not necessarily, museums routinely exhibit artowrk worth in the millions as is, not behind glass, because they want to present the artwork as intended and with as little barriers between the viewer and the work itself. Unfortunately art does get damaged but that’s the price of offering such freedom
1 Like
My thought exactly.
I didn’t mean to imply that an insurance policy value applied to free-market value. The artist can’t demand the venue or kid’s parents pay that amount just because the insurance agent accepted an inflated value. A professional art appraiser would be the way to go there, I think. But if the insured has declared an inflated value, and the the insurer accepts it, then the insurer just charges a higher premium to cover that amount. So the insurance company’s good sense to not accept a million dollar policy on a bar mat is what is preventing your example. If they stupidly accept, then their actuaries would have to set a ridiculously high premium, but if the bar paid it, then…
It’s not clear if the artist claimed that value prior to exhibit or after destruction. if before, done deal. if after, artist is SOL, I think.
But yeah, this is only between insured and insurer, nothing to do with what the artist could actually reasonably sell the piece for or a “legal” value or however it would be termed.
1 Like
20$ art, yeah, I will hand it over there. My kid damages an $800 item, I might cough up the full amount, depending on circumstances(see attractive nuisance). My kid damages a $132k item, talk to my attorney. That is more than my house cost. Is it a shitty attitude to preserve the home my kids live in? Self preservation and the protection of loved ones falls on a higher ethical standard than objets d’art or money grubbing corporations.
1 Like
I’ve never seen a tackle, but some of those guards are quick to put themselves in the path of running kids, at least at the Museum of the Art Institute of Chicago. I observed a nice, square headbutt to the crotch once. Unintended, but very well placed.
1 Like
If there was no barrier between the art and the child, it’s “interactive.”
Man, you gotta be fast and flexible to get your head down to intercept a running child.
4 Likes
Insurance companies will accept high valuations, and the accompanying higher insurance fees, right up until you make a claim. Then they will contest the valuation, regardless of the fact you paid all the extra money. They don’t pay out a million dollars just because you payed for a million dollars of coverage.
1 Like
which is how we get this whole thread.
shows what I know, I guess.
1 Like
One late thought…
I wonder if the community center would accept the kid in trade? Having been raised alongside three brothers, I’m sure my parents considered this many a time.
1 Like
cf. The Ransom of Red Chief
It seems pretty clear from the video that the kid was either trying to climb up the sculpture or pull it down. In either case, a kid that would do either of those things needs to have more supervision than that one had. On the other hand, $132k seems a bit steep.
That is just my perspective as a childless sculptor.
But, if my dog had done that I would expect to be liable.
1 Like
