Timing, they say, is everything - it’s been out of commission for the last 2 years while under repair. That was just about finished, and was due to re-open within the next month or so 
7 Likes
You can go to hell with your “attractive nuisance” bullshit. I see your tort, and raise you ACC 
6 Likes
I was hoping to see him pop back out of the water with his chest impaled on the pole, but no such luck.
1 Like
“I wonder what people with dumb children do.” —Another significant population of parents (Venn diagram needed)
2 Likes
Gentleman snaps off $1 million sculpture
The linked article values the sculpture at $300k. It’s right there in the title.
1 Like
$1M is correct; 300k for the sculpture, another seven hundred for the installation, and another 200k recently on repairs. The damage gentleman caused is not 1M - the installation is still intact, it’s only the pole along with the drive and control mechanisms that need repair or replacement.
6 Likes
If you don’t prevent it, museum-goers will occasionally reach over the guard rail and put their children on the backs of the robotic dinosaurs, which will promptly become piles of bent metal and colorful rubber.
Also, if you have the robot dino’s mouths opening and closing within reach of the public, you will have to clean out the remains of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches from time to time.
7 Likes
I just looped between 14-17s and watched the guy get hit forcibly upon the head… over and over and over again. Very satisfying!
5 Likes
The act is awful, and the person who did it is a jackass for doing it, but they didn’t do a million dollars of damage, and the artwork is far from lost. The installation itself cost “the thick part of a million dollars” but the fiberglass pole with holes in it is probably the best case scenario as far as damage goes.
I’m not trying to excuse the jackassery, I just think it’s uncomfortably sensational to say “snaps off million dollar sculpture” when what actually happened was he damaged the least expensive and most easily replaced/repaired part of a million dollar kinetic sculpture installation. Working with fiberglass isn’t hard or terribly expensive. It’s not really possible to assign a monetary value to the concept of art, and we shouldn’t try to, but when it comes to things like kinetic sculpture, if we intend for those things to exist and be enjoyed long-term, we can’t afford to have any sort of Theseus’ ship reservations about them when they break/get broken/need repairs. The art is the idea and the execution, not that one specific bit of fiberglass.
I don’t know what should be done with the guy, but certainly not any heinous penalty–it was an accident caused by extreme stupidity, but an accident all the same. It will be repaired though, and thankfully people will still be able to enjoy it.
3 Likes
Do not interact with the art! 
2 Likes
What a wonderful gift to makers of dangerous and deadly products, reckless workplaces, and the usual gang of idiots. “Tort reformers” in the U.S. can only dream of having the costs of their malfeasance paid off (at a hefty bureaucratically-determined discount) by taxpayer funds. I bet it never runs woeful deficits, either! Just great.
In this particular case, the idiot in question would be laughed out of court and pay damages to the city, artist, whoever if he tried to make a claim.
Shoulda pudda snark tag. I was being mostly snarky.
2 Likes
I 
it when folks opine on stuff they don’t understand.
The right wing randroids fucking hate ACC, and are going to great lengths to kill it with the death of a thousand cuts.
5 Likes
Unless you view the signage as part of the installation? Like a commentary on… stuff… or something. I’ll leave the conceptualising up to the professionals.
It’s all good. I used to have those moments, but I’d rather just enjoy my beer nowadays. Two bad things can come of asking a buddy to hold your beer. They’ll either spill it or drink it.
1 Like
Good argument.
There are many cogent criticisms of the ACC, such as its failure to disincentivise risky behavior by bad, or ignorant actors compared to a system where those who cause harm are held more directly responsible. But I suppose it’s much easier to toss out a grotesque logical fallacy to dismiss opposing views than it is to consider whether your assumptions are sound or not.
You mean the risk-based levies which directly address the supposed incentive to run a risky operation?
those who cause harm are held more directly responsible.
You mean the legal system, which prosecutes bad actors and punishes them appropriately?
a grotesque logical fallacy to dismiss opposing views than it is to consider whether your assumptions are sound or not.
You mean this logical fallacy?
2 Likes
Where’s a great white shark when you need it?
3 Likes
The Silverman/LCK thread got me in a weird place before I came and read this thread!
As if that settles the question. Also not sure what “which directly address the supposed incentive to run a risky operation” actually means. It’s the allocation of risk and how well that tends to keep people safe, or not that is at issue. From what I have seen, the ACC is not the unqualified success that you seem to think it is.
I mean the cost of damages being borne by everyone in society, rather than attributed to the one that caused the damage. Civil suits brought in tort do not preclude criminal prosecution, if warranted.
