anlyin
134697
2586
59
https://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-face-132000-claim-kid-knocks-sculpture/story?id=55927437
Parents of a 5-year-old Kansas boy were hit with a $132,000 bill after their son knocked over an art sculpture on display at a local community center.
Surveillance video captured the little boy reaching for the sculpture, called “Aphrodite di Kansas City” on display in the lobby of the Tomahawk Ridge Community Center in Overland Park, Kansas, when it toppled over.
Then a few days later, the family received a $132,000 claim from the city of Overland Park’s insurance company, saying that the piece had been damaged beyond repair.
“You’re responsible for the supervision of a minor child… your failure to monitor could be considered negligent,” the insurance letter read in part.
“I was surprised, absolutely, more so offended to be called negligent,” said the boy’s mother Sarah Goodman. “They were treating this like a crime scene.”
The sculpture’s artist, Bill Lyons, told ABC News it took him about two years to create the piece and it was listed for sale at $132,000. He examined the piece himself, he said, and concluded it could not be repaired.
“It’s beyond my capabilities and desires to rebuild it,” he said.
City officials say the piece was not “permanently attached” but it was secured to the pedestal with clips and that it was “a not an interactive piece.”
“We’ve had other pieces there [and] we’ve not had problems,” said city spokesman Sean Reilly. “We’ve not had this situation… we’ve not had kids climb on our pieces.”
But Goodman argued the sculpture should have been better secured. She also disputes the city’s claim that her child wasn’t being supervised. Goodman said she and her husband were out of frame of the surveillance camera, saying their goodbyes during a wedding reception that they were leaving, when the incident occurred.
“No one would ever to expect that to come into a place that kids are invited and have to worry about a $132,000 dollar piece of art falling on their child,” Goodman said. “Because he didn’t maliciously break that. It fell on him. It was not secure, it was not safe -- at all.”
microman55
I hate parents who just let their evil bastard's just reck other people stuff.
azazyel
"HANDS IN POCKETS!!" My mom would say that when I went into almost any store
AllTheWittyNamesAreTaken
"[...]offended to be called negligent"
theyar
I agree. The insurance company is being an evil dick here.
ZaphodBbx
Sarah: She *might* have been a bit negligent...
GTIBH
Gotta pay attention to your brats, once in a while !
Ohboyididit
People so not want to accept responsibility for anything let alone their kids ecspecially when it comes to money.
BigDickLaCroix
138k for ugly broken glass and solder. also, was that solder lead free? i wonder what OverlandParks Pb ordinance is...
thedissident
From this angle it looks like the kid is grabbing the statues boobs.
RoboticRichardSimmons
can you blame him?
FlaccidRapper
im pretty sure he is lol
slightlycrookedblinds
He’s trying to motorboat them titties! My man!
PancakeLillith
If her argument is that kids should not be invited to places that are not kids safe, I agree with that. 1/2
BobMoynes
I agree and the object was not secure and could have killed the kid.
PancakeLillith
2/2 I would love to go to a museum/movie/restaurant without annoying kids around. On the other hand, maybe just make your kids museum-safe?
TheSadCafe
Hold their hand or don’t bring them to a wedding if they can’t sit semi still. I actually kind of agreed with the parents till I saw the (1)
TheSadCafe
whole video. He was goofing off way too long. They honestly should just get a lawyer since the piece was unsold, and get s lower price. (2)
HelloAlaska
At my wedding we had set aside a time that the kids would go home/leave with a babysitter, and all the adults could stay/drink and dance. 1
HelloAlaska
2 if the parents of those kids didn't like that, then they could leave as well. It was a total blast.
TwoDogsFucking
With proper taxidermy, the guilty child could be placed on exhibit in place of the damaged statue.
Redshirt101
Or his stupid mother...or both... Now named "Statue And stupid child.
OmniXBro
Only Chuck Testa can do it.
BeefyByDesign
Under-rated comment right there, +1 for you.
FuriousPotatoe
Not a lot of people would want to look at a dick in an exhibition
lotharofthepotatopeople
Yeah, I don't know how much that thing weighed, but they're lucky they didn't end up with their kid's head smashed open.
DyingLeg3nd
I dunno on one hand, she needs to watch her kids, on the other, they should have had it more secure. I call stalemate on this one
mksu
If your five year old needs a "do not touch" sign for something like that, you didn't do your job as a parent, so yeah, negligent, fuckhead.
DontYouMeanExtinct
In my experience it’s often the adults who need the do not touch sign not the kids in museums
hamsterpoots
“If it doesn’t belong to you, don’t touch it.” Basic parenting.
lotharofthepotatopeople
My mom always told me to put my hands in my pockets, because otherwise I would end up touching things. But she also didn't let me run amok.
noReallyIamPrincessBob
The kid can't read anyway, and the parents couldn't read it from across the room. So moot point.
kaacra
agreed - that kid looked old enough to have been taught how to behave. Behavior, attention, respect - these traits need to be taught.
vinpolo
Like a 5 year old would read and heed such a sign.
catsandcoke
Adults don't see signs. Source: I worked in a museum/park. Our Bears had to be euthanized because a stupid bitch didn't read the Sign
Rollback211
Adults dont even do that majority of the time
TheSadCafe
My exact thoughts.
thraxer
That's why parents are reponsible for their rejects until 18
squeakyleeks
Exactly! Most 5-year-olds can't read yet.
myr14d
... You haven't met a five year old recently have you?
TheSadCafe
That’s why you make your kid hold your hand or go sit on their hands if they can’t behave while you say goodbye. Source: I had a 5 y.o. boy
mksu
I have, but they also have active & involved parents who teach them how to behave in public and don't leave them unsupervised in such areas.
Boggsy17
My parents always watched us. We were taught how to behave. We took off occasionally when they were talking. It happens. Never did this tho.
MegaDiogenes
Pay day for the artist. Guarantee that thing would have never sold for $132,000.
TinyRocktopus
He tried and it didn't. Why do you think it was insured without anything protecting it in a area trafficked by kids
MegaDiogenes
You're talking to me as if that's hard to believe. However, if insurance knew what they were doing they would decline the cover based -
MegaDiogenes
on it not being properly protected or bolted down.
prawnklng
INSIDE JOB !!
soupisforwinners
You can list art at any price. Doesn't mean it's worth it. That being said, watch your damn kids.
Traja01
The damages will be what the center paid for it, in all likelihood.
TinyRocktopus
It was probably donated I doubt a comunity center has that kind of cash
Traja01
It seems pretty outrageous for a community center to be spending that, I agree.
soupisforwinners
I'm betting the artist let the community center display it for free. Most community centers near me don't have that kind of money.
Traja01
It does seem like a large budget item for a community center, that's true....but if that's the case, they don't have much of a claim.
Traja01
Lots of important facts, as a legal matter, that we are in the dark about. Oh well, this post is mainly for yelling at each other anyway.
KinetoPlay
If they claimed it on insurance, they would have insured it for whatever the artist claimed it was worth. It would only be independently 1/2
RighteousRhythm
(1/2)I never want kids and they are all monsters but as someone who has to mount heavy objects on the reg you generally try to make sure...
RighteousRhythm
(2/2)this couldn't happen. Someone could've leaned on it and done this. Or kid could be injured. Protect your investment and yourself better
throwawaynoms
I'm all for slapping the parents with the bill but if a statue can be pulled down by a five year old, it wasnt very well secured to start
Deucifer
Funny, if the child was injured they could be suing the Center for not securing a dangerously heavy sculpture properly.
ILoveCreamPies
And they would so...wash?
Therealclemfandango
They should and probably will countersue. It wasn't secure in a public place? Could have crippled or killed the kid.
theyar
It clearly hurt the kid in the video.
lotharofthepotatopeople
As it is, they're lucky enough to have a living kid and a large bill.
jake123123445
It is the parents fault for letting the kids just run off on their own in an exhibit
ChlorideCull
You still need to take actions to avoid accidents. It should've been mounted more securely, or in a case. Both parties at fault.
theyar
It was a wedding party where kids were invited, at a community center. The center knowingly allowed this party with this item unsecured.
Therealclemfandango
In a community center? Well, its kind of implied in the name. But You'll see. The parents wont pay shit.
theyar
They'll get a large settlement most likely.
yikesimgur
I wonder how different it would be if the kid got hurt and the statue was fine. Bet the parents would try to sue then.
keyserv
No doubt about that.
DrunkKingOfImgur
Especially here in Johnson County (where Overland Park is), we have an insane number of lawyers living here...
[deleted]
[deleted]
yikesimgur
But the fact remains the same, that the human causes it upon its self, even if they are too young to realize it. I understand your point tho
EngineeringComedy
"Alright Son, if you ever knock anything over, make sure to dive under it"
tangent
Her argument is that it was not properly secured. Seems like she would use the do argument
JoelsPerfectBabybackRibs
I love how he initially grabs The statues titty with his left hans
JoelsPerfectBabybackRibs
Hand*
Bearto
Well yeah, they’d be in their rights to.
SaintCody
Not really, no
Bearto
If the statue was properly secured or in an actual gallery, I'd agree with you.
NickRivieraMD
I wonder if the mom said anything to anyone. Context seems to suggest not. She might have been able to avoid this with a little courtesy.
Flymolo30
Parents will probably try to sue anyway.
meltingpine
Ironically, their argument would be the same, though. “The statue was improperly secured”
Grillparzer
Yes, because it was. Which is why this suit probably won't go anywhere.
gluttonygreedpridewrathslothlustenvy
That doesn't make it ironic. It makes it a coherent argument that doesn't appeal to outcome to justify itself.
DetectiveSloth
"There was no glass case." Yup same argument
WhyCantIHaveADog
A child being hurt is worse than an object being damaged.
JapeLord42
A child could have been hurt. They weretearing around without effective supervision.By luck, it didn't land on his head or torso
theyar
It's obvious in the video that he did get hurt. They're probably launching this ridiculous suit against the parents preemptively.
DustinDustyDust
You strike me as a negligent parent who's children run a muck wherever they go.
theyar
You're ignorant of how law and responsibility actually work in real life among well-adjusted, rational people.
seanrus16OG
How exactly is it obvious?
theyar
He wanders away holding his head.
SaintCody
Harambe
CziltangBrony
Too soon, brah. Too soon.
LucianKane
The easy solution to both would have been too affix the statue to the base to make it so either case wouldn't happen.
stabby506
Kid could have still damaged it.
TheFeralDog
No, that would damage the statue that is for sale. The whole point is to avoid damage. Just watch your damn kids... It's not hard
xj4low
Wife and I have stopped hanging w/ friends who don't watch their kids. I worked in insurance, always watching for probs when parents didn't.
idisagreewithyou
Bossy22
Or, be a better parent and not let your kids run around like that
Alfadorfox
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/bth.gif
scooterific
I'm wondering why of all the places you let your kid run around why would you do it around a bunch of art
JamesAHarrod
Bossy22
Fuck her, she can pay full price. If her kid would’ve gotten hurt, she would’ve wanted a hell of a lot more than $132K
JamesAHarrod
theatand
How do you know? You are just generalizing a complete stranger.
keyserv
Have you raised children?
Bossy22
Yep. They were well behaved when we went out. Why? Are you one of the bad parents that let kids run around screaming and being disruptive?
keyserv
Oh hell no, my kid's respectful. I don't do that bratty shit. I was just curious and I can't remember why.
SolidBrassAndHangingLow
Either gets solved by "watching your fucking kids" and teaching them how to behave in a museum
SuperMaggie0531
I started when my son was 2 and he can be out in civilized society without me hovering or a 130K bill. Ya gotta teach them.
BigDickLaCroix
*NOT A MUSEUM*
SolidBrassAndHangingLow
Oh my bad, then by all means let your children destroy stuff.
BigDickLaCroix
Did you EVER break anything as a child?
SolidBrassAndHangingLow
Not when out in places I was told to behave in
blazera
never ever got out of view of your parents or did anything wrong as a kid
becauseurwrong
I didn't.. my mom would scare me about strangers or publicly embarass me. But my bro once unscrewed every chair in a waiting room at 6yo.
Wolfshead009
I certainly knew enough as a kid that a statue wasn't something to climb like that. Kid is a brat and parents didn't control him.
icounttopotato
At 5yo no less! It takes maybe 10-15 seconds for disaster. I would 100% have the same argument as the parents. Unsafe, OSHA would fine them!
changerofways9
Though to be fair, it's not really a museum. It's a community center.
SolidBrassAndHangingLow
Oh then by all means let your children destroy stuff
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Yeah, it makes no sense to have art of this value out in the open in a community centre. Kids run around in community centres.
HoboStabWound
It doesn't matter. The kid shouldn't be climbing on the walls. You have to train and watch your kids.
BadgerMedicGuy
Found the person without kids... or the helicopter parent breeding future ignorance
SolidBrassAndHangingLow
I have kid and I'm more of a free range parent. I taught my kid to behave. So the ignorant one is you
becauseurwrong
I know shit happens and you can't watch your kids 24/7 but you can teach them not to touch without permission or to stay beside you.
theyar
Yeah but all of humanity is aware that a five year does not have the mental capacity to make the best decision in that regard every time 1/?
theyar
and that children can get out of sight, especially in an enclosed area at a family gathering, and so the real idiot here is the community2/?
becauseurwrong
At the very least for safety sake so they don't get crushed or kidnapped.
thepromisedLAN
Nope parents fault totally
Affray
They definitely should have been wrangling the kids more effectively, but an unsecured $132 000 sculpture in a community centre is stupid.
theyar
Zero chance of that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
jake123123445
They let their kids run off on their own and they broke shit
pdp1
I have two young kids and here's my take: If the kid was walking by and accidentally knocked it over, fine, not necessarily the (1/2)
pdp1
kid's or parents fault. But this kid was climbing on it! He should have been taught better or watched over better. Parent's fault (2/2)
Surbies
As a parent of a 3 year olds fuuuuuuuuuuuuck them and all the shit parents that don’t watch their shitty kids.
helmutk00hl
Ouuuuu yeeaaah
Harambaegel
THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS! Shitty parenting solves like 99% of our country's problems, I'd bet.
ladyjigglebutt
Also mother to a 3yr old. Agree 100%. Hold onto ya damn crotch goblins.
McJersey
Crotch goblins... tehe
williammurderfacemurderfacemurderface
meskuntujay
BlameTheDeer
I laughed at the part where they were offended by being called neglegant. Any child our of your sight/control is the parents fault.
cool299
To be fair I'd say the same shit if 130 grand was on the line, regardless of whether I think it's true or not
theyar
It is fucking offensive and completely ridiculous.
BlameTheDeer
Not really. If that child came into your house and broke something expensive while the parent wasn't watching them, it's the parents fault.
theyar
No, that's not really how things work. I can't leave a $million piece of art one the floor in front of the door and then send you a bill 1/?
theyar
when you step on it. There's a sorting-out of who's really to blame, who could have prevented what. 2/2
CaughtInTheCameraEye
I told a guy off for buying his rotten kids ice creme BEFORE dinner came out at a restaurant because they pretty much ran all up and down...
BlameTheDeer
My hero!
CaughtInTheCameraEye
The place and even brought noisy toys, security was called twice and they didn't change. I was like "you rewarding that shit mate"
equityforpunks
Really? Your kid has never managed to run out of your sight for 5s? Well, lets see that couple years in time.
grumpyolderman
Irrelevant. Parents should've taught 5 YO to look with his eyes, not his hands. Shitty parenting. This is why we can't have nice things.
Surbies
Well if my kid was to knock over a priceless statue I wouldn’t look at them and continue chatting like these parents did.
ohnoofcourseyourright
The news I saw this morning said that wasn't the parents.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
I don't think those are the parents. The text says they were out of frame saying goodbye at a wedding reception.
jake123123445
That’s even worse they just let the kids run off on their own in the exhibit
HoboStabWound
Please do us a favor and don't make us deal with your kids for you.
Veryscarygary
My 2.5 year old would get a talk prior to being let loose, and a close eye. He'd be fine, but in case he got too close all it would take 1/2
Veryscarygary
Would be a stern voice and he'd stop. If you can't get your kid to stop with a command you shouldn't leave them unattended. 2/2
elShiz
But but they're not pets...man! You can't just command children like that, pfff kuh chuh, they're people!
dwilson0725
The problem is these people let their kids run around. They weren't supervising them at all.
therealnickjames
2 downvotes. 2 shitty parents
Rubyredslippers33
There are now 29! So many bad parents! Haha
McJersey
55 and counting...
elShiz
42 negligent patents & counting. How the fuuuuuck is this not solely on the parents? It didn't just "fall" your little shit pulled it down!
BC2k2
As a parent of a child I KNOW is hyper active, my son would have been on his monkey backpack at that age (a leash and harness)
BC2k2
That's because I know how how much he likes to wiggle free and rabbit on us. He's calmed down a lot now that he is able to understand
BC2k2
WHY it's not good to act like that. But FFS What the hell is wrong with those parents?
HarryBlackstoneCopperfieldDresden
On one hand, I agree. On the other, that shit ain't worth 132k.
FuriousPotatoe
Have you ever made a sculpture? How would you know if it wasn't worth the money.
HarryBlackstoneCopperfieldDresden
Nope, but I've worked in insurance claims, and art is barely worth the materials it's made with until it's appraised by and actual (1)
HarryBlackstoneCopperfieldDresden
dealer/appraiser. The artist doesn't get to dictate the art's worth in any legal dealings. (2)
TheLannistersSendALovelyFruitBasket
...I'm sorry, Aphrodite of Kansas City? Is that a joke?
personalspaceinvaderspiff
He was supervised, just out of frame, from a different room. $132k is a hefty reminder to do some parenting.
TheSadCafe
Lol right. I don’t agree that he should pay full cost but the parents weren’t close enough to stop him when he fumbled with the statue.
Rosie2003
And one that she clearly needed.
theyar
It's also unreasonable given the circumstances. It's a wedding where kids are invited. The center hosting the art knew this.
Quellan
If we grant that the child was supervised, the damage was done with the consent of the parents. How does this avoid negligence?
depichu
I don't think it does. The parents' argument digs the home deeper
theyar
Negligence doesn't mean your child was out of your sight for 10 seconds in an enclosed area among friends. Negligence means something more.
Therealclemfandango
One could argue negligence for not having a heavy, and potentially dangerous item secured. I'd counter sue.
jake123123445
That’d be funny your kid destroys the artist’s property so you sue
theyar
It's not funny it's entirely reasonable.
TearsAreGoodLube
How do you supervise from another room?
IOnlyPostThatOneGorillaGif
BlackTrashTiger
You're the best gorilla
lethaldoobie
both are wrong...parents got to watch their kids - no amount of precaution will prevent a child from messing with something, BUT 1/2
lethaldoobie
2/2 the building has to take SOME measures to secure a 100k+ piece of art...especially with kids around...Id say they split the cost...
W92Baj
I agree. If a 5 yr old can pull it over, its not secured. Also the artist sounds like a massive cunt
Modsarekunttytwats
This is not a children's museum. "Don't touch" is standard for EVERY museum. Get a leash for your fucking vagina puppy, you dumb cunt.
ItzRickGrimz8itch
+1 for vagina puppy
BigDickLaCroix
*not a museum. *
Therealclemfandango
"Community center" implies that its for all members of the community. The parents are going to win 100%. That "art" wasn't secure and a
Therealclemfandango
danger to children, mentally or physically disabled, the elderly etc... Maybe secure it properly next time?
LightningFlashPoem
Vagina puppy is the best thing I've heard all year
equityforpunks
Community center is not exactly a museum. And I am pretty sure not a single one has art of 132k real value on display.
RydWolf
Well...this one did. And now I don't know that others *wouldn't* have similar, now that I know of at least one place that does. Did.
DrSparken
You're right, the art had never been sold to demonstrate that value, artist let the centre display it while "waiting for sale".
BigDickLaCroix
Which would not occur during the grate artistes life
Modsarekunttytwats
Museum, gallery, community center. Irrelevant. It wasn't a place for her 5 year old fucktrophy to climb shit unsupervised.
Therealclemfandango
Its a COMMUNITY CENTER!!!! That implies its for all members of the community. The parents WILL win this. You have an obligation if you put
Therealclemfandango
items in an area that is used by the public to make sure it isn't a threat to the public. Yes, MOST American's are dangerously stupid.
Modsarekunttytwats
It could have been anywhere. The point is the little fucker shouldn't have been climbing it. His parents weren't watching him.
equityforpunks
It's not irrelevant because community center has totally different purpose than museum. Are you planning to leash your kid everywhere?
Modsarekunttytwats
Also, yes. There are a lot of kids that should be on a leash at all times. Most dogs are better behaved than most kids.
Modsarekunttytwats
It doesn't matter where it was. The fucker shouldn't be climbing on it. The parents weren't parenting.
rabbiebabbie
Your first comment nailed it but now it seems like you're trying too hard. It's like you're the comment equivalent to a movie sequel
Affray
rabbiebabbie
Hey its that n***erguy!
morainsforward20159
I understand this is a community center, but it is obviously not a playground or daycare for others to watch them. Make your kids behave.
xj4low
Agreed. You child proof a house or day care, but public community center that may have a local art wing, keep an eye on your kids.
theyar
No responsibility to keep an eye on the art? Just lock it up in the closet when the space is rented for weddings?
corbynDallas
They were probably planning for the statue to get knocked over. Who doesn't box in a statue of that value!
MyGirlWednesday
This type situation is exactly what insurance is for. The community center was responsible for the statue and should've had insurance.
theyar
They did. Insurance is being dicks. The kid was obviously hurt and they're trying to scare the parents into signing a waiver.
scalam197101
I mean idk about you but the community centre in my town is a playground plus building plus a bunch of activities for kids because 1/2
scalam197101
Wait for it... IT'S A FUCKIN COMMUNITY CENTER of course kids are going to be running and playing around it in.
MrKibbs
GIVE THEM THE BELT!
CredibleHulk
Indeed. So how does that factor into the duty of each party, and the proximate cause of the statue breaking?
theyar
Exactly. The duty of the community center, the artist, and the insurance company to make even the slightest effort to secure or protect 1/?
theyar
this item wrt its $132K value and its danger as an injury hazard are far more clearcut and far more neglected here than the debatable 2/?
theyar
duty of parents to keep a child at arm's length in an enclosed space at a family party where children were invited and plenty of other 3/?
theyar
family adults are around, or their duty to reasonably expect that items of limitless arbitrary value are around that can be easily 4/?
booooooort
Bankruptcy oughta teach em a lesson!
Jostorm
A 5 y-o is by definition turbulent, clumsy and clueless to such things. A parent can't be expected to know exactly what their kid's doing1/2
Jostorm
every second of every day especially if the kid in question is the slightest lively. Putting them on a leash all the time isn't a solution.
thisgirlwantsnoname
I wasn't on a leash but I damn well knew not to run around and touch things that weren't mine even as lively clumsy 5 yr old
Danomyte98
You remember being 5 holy shit balls
cargo305
Knowing where they are and what a 5 yo is doing is called parenting! Mom was busy playing grab ass.
[deleted]
[deleted]
xj4low
It is insured. They decided the parents are negligent and at fault. Now it's up to parents home owners to see if they agree if parents fault
SaudadeOfSunday
They did. The insurance company is suing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Largemouthsass
Read the story, it clearly says insurance.
SaudadeOfSunday
How does insurance work in your country then?? They aren't a charity. They litigate against the at fault party after paying their customer.
Xedi22
Exactly. The owner/city will get repaid...but the insurance company will try to recoup the cost. (Or not pay.)
blazera
never did anything wrong as a kid?
ThatRandomCanadian
I lied about my homework and didn't eat my vegetables, but I never ruined a $100k+ art piece as a kid.
blazera
never knocked over anything? This is only a 100k art piece in hindsight for anyone involved. It sure isnt treated like one.
AustriaNotAustralia
Noone blames the kid
blazera
okay, this is still relevant if you're blaming the parents because then it means his parents let him do something wrong as a kid.
blazera
there's a weird number of people in these comments who never did anything wrong or ever got out of view of their parents as a kid
equityforpunks
Why have 132k "art" in community center in the 1st place. Even a cleaner could trip that over by accident wo having any idea of its "worth".
thecanadianwhoatethemoose
Overland Park....
Huevos
As an artist, it makes me glad that they have expensive art in such an open community space. It brings art to the people w/o museum costs.
wekilledbambi03
It is nice to have open access to fine art. But listed at $132k doesn’t mean sold for $132k. I could list my next shit at $150k.
shedooooooooo
It was an art display in a community center. My parents would've never let me touch art. Teach your kids respect, they should know better.
equityforpunks
And in b4 "no they wouldn't", cleaners have thrown modern art in trash by accident...wait for it... in a museum of modern art.
TechinTeacher
AnonOmis1000
To be fair what constitutes as modern art these days is sometimes literally trash
ObliqueRay
To be fair here, what distinguishes some modern art from trash is purely your point of view.
pooploops83
Artists should be able to take pride in loaning/donating for public consumption. This is clearly a bust on a stand, not something to climb.
ImSynnical
I don’t think 5 year olds even with strict parents can comprehend that
skrizzle4rizzle
I don't agree with the parent but why would you not have a glass case around a $130,000+ object of any kind. What would the glass run you
CredibleHulk
Bingo! Most people have ignored the liability of the community center when they obtained the license from the artist.
DemonDuJour
Maybe $20K or more -- price escalates quickly with size, large sheets of tempered glass especially because of liability concerns.
travelbuddy
Ya and why are u holding a wedding there... I mean drunk ppl kids etc. Can’t trust them. This is why ppl have insurance.
CredibleHulk
Right! In tort law, we call that proximate causation.
Ramajam
The statues been sitting there just fine for a plenty long time. It's only when ignorant parents come around that things fall apart.
Slashinhobo
Maybe they believed that people would be responsible. There have been other places around the world where ppl ruin art that cost a lot w/ no
CredibleHulk
Indeed. But is that belief reasonable? That is, was the center's failure to secure the statue a proximate cause of it breaking?
Slashinhobo
Glass or barrier thinking people no not to touch the art or can read signs.
Nize426
Because if it breaks, insurance will pay the artist back. I'm sure if he'd be more inclined to fix it if he wasn't getting paid
CredibleHulk
But what about third party impleader?
skrizzle4rizzle
Like another $1000?
GoblinOfPoliticalSuccubus
So worth more than the statue.
skrizzle4rizzle
Also don't you think securing it with something a little more structurally sound then some clips would have been a good idea too?
DontYouMeanExtinct
Yes items should always be secured. In BC we do so not just for safety but earthquake prevention. Risk management was not executed well
allegedlynerdy
The thing is, that value is arbitrarily made up by the artist..the piece failed to sell at auction before, so he donated it to the center.
NotTheSharpestSpoonInTheDrawer
If it was donated then the recorded asset value on the balance sheet is zero. So why did they have it insured at the artist asking price?
allegedlynerdy
That was a poor choice of words, he had it displayed at the community center.
rabbiebabbie
Lol so it's not really worth that much if it never sold for that much! You can't just donate something and say it's worth $500,000!
allegedlynerdy
Exactly. And the artist wants the money for it, not the community center. He's just trying to.make fast cash.
DontYouMeanExtinct
Museum cases are ridiculously expensive & people complain when art is behind glass. There should’ve been signs or a rope barrier.
theyar
It shouldn't be there when the space is renting for a wedding. Lock in in the closet during those events. No cost.
DontYouMeanExtinct
Lots of museums host events and weddings and don’t put all their objects away. Constantly moving artworks is a leading cause of damage
BoogaAndTheB52
Possible Unpopular opinion: Glass cases around art and sculptures is ugly and glare on the glass can obscure the details/photography of 1/2
BrokeMyFunnyBone
How about some fucking rope around something that heavy and unsecured? Not to mention arbitrarily expensive.
CredibleHulk
Yes! Most people have missed the potential liability of the community center.
BoogaAndTheB52
the object. I'm all for it for artefacts because their historical significance makes them uniquely irreplaceable. People should be able 2/3
BoogaAndTheB52
to see nice things presented nicely in a public space without worrying about irresponsibility.3/3
CredibleHulk
Interesting approach. Under the law of negligence, this is called competing duties.
MrNightfish
Okay, I can see the point of the claim, but I can also see how if I displayed something worth more than my kidneys I'd probably secure it...
TinyRocktopus
Why secure it when you can insure it?
Therealclemfandango
Or something that could fall if bumped into by a Kansas fat ass, potentially injuring someone. The parents are going to win this one unless
Therealclemfandango
their lawyer is brain dead.
jake123123445
They should have to pay something their kid broke it but definitely no where near 132 k
FriendlyNeighbourhoodSatan
She wasnt watching her kid, and is therefore negligent. But they failed to secure the statue or encase it, or even put up velvet ropes, so >
[deleted]
[deleted]
theyar
You can't be deemed negligent for something completely unreasonable to expect. Never in my life would I go to a wedding where children 1/?
theyar
are invited and just naturally assume that there's $132,000 unsecured shit laying around that can fall and break. That's fucking ridiculous
FriendlyNeighbourhoodSatan
The cost of the art on display isnt the issue. The issue is that her child damaged someone else's property while she wasnt watching them.
theyar
No, there are many issues at play here. Life isn't black and white.
FriendlyNeighbourhoodSatan
The point is that your statement that a person can't be deemed negligent because they weren't aware of the value of the property their >
FriendlyNeighbourhoodSatan
They could also be considered negligent. Neither are right. Both contributed to the situation.
Traja01
There's a legal theory called "contributory negligence" where the jury puts a % at fault, and reduces damages by that. So if the jury says
Traja01
the museum was 30% at fault, then the damages would be 132k x 0.7. This assumes that contributory negligence is the law there.
OrangeFlavours
Yep. Both are to blame, both should take note of this experience and learn their lessons. But seriously, a little rope can't hurt.
TheSadCafe
Yeah. If I had a $130k car on view, you better believe it’d be behind ropes. Art should be the same!
OrangeFlavours
Yep. I can understand not having glass, it's probably a bit expensive and ugly to put full body size displays in it, but cmon, ropes.
jake123123445
Kids would just run under the rope tho
CredibleHulk
As a former tort attorney, this makes a fascinating law school exam question.
CredibleHulk
Interestingly, no one has yet touched on the issue of proximate causation...
LegendaryMeowcow
As someone who just finished their 1L year, I immediately thought the same thing.
MsMaryMack06
I just finished a tort class and I think the family will have to pay...they talked about getting a lawyer...
CredibleHulk
What about the liability of the community center, and joint and several liability? Also, why is the child's behavior imputed onto /1
CredibleHulk
the parents? Remember, children can be sued for torts individually, depending on the age of the child. /2
MsMaryMack06
The kid's 5 and should known better...I do think the parents are at fault here. They were not watching him when he toppled the piece.
CredibleHulk
Indeed. So if the parents were at fault for not watching the kid, is that fault a proximate cause of the statue breaking?
AbigailLongbottom
I'm curious about the claimed value. I'm not sure, "It's listed for sale as $132k" means it's worth $132k. I doubt the artist spent 1/
CredibleHulk
When you insure a piece of property, the insurance company will hire an actuary to first have it appraised. The policy probably /1
CredibleHulk
insures the art piece up to $132k based on the initial appraisal. /2
AbigailLongbottom
It's not clear the insurance company appraised it though. According to the creator: "I want to be reimbursed for the amount of time 1/
AbigailLongbottom
that I spent on it and for what I think it is worth." So it seems like the city said, insurance, pay the artist, and the artist said, 2/
AbigailLongbottom
that much money making it. If it was a unique piece from a long dead artist sure. But the artist is alive and saying he "doesn't want" to 2/
AbigailLongbottom
make it again. And now he should get the $132k it was listed at? I call bullshit.
ArtSparkle
As an artist I find it hard to believe a 132k piece was surrounded by crap artwork. No website, no history of sales
StormWingDelta
Materials use, time invested, tools and machines use, etc, lets just say it adds up fast.
AbigailLongbottom
It doesn't really matter how much the artist spent making it though. What matters is the pieces value. The piece was on display for sale, 1/
FuriousPotatoe
He spent two fucking years making it and now its broken cuz some dumb kid wanted to "hug" it
TheGate
Well sure, the kid needs to learn how to behave appropriately in public, no doubt. But the value does seem high. Then again, I dont know art
AbigailLongbottom
And? If he couldn't sell it for more than $50 he shouldn't get $132k for it.
BigDickLaCroix
easily answered i guess https://www.hutchlawks.com/blog/legal/are-you-legally-responsible-for-your-child-s-actions-in-kansas.html
theyar
So the answer is no, they aren't liable. Makes sense to me.
CredibleHulk
What about the kid? Remember, kids can be liable individually for torts. Or the community center?
CredibleHulk
I feel like everyone missed the potential liability of the community center...
themanwhoisalternatelyrudeandpolite
Not really "You can’t assume that because your child’s actions weren’t intentional or fall outside of 38-120 that you won’t be held liable."
themanwhoisalternatelyrudeandpolite
"There are also “common law” principles of liability that may still apply and you could still be liable for your child’s actions."
BigDickLaCroix
it would be for a jury to decide if if the intention was to damage and that it was malicious. hard case even by lax civil standards of guilt
CredibleHulk
Would it? Is intent a matter of fact or a matter of law? Would it matter if the trial were bifurcated? (Socratic method from an adjunct!)
CoolMoG
hugging the statue was intentional
CredibleHulk
Very good point. So to which action does the mens rea of intent apply?
themanwhoisalternatelyrudeandpolite
but it's the damage that has to be intentional.
BigDickLaCroix
does the parental responsibility act cover accidental civil damage? or just criminal fines/fees. i know it does not cover probabtion
CredibleHulk
Why go after the parents? Remember, minors can be held individually liable for torts. But can they in this case???
BigDickLaCroix
Nope.
theyar
To scare them.
CredibleHulk
Under Kansas law, this would likely not be covered, because the act only considers willful "malicious" conduct.
Matrican
Question from somebody from EU here. Is that law very different in other states? Or is it more or less the same in all/many?
CredibleHulk
Different in each state: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/parental-responsibility-in-all-50-states.pdf
BigDickLaCroix
They are similar. But disparate. Each state has its own laws, then there are federal laws also. Smaller crimes are muni code.
BigDickLaCroix
Under 38-120, a parent is financially liable when a minor under the age of 18 living with one or both of their parents “maliciously or --->
BigDickLaCroix
someone and/or parental responsibility laws in Kansascauses damage to someone’s property. This statute does not hold a parent liable for -->
BigDickLaCroix
damages in the event of an accident or careless behavior. Case Closed. westlaw probably faster.
BigDickLaCroix
https://www.hutchlawks.com/blog/legal/are-you-legally-responsible-for-your-child-s-actions-in-kansas.html
BigDickLaCroix
And who the fuck downvoted this?
Jekkies
I upvoted your original question, then came back to downtown it and this after seeing you rage over fake internet points.
BigDickLaCroix
That's okay. Got it back
BigDickLaCroix
also, rage? you wanna see rage, you should see me when your mom is late with my hot pocket. and i am not talking about a microwaves snack
Sporkee
Probably a negligent parent.
BigDickLaCroix
I only know it don't cover probation because I refused to make my 14 year old do it. Lol, that was a pissed off judge.
digitreal
You have something that cost $132k at a rec center, you are an idiot for not securing it.
KinetoPlay
It didn't cost 132k, it was "valued" at 132k, by the artist. It isn't actually worth that much until you convince someone to buy it.
trubblebot
Exactly this. Her $800 is probably closer to the real value than the artist's $132K.
BigDickLaCroix
Considering it never sold, how much is glass and solder worth? Also, both recyclable
squash34
Or some kind of barrier. Totally agree with this. AND all the people saying “watch your kids” ... experience from a father of four.
shedooooooooo
Even if the art had a barrier, fuck the parents for not teaching their kids never to touch art. They'd probably draw on a painting too.
TheSadCafe
I agree that they’re both a little at fault. Watch your kids, and secure expensive art.
DinoSuarez
$132k but we couldn’t afford to put it in a glass case. Mmkay
TallDude
Artist claims it to be worth that much. Sticker price.
MoneybagsMcGee
Especially cuz a wedding reception is being held there, lots of drunk ass people
[deleted]
[deleted]
digitreal
That's where I went with it.
Therealclemfandango
And if it had hurt a child that rec center would be FUCKED.
PancakeLillith
I don't think the price should really matter. Kids need to know not to break other peoples things, also when it is cheap.
DoctorPitt
Yeah but common sense is to protect and secure valuable objects; you wouldnt keep your keys in your unlocked car.
DoctorPitt
Also I'd like to clarify I'm not saying the mother is in the right just that the community center isn't in the right either both party have
DoctorPitt
to take responsibility that they could've done more.
digitreal
What if it wasn't a kid. What if someone tripped or backed up into it. You don't just leave something that expensive sitting out.
ReadySetBake
That wouldn't be negligence if you fell accidently.
somepersondoingsomethings
If you look closely, it looks as if the kid tried picking it up off the stand and the weight overwhelmed him. It did not easily fall.
Therealclemfandango
Um.... That kids like 4. It EASILY fell.
Therealclemfandango
Public places need to secure large, heavy and dangerous items from the public. The parents are going to win this one.
theyar
Of course. The expectation on them is completely unreasonable here.
Therealclemfandango
It was simply the first shot in a legal battle that will settle for less than 5k IMO.
theyar
Actually, way beyond that. Insurance company saw the footage first and realized they were in very real danger of a negligence suit 1/?
smeeshsmoosh
If this were an art museum then yeah, unacceptable not to watch your kids. But a $132k sculpture at a community center? Really??
[deleted]
[deleted]
youstupidpoop
That's not what entrapment is and the kid clearly pulls it down in the video
[deleted]
[deleted]
StormWingDelta
That said not keeping them in check and from doing so is the parent's fault.
MoneybagsMcGee
During a wedding reception full of drunkies no less
McFluffySundae
They will likely settle on a much lower price because either that guy will never see the money cause they can't pay or he gets a smaller pay
AManWoman
My favorite part is the artist’s “it is beyond my [...] desire to repair” ok dude you just want the $$$. Source: I’m an artist
GdSvThQn
Ya, set a big price tag and now he sees a buyer
ImgurIsOutOfUsernames
Nice cherry picking. You're probably right, but you still cherry picked the quote.
TardWrangl3r
That was the biggest red flag for me reading this. I bet that statement comes back to bite him in court
TheGate
Leaving out a significant part of the quote to add strength to your point comes off as pretty disingenuous. Limited characters, I know - 1/2
TheGate
But you're actively using their words against them when there is more to what was said. My interpretation of the full quote? They're sick2/3
TheGate
of working on it, and couldnt make it the same as it was. Youre probably right about the $ motivation. But your quote isnt honest, either3/3
Sturmgeschutz
Artist is using this as a way to get a massive price for something nobody would have purchased.
ImgurIsOutOfUsernames
So? If the kids has been behaving, there wouldn't have been a problem
trubblebot
It sounds like the art was listed for sale for $132K, which suggests to me that it actually has never been purchased for $132K to begin with
JustSomeEnglishGuy
Yeah unless a buyer was lined up to pay that price you can't fairly say it was worth that.
IHateApostrophes
Exactly. How much would you spend for something called "Aphrodite di Kansas City"?
BrisingrAerowing
Tree Fiddy
trubblebot
$800
unohowibe
LawFiveGuy
Seems like a little victim-blaming, but that's just my interpretation of your comment
TakeshisApprentice
Word. You never know what can happen.
oldtype
but it's simple. don't touch what's not yours. done.
PancakeLillith
There are expensive cars on public streets. If your kid climbs on that and breaks it, you have to pay as well. I don't see the difference.
Maelstrom88
Unless you got a fat kid jumping on your Ferrari's hood like a trampoline, I don't see how this relates to overpriced fragile statues.
smeeshsmoosh
No way the kid should have been climbing on it, but running around in a community center seems like perfectly acceptable kid behavior.
BigDickLaCroix
insurance that is proper for what is being damaged make i difference. the city should not have taken a price that was not covered.
Laaub
A kid climbing on even a 1 million dollar car doesn't cause 1 millions dollar of damage. Just a weird note to make. Not sure how relevant.
jake123123445
You get charged more in repair costs depending on the value of the car
equityforpunks
I want to see how a kid totals a porsche into non-repairable condition.
NotTheSharpestSpoonInTheDrawer
"I don't want to repair it so they should buy me a new Porsche"
ThatRandomCanadian
"And its beyond a mechanic's ability to repair as well."
Lulabel73
The difference is a car is actually worth something and art is subjective.
NotTheSharpestSpoonInTheDrawer
Art is an asset, just like a car, and is valued the same way; cost of purchase/manufacturing.
Lulabel73
Not until someone buys it. I can make anything &put $100k price tag on it, doesn’t mean it’s worth it. Insurance should cover it, like it -
Lulabel73
- would a car. Did the artist pay out for insurance of a $130,000 art piece? I don’t think so.
DotheBabyIsaac
Either are only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, no?
Lulabel73
That’s right. And this piece was not sold.
DotheBabyIsaac
So by your logic, if it had not sold, it was worthless? I'm not sure I follow..
PancakeLillith
The value of a car is subjective as well
Lulabel73
you can get a pretty good estimate on most cars unless it’s a custom. So I guess sometimes it is.
PancakeLillith
you can get a pretty good estimate on most art as well
smeeshsmoosh
True, but on the other hand you'd have to be pretty dumb to park your Ferrari on the edge of the field you know kids play baseball in.
PancakeLillith
Alright.... I will park my Ferrari somewhere else next time.
TheSadCafe
Good! Haha
TallDude
But this is saying I had a car for sale, it got dented, and I am charging the people what I was asking for it. Not the same as a true value
DotheBabyIsaac
Well, as stated above, statue is 'totaled', i.e. beyond repair. So yes, full cost should be sought. Don't want to pay 132k? Then don't 1/2
DotheBabyIsaac
break expensive shit I guess.
cr4sh0verride
They SHOULD be held responsible for damage, but sticking them with retail pricing is just vindictive.
McFluffySundae
They will likely settle on a much lower price because either that guy will never see the money cause they can't pay or he gets a smaller pay
JunkMonk
as vindictive as the artist saying he has "no desire" to fix the piece to save them the burden
TheSadCafe
I think he meant it couldn’t be fixed, but adding “no desire” makes it sound like he’s being super whiny about it.
ImANurse
Art is subjective. Can be very overpriced. Some Picasso look like kid scribble
DriverIRQnotlessOrEqual
But... damage a Picasso at the museum or gallery and I guarantee that you will not be having a good time
DotheBabyIsaac
Damages Picasso, "It wasn't even that good anyway".. lol. Agreed. when you damage other's property, you dont get to decide the replace value
Zan11
A museum that gets hold of a Picasso will have solid insurance and enough tact not to pursue damages unless intentional and malicious
KinetoPlay
Unless you maliciously damage it, you'll likely just be asked to leave and maybe banned from the museum.
BigDickLaCroix
insured, properly.... this was not insured properly, hence the insurance refusing to pay
GahDuma
It's called subrogation. The insurance company pays the artist and goes after the responsible party. P common.
BigDickLaCroix
also, if not properly insured. look, i garentee the city did not have a policy on this piece. they are trying to cover it with facilities..
theyar
No, it's a dick move to try to threaten them into signing away their right to sue for hurting their kid.
Cucumberclouds
And they almost certainly can't pay it.
McFluffySundae
They will likely settle on a much lower price because either that guy will never see the money cause they can't pay or he gets a smaller pay
Traja01
In all likelihood the case settles for much less, but it's still really, really going to hurt.
Bikerpants
They're Asian. I bet they can
rabbiebabbie
Retarded
stickyrice031524
How do you know they're Asian?
DemonDuJour
Vindictive would be charging them for the costs of the investigation, assessing the damage, and attorney's fee.
[deleted]
[deleted]
DemonDuJour
"Not spending much" doesn't equal "can't bill much." Technician might get paid $20/hr but customers are billed at $60/hr.
Traja01
That is the damage, though, if the center bought it for 132k. The piece is beyond repair, a total loss, so that 132k is now wasted.
BigDickLaCroix
it was an unsold (no value assigned at auction) on loan from a local grate artieste. how much is it really worth, --->
BigDickLaCroix
2 years salary? thats what grate artisetes claim is. i say not!
Traja01
Your username makes me feel like I shouldn't take this seriously.
BigDickLaCroix
i wouldnt take any of this seriously.
butthurtnevergetsbetter
If your kids break shit in a store, they also stick you with retail pricing. If you don't want to pay that, how about not breaking shit?
equityforpunks
You expect your community center have 132k "art" on display?
TheFeralDog
If i see a statue i wouldn't let my kids close enough to touch it without being right next to them. Regardless of where it is
lifeisshortsoshutthehellup
I agree, but 132k? Who comes up with that? The artist? Way to arbitrary and subjective to use as a basis.
mormontsraven
It's a sculpture, that was the selling value of the piece
lotharofthepotatopeople
If I'd worked on something for two years, you bet your ass I'd charge a handful for it.
TheGhostofElizabethShue
It does. The statue isn't destroyed, it's damaged. A repair fee is what they should be talking about.
theyar
At most. Kid getting hurt is the actual issue here. The threat over $132K is absurd and just a scare tactic.
DriverIRQnotlessOrEqual
Artist said he couldn’t repair it so essentially it’s damaged beyond repair aka destroyed
ShesGotASerratedEdge
He also said he wasn't interested in repairing it. Chances are it can be repaired, it's just not worth it.
Traja01
Ability *and* desire. So it cannot be repaired, and even if it could, he has no interest. Conjunctive, can't treat it as a disjunctive.
KinetoPlay
He made it originally, he could repair it. He just doesn't want to.
cr4sh0verride
There's plenty of mismanagement here. The parents weren't managing their kids, and whoever was running the show didn't manage security.
cr4sh0verride
If it's not worth fixing, it's also not worth bankrupting a family of humans. Call me old fashioned.
Ghost0fDawn
Imagine spending 2 years on your work and getting hit with "lol sorry a 5 year old broke it, no money for you."
loser9999
This is why you have insurance
cr4sh0verride
I make video games. I like your narrative because a variation of it has definitely happened to me. I didn't try to put the kid on foodstamps
TheSadCafe
Honestly if the artist could spin it like “it was worth $130k, but I will be the bigger person” he’d get lots of publicity. Just my thoughts
Switchlight
Wont put food on that table. Materials arnt free either.
philosoraptor1000
But the publicity could spur more commissions.
KinetoPlay
Listed sale price but he loaned it to a community center? Then declared it "beyond my desire" to repair? Dude knew it would never sell 1/2
KinetoPlay
And this is his way of getting his boring ass sculpture paid for after he used is as a tax break.
HtCtiwtchyk
Yeah, bro. He used his mind powers on that poor family to make the parents ignore the kid and to make the kid misbehave. Evil sculptor.
philosoraptor1000
No. He's just trying to seize the opportunity that's been presented to him.
TinyRocktopus
He donated it and made up a price for a tax write off. He couldn't sell it so he made up a price and gave it away. Now he wants to cash in
MostBoringPersonInTheWorld
You can do that?
MostBoringPersonInTheWorld
And here I've been paying taxes like a sucker all these years.
Gamerboy11116
If you spent two years on something and then donated it away and some five year old broke it, I would be pretty annoyed and want payment.
philosoraptor1000
If he "gave it away" then he no longer owns it and has no claim to it.
Gamerboy11116
I know that, but it's obvious someone needs to get reparations for the object's destruction and it's silly to pay the center (1/?)
kjfett
You gave it away. You don't have grounds to want payment.
Gamerboy11116
How? If I spent two years making a gift for a friend and a random kid breaks it immediately due to negligence, I would want payment (1/?)
mksu
If they can't afford it, they should lower it, but it's not unreasonable to ask people to pay what you need to undo the damage they caused.
cr4sh0verride
Arts "value" is very ethereal, unfortunately. The cost to commission a replacement or repair (if possible) is fair. Auction cost is not.
PimpernelBlue
ethereal is not the word you are looking for. "extremely delicate and light in a way that seems too perfect for this world"
cr4sh0verride
You're right, but that definition also fits my intended idea.
actualjesus
But if it can be sold for $132k, it's worth $132k. Not fair to rip off the artist
KinetoPlay
But it couldn't be sold for 132k or he would have sold it instead of loaning it to a community center.
BrokeMyFunnyBone
The thing is that it Can't be sold for 132k. Nobody wanted it.
NotTheSharpestSpoonInTheDrawer
Assets are always valued at price of purchase, not potential retail value. Just putting a price tag on something doesn't increase its value
cr4sh0verride
The artist isn't giving back his commission, guy. He's already got his. It's the community centers ledger, and they are partially at fault.
TinyRocktopus
But he couldn't sell it so he made up a price and donated it for a tax write off
revenantape
Parents are responsible and all, but at the same time, the sculpture doesn't look like something worth $132k
MyGirlWednesday
Looks like it could be repaired, but the artist says it can't. He also didn't have insurance or an appraisal. He priced it's worth at 132k.
revenantape
If I had a potential $132k payday, I would also say "beyond my capabilities and desires to rebuild it"
Traja01
The sculptor has been paid already. He's turning down a repair pay-day. He doesn't stand to make any money by saying that.
KinetoPlay
Paid by insurance, yeah. That's why he said it couldn't be fixed, so they'd pay him.
Traja01
Yea, I'm a bit ignorant of some facts, it seems that he was loaning it to the center? I assumed the center had bought it off him.
Lulabel73
Agreed. I’d like to know how much art he has sold before at these prices. I can make anything a put a $100k price tag on it, doesn’t mean-
Lulabel73
- anyone is going to buy it.
TheSadCafe
Good point.
TheTwatWaffle
Yeah, just because it took the artist a long time to create, that doesn't make it good.
HarbingerOfDownvotes
But it does make it valuable, because of the man-hours involved in its creation. The artist won't sell the piece for any less, which is fair
ChlorideCull
The value comes from what someone is expected to pay for it, and costs involved with creating it.
HarbingerOfDownvotes
Time is also a cost
Gamerboy11116
He spent two years on it.
FiftyShadesOfArugula
Allegedly, and probably not 40 hours a week. Maybe every other weekend for an hour or two.
Gamerboy11116
I suppose. But it's fair to pay him reparations for his works destruction, we can all agree on that.
FiftyShadesOfArugula
Sure. Material costs and work hours, within reason. I don't see why it should be treated differently from a broken window just b/c it's art.
HarbingerOfDownvotes
Yeah but you can just buy a new window that's exactly the same and it won't take 2 years to install and it isn't worth 132k and it isn't art
FiftyShadesOfArugula
It would be a different matter if this were an irreplaceable historical piece (in which case it would be properly insured too).