You’ll notice how the only thing they can cite is “worry” by “staff” with no qualification for whether the worry was realistic. People worry about a lot of things and are willing to claim they worry about much more when it suits them. “I feared for my life” doesn’t actually mean your life was in danger.
They’re not mentioning “worries” of the people who actual design the protection, because those people either don’t worry or should find a different job. A liquid leaking through to damage the painting is literally the purpose of the protection. Especially after such high profile events starting years ago, including literally this same painting.
You’ll notice how the only thing they can cite is “worry” by “staff” with no qualification for whether the worry was realistic.
I’m sure the staff whose job it is to caretake these priceless objects have no clue what they’re talking about, sure.
They’re not mentioning “worries” of the people who actual design the protection, because those people either don’t worry or should find a different job. A liquid leaking through to damage the painting is literally the purpose of the protection. Especially after such high profile events starting years ago.
So:
I find that argument that the onus is not on individuals to not damage paintings, the onus is on the gallery’s security systems to prevent them from doing so, to be uncompelling
You cannot realistically protect a painting from its frame. If you really want to totally protect it, you could plexiglass the whole exhibit, frame and all, but that’s just another step in the escalation of security measures vs. vandals, and does not address the underlying problem.
That such high profile events started and have continued despite repeated incidents of damage to artifacts (though thankfully nothing totally destroyed), as well as some near-misses like this one suggest that there is an issue causing these high profile events to continue. As these events have not led to any sort of climate policy change or mass change in climate change opinion, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than the reason for the continuation of these high profile events is internal reinforcement from these social circles and activist groups. Or, if you will, asspats.
If they had the guy whose job it was to figure out how to protect paintings say he didn’t do a very good job and the painting wasn’t protected, they would have said that. Instead they just used the generic “staff”, a descriptor which encompasses anyone from the ticket takers to the people who solicit donations from the rich and powerful who both have no special expertise in the protection systems and a very good reason to both want to discourage further direct action in their establishment and tell the rich people they’re on their side.
You cannot realistically protect a painting from its frame.
LOL, what? I have a print in my room right now with glass between the art and its frame. And that’s not even a publicly accessible priceless piece of art that’s undergone past attacks. The external frame has no reason to actually touch the artwork.
Ok, then why are you complaining. There was zero potential damage from this act.
Not even close to true.
Priceless human heritage, purchased in 1999.
You’ll notice how the only thing they can cite is “worry” by “staff” with no qualification for whether the worry was realistic. People worry about a lot of things and are willing to claim they worry about much more when it suits them. “I feared for my life” doesn’t actually mean your life was in danger.
They’re not mentioning “worries” of the people who actual design the protection, because those people either don’t worry or should find a different job. A liquid leaking through to damage the painting is literally the purpose of the protection. Especially after such high profile events starting years ago, including literally this same painting.
I’m sure the staff whose job it is to caretake these priceless objects have no clue what they’re talking about, sure.
So:
I find that argument that the onus is not on individuals to not damage paintings, the onus is on the gallery’s security systems to prevent them from doing so, to be uncompelling
You cannot realistically protect a painting from its frame. If you really want to totally protect it, you could plexiglass the whole exhibit, frame and all, but that’s just another step in the escalation of security measures vs. vandals, and does not address the underlying problem.
That such high profile events started and have continued despite repeated incidents of damage to artifacts (though thankfully nothing totally destroyed), as well as some near-misses like this one suggest that there is an issue causing these high profile events to continue. As these events have not led to any sort of climate policy change or mass change in climate change opinion, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than the reason for the continuation of these high profile events is internal reinforcement from these social circles and activist groups. Or, if you will, asspats.
If they had the guy whose job it was to figure out how to protect paintings say he didn’t do a very good job and the painting wasn’t protected, they would have said that. Instead they just used the generic “staff”, a descriptor which encompasses anyone from the ticket takers to the people who solicit donations from the rich and powerful who both have no special expertise in the protection systems and a very good reason to both want to discourage further direct action in their establishment and tell the rich people they’re on their side.
LOL, what? I have a print in my room right now with glass between the art and its frame. And that’s not even a publicly accessible priceless piece of art that’s undergone past attacks. The external frame has no reason to actually touch the artwork.