# Shit-eyed boy damages painting. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 1, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619 "2006-03-01T15:43:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Slacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Slacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slacker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/121 "2006-03-01T20:43:27Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > I certainly wouldn’t write him off as a lost cause, but I do think you’re underestimating the amount of malice here. Kids are intimately familiar with the destructive properties of chewing gum. He knows very well that when it gets stuck under a desk, you can’t just “pop” it off. He knows that when it gets stuck on something softer, like fabric, strands of it stick pretty resolutely. Word. You’re right, I didn’t mean to downplay his intentions, which were almost certainly malicious. That’s why I said he needed to be punished severely before. By the way, my daughter is one year old today, so I’m just getting myself into this mess now. Hold me. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/122 "2006-03-01T20:44:35Z")
> [@Slacker](#): > > Ah, and now we come to the part of the pit thread where **Left Hand of Dorkness** takes us all on a self-righteous tour of the land of the over sensitive. It was fun while it lasted. No kidding. What’s the deal, **Leftie**? Twelve-year-olds are stupid, but they’re not _that_ stupid. The kid _is_ a little asshole, and while I don’t think it’s right for parents to beat their children, in this case I wouldn’t exactly shed tears over it. Twelve is plenty old enough to know better than that. The kid was being a dumbfuck, and he was doing it on purpose. The implication of your other comparisons - kids that age can’t drive, kids that age can’t vote, etc. - is that kids that age also can’t behave themselves in museums. I don’t think that’s something most people would agree with. School trips to museums are a pretty routine thing _precisely_ because even at that tender age children are easily old enough to know better than to do shit like stick gum on paintings. **Leftie** , you usually make pretty decent sense, but you’re just off your rocker on this one. It’s insane to try to justify this with the classic “kids will be kids” excuse, precisely because other kids visit art museums all the time and manage to leave without sticking gum on the artwork. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Or are you instead suggesting that, from this one incident, we may conclude that this child is an asshole, a prick, a thug, etc.? Um, yes. I’d say that’s a pretty fair supposition. In my crazy, topsy-turvy world, sticking gum on even a single piece of valuable artwork makes you an asshole. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > It’s also not out of the range of normal adolescent behavior. Um, cite? Because I’m pretty sure school groups tour museums _all the goddamn time_ and somehow they don’t leave a trail of damaged artwork in their wake. Since other kids apparently _don’t_ routinely pull shit like this, we can be pretty sure that it _is_ outside the range of normal adolescent behavior. Granted, it’s actually pretty common for people - and not just twelve-year-olds - to try to destroy priceless works of art. That’s why _Guernica_ is behind bulletproof glass. It’s not all that rare for people to kill each other, either. I suppose we could just throw up our hands and decide that there’s no hope of stopping it and it’s an integral part of the human condition. I just don’t really buy that. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I am saying it’s stupid and idiotic to make judgment calls about a child’s personality based on the stupidest thing they do. Well, that’s an unusual philosophical statement right there. Does this extend to adults, too? Was Ted Bundy a pretty decent fella except for that ugly serial killing incident? How the fuck else do we judge people except based upon their actions? And how do we judge them except by looking at their _worst_ actions? Everybody does _some_ decent, normal things. It doesn’t really follow that we’re obligated to ignore the terrible things they do because of that. > [@The Chao Goes Mu](#): > > Honestly, I’d think it would be an ideal situation of the kid had to do community service at the museum, perhaps lead a short tour for younger students and maybe then he’ll realize the true value of a museum and why what he did was so fucked. I don’t think the little asshole should be branded for life either - there’s a decent chance he’ll grow out of being the worthless little fuck he is right now. But I don’t think an appropriate response would be to encourage him to spend more time in the museum. Strikes me that he should be banned from it for a good long while. Having him spend more time there would seem to me to reduce the magnitude of his action. Incidentally, you guys know what’s real clever? When people make comments about how abstract art is stupid, and how they could do the same thing! It’s highly original because it’s not something we’ve all heard a thousand times before! Yep, it’s brilliant and witty! And somehow, every time someone else comes into the thread to say it, _it just gets wittier!_ Weird, huh? Cause humor doesn’t usually work that way - with other jokes, by the time the tenth person in as many minutes has said them, they stop being funny. But not with this one, nosiree! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Chao\_Goes\_Mu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_chao_goes_mu/32/3191_2.png) [@The\_Chao\_Goes\_Mu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Chao_Goes_Mu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/123 "2006-03-01T20:45:00Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > You mean fingerstrokes, right? Admittedly, it would be unfortunate if we couldn’t see the nuanced interplay of the 3 monochrome blobs. Actually **Waverly** , to some people it _would_ be unfortunate. ---
**Author:** ![Greathouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greathouse/32/2992_2.png) [@Greathouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greathouse)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/124 "2006-03-01T20:45:41Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > You mean fingerstrokes, right? Admittedly, it would be unfortunate if we couldn’t see the nuanced interplay of the 3 monochrome blobs. Good One! ---
**Author:** ![Slacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Slacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slacker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/125 "2006-03-01T20:49:25Z")
> [@The Chao Goes Mu](#): > > Look, you directed some shitty comments at me, I tossed some back at you. Right or wrong, there they are, emblazoned in this thread. Really, what did we expect? It’s the friggin’ pit. But hey, the slapfest burned off my anger so I have to say thanks for that. > > Bygones? Hey, I’m not knocking you for insulting me, that’s what this place is for. I was just trying to get you to understand what “vacuous” means. 😛 And no harm no foul in the pit, brother. I throw down with people in here all the time, only to end up chatting politely about some dumb ass reality show we both enjoy the next day. 😉 Where’s that group hug smiley? 😛 P.S. I \<3 you **Waverly**. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Chao\_Goes\_Mu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_chao_goes_mu/32/3191_2.png) [@The\_Chao\_Goes\_Mu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Chao_Goes_Mu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/126 "2006-03-01T21:03:13Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > _\_ > > Incidentally, you guys know what’s real clever? When people make comments about how abstract art is stupid, and how they could do the same thing! It’s highly original because it’s not something we’ve all heard a thousand times before! Yep, it’s brilliant and witty! And somehow, every time someone else comes into the thread to say it, _it just gets wittier!_ Weird, huh? Cause humor doesn’t usually work that way - with other jokes, by the time the tenth person in as many minutes has said them, they stop being funny. But not with this one, nosiree! Preach it brother. If I had a penny for every damn time I had to defend abstract art against the ignorant I could’ve bought the damn 1.5 million dollar painting and none of this would’ve happened. I don’t care if people hate abstract but don’t tell me you could do it with watercolor and Colonblow. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/127 "2006-03-01T21:06:40Z")
> [@The Chao Goes Mu](#): > > Preach it brother. > If I had a penny for every damn time I had to defend abstract art against the ignorant I could’ve bought the damn 1.5 million dollar painting and none of this would’ve happened. > > I don’t care if people hate abstract but don’t tell me you could do it with watercolor and Colonblow. The thing I’ve never understood is why so many people seem to operate under the assumption that if they don’t understand something, no one understands it, regardless of the fact that the others may have put time and effort into learning something about the topic. That’s what people are doing with abstract art - because it’s not immediately accessible, and they don’t have the understanding of the idiom, they assume that it must be the case that no one does. I don’t really “get” abstract art myself - but I’m not so foolish and arrogant to assume that just because I don’t understand something that it must be meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Chao\_Goes\_Mu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_chao_goes_mu/32/3191_2.png) [@The\_Chao\_Goes\_Mu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Chao_Goes_Mu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/128 "2006-03-01T21:10:49Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > The thing I’ve never understood is why so many people seem to operate under the assumption that if they don’t understand something, no one understands it, regardless of the fact that the others may have put time and effort into learning something about the topic. > > That’s what people are doing with abstract art - because it’s not immediately accessible, and they don’t have the understanding of the idiom, they assume that it must be the case that no one does. I don’t really “get” abstract art myself - but I’m not so foolish and arrogant to assume that just because I don’t understand something that it must be meaningless. Indeed. I don’t always “get” it either. I don’t “get” the painting that started this whole mess of a thread, but I do get color, I do get lighting, and I do get the deliberateness of the choices the artist makes in how she/he uses those things. I choose to appreciate the art form based on that. Some of it I find ugly as hell, some of it I absolutely love. That much is always subjective. I just can’t stand it when people refuse to even listen to _why_ the people who love it, love it as much as they do. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/129 "2006-03-01T21:12:36Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > The thing I’ve never understood is why so many people seem to operate under the assumption that if they don’t understand something, no one understands it, regardless of the fact that the others may have put time and effort into learning something about the topic. It’s not even that assumption so much as that they think anyone who says they like it is being pretentious. They think they are the first to notice the emperor has no clothes. The reality being that they never really understood clothes in the first place. And their dismissive comments do little to distinguish them as sophisticated. ---
**Author:** ![Slacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Slacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slacker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/130 "2006-03-01T21:14:58Z")
> [@The Chao Goes Mu](#): > > I don’t care if people hate abstract but don’t tell me you could do it with watercolor and Colonblow. Maybe I can’t, but it’s a good way to kill an afternoon. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/131 "2006-03-01T21:17:08Z")
> [@Slacker](#): > > Maybe I can’t, but it’s a good way to kill an afternoon. That’s just the thing. Don’t do art to make money, do it because you love the process. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/132 "2006-03-01T21:21:16Z")
> [@The Chao Goes Mu](#): > > Preach it brother. > If I had a penny for every damn time I had to defend abstract art against the ignorant I could’ve bought the damn 1.5 million dollar painting and none of this would’ve happened. Hey, if blue and green splotches are worth 1.5MM to you, go for it. Just don’t pretend that it is inherently obvious, to anyone, that the mating splotchsticals required as much talent as more traditional works of art. By your own admission, you have had this argument more than once. What is more arrogant: to insist that an abstract object is art simply because someone was willing to pay a bundle for it, or to honestly say that an object fails to invoke any reaction beyond indifference? ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/133 "2006-03-01T21:24:10Z")
And now seems like a good time to admit in the interest of full disclosure that I love Helen Frankenthaler. And further, that although I’d punish my child just as harshly for defacing a work by Jeff Koons or Damian Hirst, I’d also privately celebrate her discernment. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/134 "2006-03-01T21:24:36Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > Hey, if blue and green splotches are worth 1.5MM to you, go for it. Just don’t pretend that it is inherently obvious, to anyone, that the mating splotchsticals required as much talent as more traditional works of art. By your own admission, you have had this argument more than once. > > What is more arrogant: to insist that an abstract object is art simply because someone was willing to pay a bundle for it, or to honestly say that an object fails to invoke any reaction beyond indifference? The latter, obviously. It presumes that your own reactions are universal. What could be more arrogant than acting as though your reaction is the only possible one that someone might have? To presume that your reactions are identical to those of people who have studied modern art and are far more acquainted with it than you are is even worse. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/135 "2006-03-01T21:31:01Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > Hey, if blue and green splotches are worth 1.5MM to you, go for it. Just don’t pretend that it is inherently obvious, to anyone, that the mating splotchsticals required as much talent as more traditional works of art. By your own admission, you have had this argument more than once. Covered. To. Death. > **[BBC news online, or is it the onion in disguise?!](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=278297)** > > WTF! Seriously what the fuck? Huh? Am I awake? What is going on? 4 year old child is making a mess with paint, and … my brain hurts… people are spending thousands??? This is not a child progidy? It’s a normal 4 year old doing normal 4 year... > **[Can Non-Representational Art Be Funny?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352270)** > > Not in the sense of ‘Oh my God, this looks like a two-year old’s work.’ Nor in the sense ‘I can’t believe these guys don’t realize ‘Two polar bears wrestling in a blizzard’ is just a blank canvas!’ Can one communicate the equivalent of a joke via... ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/136 "2006-03-01T21:33:34Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > The latter, obviously. No, it’s not obvious. I’ve been making light of my dislike for the painting, and that admittedly does not make a reasoned critique. However, if I were to say that the painting does not make good use of the few colors chosen, that I find it bland and lacking any depth, and that I think it is offensive to value it so highly, what would you say? You could disagree, but would you try to negate my opinion because I am not an expert? Do you have to _be_ and expert to have an opinion? I don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/137 "2006-03-01T21:36:37Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Covered. > > To. > > Death. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=278297](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=278297) > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352270](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352270) Hey, I kinda like the 4yr old’s work. Thousands? No. But I’d put a few hundred in her college fund. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/138 "2006-03-01T21:36:49Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > No, it’s not obvious. I’ve been making light of my dislike for the painting, and that admittedly does not make a reasoned critique. However, if I were to say that the painting does not make good use of the few colors chosen, that I find it bland and lacking any depth, and that I think it is offensive to value it so highly, what would you say? You could disagree, but would you try to negate my opinion because I am not an expert? Do you have to _be_ and expert to have an opinion? I don’t think so. You could make it a joke: “It taint Scottish!, its Crap!” or “How much community work did the kid who spilled the blue ink have to do?” Jim ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/139 "2006-03-01T21:40:53Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > Just don’t pretend that it is inherently obvious, to anyone, that the mating splotchsticals required as much talent as more traditional works of art. It’s not inherently obvious, but it’s true. The fact that YOU don’t have the training or the eye to see the difference between good and bad abstract art doesn’t mean that it’s all a sham. Personally, I can’t tell the difference between a $30 bottle of wine and a $300 bottle of wine. However, I don’t go around posting messages to messageboards implying that wine coinosseurs are all suckers or con artists. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619/140 "2006-03-01T21:43:24Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > Do you have to _be_ and expert to have an opinion? I don’t think so. You don’t need to be an expert. But you need to know something about what you’re talking about. You can have an opinion regardless, but it’s stupid to form an opinion about something you don’t understand. I don’t watch football. I didn’t watch the Super Bowl. I understand there was some controversy regarding the refereeing. If I formed an opinion about that, it wouldn’t be a valid opinion. This silly touchy-feely bullshit that every opinion is equally valid is just a bunch of hippie-dippie idiocy. If you have an opinion about a work of art but don’t know anything about the genre it’s a part of, your opinion is inherently not worth all that much. If you start ridiculing a work under the false assumption that just because you don’t understand it then no one does, you’re just revealing yourself to be stupid. If you think the colors aren’t pretty, I’d say that’s a pretty shallow way to go about examining a work of art, but at least you have a reasonably fair basis to decide that. Evaluating the painting on that basis is not real intelligent. And then to leap from “I don’t like the colors” to “[the] object fails to invoke any reaction beyond indifference” (as you said earlier) _is_ arrogant and stupid, because (once again) it presumes the universality of your opinion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shit-eyed-boy-damages-painting/346619.md?page=8)