The kid was just engaging in performance art. Everyone here in this thread, and everyone in the museum and the artist who painted the painting, are participating in this art by their reaction and emotions he elicited :rolleyes:
Left Hand of Dorkness, I’ve always appreciated your views, especially when they supported mine, and I’d like to admire your opinion without taking all of it it home with me today.
The little so-and-so got suspended, is getting heat from his parents, and for some kids that might be enough. I suspect that those kids for whom it would be enough, though, are the same as those kids who managed to internalize at least a few of the myriad instructions (“Keep your hands to yourself!” “Respect other peoples’ things!” “Do what your teacher says!” “Behave yourself in public!” “Put your gum in a napkin or piece of paper, and then in the trash!” “Obey your elders!” " Field trips are a privilege!" “Do not touch!”) we give them, over and over, by the time they’re twelve. For kids who have managed to bypass all that, I’m not so sure (Full disclosure: I’m Dad to a twelve-year-old daughter and a pair of eleven-year-old twins).I
'm not suggesting additional punishments for the kid – oh, hell, yes I will too. He should be given the most unpleasant jobs the museum has to offer for several days (cleaning up gum might be it), and then given a pleasant job in the museum (something he can be proud of – perhaps studying for, writing and recording a tape about one of the pieces he likes?) for one day, in an effort to demonstrate that appreciation might be more rewarding than destruction.
Unlike you, I don’t think we can rule it out. See below.
“Malicious and deliberate”* is*, in my experience as a parent and generally as a person, out of the range of normal preteens, at least when it comes to acting out against complete strangers. Thoughtless, sure. Lazy, sure. Heedlessly curious, sure. Malicious, no.
Depends – a punch in the nose, in anger or with immediate provocation, seems more forgiveable to me than a deliberate act of vandalism done out of boredom or sheer malice.
I think you’re being a little disingenuous here – surely you don’t suspect all, or even most of us, of defacing expensive works of art, do you? I’m pretty sure most of us didn’t. It’s cheating to compare only state of mind here: it is a victory, and a significant one, to confine our worst impulses to arenas where they can cause the least damage.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing with you about consequences, except me, and we’re pretty close. I would be wary of your last assertion, though: I don’t think that a public place, surrounded by peers and authority figures, is the place where this kid plumbed the depths of the Well of Stupid Things He Can Do. Put me in the camp of “Keep the punishment reasonable, but WATCH THIS KID.” He needs it.
Just a final thought: it takes a huge wad of gum to make a “quarter-sized stain” on anything whatever. Either the kid was seriously overloaded, or he took special pains to smash the gum onto the canvas. And who allows gum-chewing in schools (or museums) anyway?
I see I’ve taken too long to compose this, and have been overtaken by other posts. I’m fairly sure, though, that I haven’t missed anything that I should have addressed before hitting the submit button. I’ll be back to answer for my sins of commission and omission. Have a happy day.
Are you sure you’re talking about Mark Rothko? Because while I can understand not being into them, they very clearly don’t resemble buckets of paint splashed on a canvas. That kind of criticism is generally reseved for Jackson Pollock, isn’t it?
Thanks; I appreciate it.
True, and I should clarify that when I say this is in the range of normal adolescent behavior, I’m not trying to suggest that it’s something all adolescents do. I do think that this is not as bad as bullying, although it’s worse than cheating on a test, and (depending on the kid’s state of mind) bespeaks about the same level of malice as is involved in shoplifting.
A kid who shoplifts is a kid to keep a close eye on, but is not necessarily a thug etc.
I think it’s pretty clear that I agree with the idea of relevant service as a consequence; while I suggested working with the custodial staff of his school, working with the museum’s would probably be even better, if the museum allowed it (I doubt they would). I like the idea of having a pleasant project to follow up, although I’m not sure what it’d be–I’d be surprised if the one you described ended up being one this kid enjoyed.
Seriously? Unless you’re defining malicious very differently from me, I can’t imagine this is accurate. Kids are often casually malicious–squashing bugs, being cruel to animals, saying awful things to one another (if you’re not aware of the terrible gossip your daughters have engaged in, trust me on this one–I’ve worked around fifth grade girls, and they’re vicious). Kids aren’t usually deliberately malicious in the way an assassin is: they don’t usually plan out their wicked deeds days in advance–but that’s unlikely to be what happened here, either.
Yes, that’s a victory. How likely do you think it is that this child had a realistic idea either of the price of this work or of the damage that his gum would do to it? How likely do you think it is that he thought these things through?
Daniel
LHOD,
You and I generally don’t get along (okay, mainly I don’t get along with you), but you have been emminently sensible in this thread and my hat is off to you. What the kid did is, IME also, completely within the realm of stupid things that kids do.
To address teh side issue of abstract art, I’ve seen a good many abstract pieces that I admired. Jackson Pollock, who has been mentioned again and again in this thread, is one artist whose such works I particularly like. i stand by my original statement, however, that the painting that sparked this thread is butt-ass ugly. Whoever paid $1.5 million for it should press charges for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse against the person from whom he bought it.
I’m late to this thread and haven’t read it all, but I feel that a bit of my family history is pertinent: we have in our possession a large number of newspaper clippings from a court case in the 1900s.
The reason is that my great-grandfather, then a 40-something reverend in the Church of Ireland, was called as a witness in a case regarding the possession and provenance of a Gainsborough.
He was called because he was able to identify the painting due to the existence of two holes in the historic and valuable portrait. The holes were there because as a child he had shot the painting, in his friend’s father’s hallway, with a bow and arrow.
Kids do dumb shit. The gum incident was particularly dumb, and gross to boot, and aged 12 he really should have known better, but he’s being punished.
No, YOU don’t get it.
Do you not understand the premise behind a museum? It’s a place where people go to look at art worth millions, enjoy it for its aesthetics, and fully have the expectation that gum will not be smeared on it. Everyone who goes to that museum was hurt by the vandalism, even if it’s not in an earth-shattering or life-altering way. Fucking with a museum’s art is the behavior of an asshole.
But if it’s not your painting, why do you care enough to pit an adolescent for acting like an adolescent?
Yeah, many of them probably were, but do you really not see the difference between a food fight in an elementary school cafeteria and defacing a piece of art in a museum? You wouldn’t put gum on a painting in someone’s house, even at 12, would you? A museum is the same thing on a grander scale.
Defending this kid is wrongheaded. At 12, kids are capable of understanding the respectful behavior one should display in a museum. I teach 7th grade and spend every working day with 12 year olds. No, the kid shouldn’t be caned or beaten, but he was definitely being an asshole when he did this. Whenever I find a wet, sticky glob of gum under a desk, I think the kid who did it was being a jerk. This is many magnitudes worse.
No, YOU don’t–ah fuck it.
:rolleyes:
You know, I also wouldn’t throw mashed potatoes at someone’s house, even at 12. You’re not ruining the analogy.
If you’re saying that at the moment he did it he was behaving jerkishly, I agree.
I sometimes wonder whether y’all are still using monochrome monitors. Check your video settings: not everything is black and white.
Daniel
But they didn’t.
They purchased it for less; it has increased in value so that it is now estimated to be worth $1.5 million.
It would strike me as logical to think that if this many people are misunderstanding you, perhaps you’ve expressed yourself poorly.
If I could figure out how I’m making this point unclearly, then I might agree with you. But I’ve even summarized the point, and people are still misrepresenting it. How can I possibly make it clearer that I don’t think this kid should be excused?
Also if I were not familiar with the histrionics in the Pit, I’d be more inclined to agree with you. Some folks seem to thrive on the whole Internet Warrior thing, on roleplaying a lynch mob.
Daniel
I think he has expressed himself very well. Here is what I think he said.
-
The child did something that deserves punishment, I hope he was punished but I do hope that punishment wasn’t violent.
-
The child did something he knew was wrong, many children do. Children should be taught that there are consquences to their actions.
-
Twelve year old children often do things without fully realising the consequences and it is the job of the adults around them to teach consequences.
-
Adults should not be calling 12 yr old children arseholes because of one silly adolescent action.
I hope I didn’t read anything Left Hand of Dorkness said incorrectly but it seems to me that many of you are judging the childs actions on the value of the painting rather then a bored 12 yr old sticking gum on something. He should be punished reguardless of the value of the painting. Sticking gum on anything should be punished (many adults haven’t learned that lesson) but would the outrage be the same if the school trip was to the local park and he stuck his gum on a tree?
Yes, it would be littering and he should learn that is wrong (and be punished) but does anyone seriously think a 12 yr old knew the monetery damage he was causing to the painting?
He did wrong, probably through a combination of boredom and doing something funny to impress his mates. YES his parents should punish him. Yes the school should punish him. That is how he will learn that sticking gum willy-nilly ain’t a good thing BUT his punishment should not be because of the value of the painting.
This is fucking brilliant.
I went from “kick the little bastard’s ass” to “get this young phenomenon a large federal grant” in less than thirty seconds.
Regards,
Shodan
I would contend that the 12 year old in question knew that he was doing something very wrong, but either thought he wouldn’t get caught, or thought the peer approval would be worth the punishment. That’s a big thing about kids that age-- they will do the most obnoxious things if they think another kid will laugh. It’s a tough behavior to root out, and the consequences have to be meaningful and instructive to overcome it.
Should adults be getting in this kid’s face screaming, “You’re a little asshole!” No. But in the Pit, in a conversation about the situation, I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to say that the kid was being an asshole. I guarantee he was fully intending to be an asshole when he did it. What’s appropriate in the Pit is not useful when disciplining the child.
A park and a museum require different behavior, and I think most semi-intelligent 12 year olds know this, despite their maturity level.
I seriously think he thought he was being a daring rebel by defacing a painting in a museum. Kids of all ages have that impulse, that secret thrill of wishing they could vandalize a work of art. When I visited Stonehenge, tourists were no longer allowed to walk amongst the standing stones because too many people had defaced the stones. Putting gum on a tree does not evoke that same feeling, of leaving your individual mark on something that’s revered and admired by millions.
You don’t think attempting to ruin a valuable piece of art should warrant a punishment more severe than if he stuck gum under a desk or on a tree? Sure it should. I think the kid ought to have to do community service at the museum, cleaning up the vandalism of others. That would be fitting.
Fuck the art appreciation yakyak; just take the kid out back and whip him.
Let’s not lose focus here, people.
Yeah, why do people keep saying that the value of the artwork is irrelevant? Kids shouldn’t be vandalizing anything with their gum, no doubt, but that doesn’t mean that vandalizing any two things with gum is morally (or, more importantly, actually) equivalent. Are people scared that the message about not sticking your gum under your desk is going to be lost if we don’t pretend that it’s not an enormous, major thing to destroy a unique and immensely valuable work of art?
Obviously it matters what was vandalized. And a twelve-year-old kid is perfectly capable of understanding the difference between a painting and the underside of his desk. That silly equivalence wouldn’t apply in the real world anyway, where damages in a civil suit would certainly take into account the value of the item damaged and the cost to fix it.
I don’t think he was attempting to ruin a valuable piece of art. I think he was attempting to be a clever clogs or impress his mates. Should intent be considered? Only because he is 12.
Yes he was probably told “DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING”, he was probably told “THE PAINTINGS ARE VERY VALUABLE. DO NOT TOUCH THEM” he was almost certainly told "YOU ARE REPRESENTING THIS SCHOOL. DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING!’
Twelve year old are just becoming teenagers. Some of them like to flex that muscle. Some of them are rebels without reason. YES! Punish the little fucker, he did wrong. Just don’t think he knew the dollar value of his rebellion and don’t think it was meant to cause monetry harm.
I don’t think his punishment should be more then any kid not obeying school trip rules. It is up to the school and the art gallery/museum to sort out the money stuff. The kid was on a school trip under school supervision. Schools trips are not suprises to museums. Where was the museum staff member? Why were they not supervising the class? Why not sue that staff member?
The kid should be punished by the school (detentions?) and his family (AHH!! You lil bugger!) the museum has to look after it’s self.
He knew it was a valuable piece of art. After all, it’s in a museum, that should be a hint. I think deliberately (and it was deliberate) defacing something you know is valuable and more importantly, is on display for everyone who visits the museum to see and contemplate, should have a heavier penalty than if he put gum under his desk, or if he disobeyed trip rules.
I can’t understand why people don’t see this action as serious. Youthful folly is not an excuse, since I’m sure thousands of kids walked through that museum without harming the art.
I know. I teach 7th grade. I spend most of my waking weekday hours with 12 year olds. I’m telling you, the severity of this act should be impressed on the kid, and not so much the monetary value of the item but the import of vandalizing a piece of art. Whether you like the painting or not, it’s a piece of art in a museum and it should be shown respect. Admire it, don’t admire it, but leave it for other people to see an evaluate.
Of course the kid isn’t going to be made to pay for the painting, but it’s not unreasoanble to think the museum might sue his parents for the cost of fixing the painting. It wouldn’t be $1.5 million, but it might be costly. Then it’s up to the parents to deal with how the kid accepts responsibility for the cost. It’s not the museum’s burden.
Are you really trying to make this the museum’s fault? Have you been to a museum lately? There are security guards posted in standard areas; they do not scrutinize every visitor or accompany them around the museum like an armed guard. Technically, it’s probably the teacher chaperone’s job to watch the kids, and again, when you have 100+ kids and 6 chaperones, you can’t have your eye on each one. Presumably, someone must have seen the kid do the deed, otherwise how would they know which kid did it?
Blaming the museum staff member for this is ludicrous. Paintings in museums are not in glass cases; people are able to approach the art, look at it up close. Should the museum be punished for making its art accessible? Should the museum staff be punished for not being able to police every single visitor and prevent each one from doing something fucked up?
No, this is a good opportunity, a teachable moment, if you will, for the kid to learn about personal responsibility.
Exactly! I hope this little vandal learns a good lesson. He should learn the lesson that you listen and obey teachers when on a school trip and that you obey societies expectations of appropriate behaviour.
How you see his parents at more fault then museum staff or his teacher is beyond me.
The teacher is responsible for the behaviour of the children in his/her care when on a class trip, just as they are responsible for the care and safety of those children.
The museum staff are responsible for those objects in their care. When they have a class (or several classes) of CHILDREN visiting it is their responsibility to up their supervision.
YES, thousands of children can pass through a museum without damaging anything BUT children are notorious for one thing, unpredictabilty. Children on a school trip are both unpretictable and excited. They are out of the familar environment, even the bus trip can be enough to send some into loony behaviour. The teacher (and parent helpers) have to be on top of their game. They have to have eyes in the back of their heads. They need to be watching the kids in their charge like hawks.
Museum staff can’t treat a mob of children like they would treat the general public. The general public will realise they are looking at valuable objects, SOME (yes I know most will be fine) children will think “YAY! We ain’t at school. WooHoo”. Those children have no idea or INTEREST in the value of the items they are looking at. Museum staff must be more aware of supervision during school trips.
The child acted like an immature little fucker. The teacher had not done her job in supervising the children in her charge (seriously when a child misbehaves on a school trip usually it is the child that everyone expected to misbehave. Don’t most teachers tuck the “problem” kids under their arms during trips?).
The museum let itself down by allowing a situation where the little bugger could put gum on a painting (what happened to the institutions education person? Were they not with the class the entire time? Why not?).
The parents, who were not there at the time are the least responsible. They sent Jimmy McGummy off on a school trip assuming and hoping he was supervised.
Yes he was a dick. Yes he should be SERIOUSLY punished but the financial responsibilty rests with the school or the museum. Let darling Johnny scrape gum off every surface in the school, every lunch time for the duration and never get another cent in pocket money. Give him detentions till the cows come home but his family are not the ones who shoud be footing the bill.
One question Rubystreak, is 100+ children to 6 adults even legal? Here the ratio to leave the school is one adult to eight children.
So it’s the museum’s fault that some kid can’t value art and doesn’t give a crap about the museum? I see this more as the parents’ or teachers’ problem than the museum. I think it’s safe to presume that most visitors to the museums will behave appropriately.
How do you know this was a problem child? I don’t think you can assume that. Also, it’s not always predictable who will act out. The “worst” kids are usually highly supervised, which makes me think it was just a random kid in the case.
The museum let itself down by allowing a situation where the little bugger could put gum on a painting (what happened to the institutions education person? Were they not with the class the entire time? Why not?).
They RAISED him, and legally, they are financially responsible for whatever he does. The museum could file a civil suit and if they won, the parents would have to pay, regardless of what you might think.
[quot]Yes he was a dick. Yes he should be SERIOUSLY punished but the financial responsibilty rests with the school or the museum.
[/quote]
I think you are wrong about that but maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Yes, it’s legal and it happens all the time. We have 90 kids on our team and 6 cor teachers. Sometimes we get a few more onboard for field trips, but no way in HELL do we EVER have a 1:6 ratio. More like 1:18.