In this piece of dramatic art from 2006, the young artist challenges the viewer’s, and society’s, value system by adding to an existing work of art. The viewer is invited to be shocked, but also simultaneously questioned. Notice how the use of gum makes this artistic statement a bitter-sweet celebration of consuming and attachment to art. The artist is pointing out how art “feeds” on itself, each creation a simple adornment and progression on another’s achievements. The fact that he is using the original painting as his source material, rather than a copy, makes his artistic statement all the more immediate. “Here”, the boy artist states. “I use others art in homage in my own creation and I do not cheapen it with soulless digital clones.” But it is only when it is revealed to the viewer that the source materials are “worth” $1.5m does the unequivicable strength of the artist’s action become apparent. This is the artist at his boldest and most innovative.
I had a thought along these lines, but you pulled it off much better than I would have. 
Now that’s funny.
Thank you. I mutter it to myself about twenty times a week. It would be **so ** much easier if all I had to do was make a happy kid.
If it was an ugly car, it would be OK.
This just in: Shit-eyed boy meets Shine Eye Gal – gum-daubing ensues!
The value of the painting is irrelevant. If some 12-year-old kid put his gum on my $25 second-hand Ikea coffee table, he should be punished. If he put his gum on my $5.00 word-a-day desk calendar, he should be punished. If the kid had crumpled up the crayon drawing of a very pretty dinosaur his brother drew, which is of negligible cash value, he should be punished (I’m looking at you, Cervaise :wally 
).
Hell, even if his parents bought him an Xbox and he stuck gum on it, he should be punished. You simply don’t treat anybody’s property that way.
Those things don’t belong to him and he should know better than that, no matter what it is he’s vandalizing.
Drawn and quartered, jailed, prosecuted, made to pay thousands in restitution? No — the reactions of some here are a bit excessive, I think. I’d support his parents if they choose as his punishment to work off some of the financial burden that the museum may fine them.
Futile Gesture said it best, but I will add that it is the museum which wants to remove the gum that is the true vandal in this case.
If I may get philosophical in an artsy-fartsy kind of way, maybe the randomness of a child sticking gum on the art is what makes it art. Perhaps what makes something valuable is that it can be destroyed. There are some artists who create and then destroy a work of art, because to them it’s the act of creation that is art, and the same can be said of the act of destruction. Along that vein, part of what makes a work of art unique is simply that it cannot be created again.
So, I would argue that by removing the gum residue, the museum is ruining a piece of art. And, in the process, eliminating evidence of an event of cultural significance. Years from now, people will be saying “Is that the painting that had the gum on it?” but the gum will be long gone. It went from a mere $1.5 million painting to a priceless artifact of pop culture of the early 21st century.
Beautiful, Futile Gesture --I would add that it is an exemplary piece of “outsider art” so haled today in art circles.
:rolleyes:
My bottom line: kid is a jerk, who knows better. If he doesn’t know better-time for some remediation. I don’t kick asses literally, but he would be cleaning up after vandals and writing to the museum and apologizing to his teacher. I do hope this doesn’t end field trips for his class. My daughter’s class was quite loud in first grade and the teachers said, “never again”, so her class never go to go anywhere again. :rolleyes:
Bingo. It is also irrelevant whether you find the painting esthetically appealing or not. The kid vandalized someone else’s property. Yes, kids do stupid things, but the only way they learn not to do stupid things is by facing consequences for their behavior, sometimes very serious ones. I have a suspicion this kid hasn’t faced many consequences, because by 12 he most certainly should know not to do shit like that.
Ok, why don’t you try getting into the right “bizness,” then, douchebag. Let us know how that works out.
Hmmm…This is interesting. Some of you seem to not give a flying fuck about the COSTLY DAMAGE that this punk has caused to a 1.5 million dollar painting but you do give a flying fuck that I think the kid is an asshole.
I guess if I wanted intelligent debate over this iI should’ve taken it to GD rather than coming here but, alas, lesson learned.
I am not saying that the brat should be strung up by his balls but I do think he’s an ass. He’s very much old enough to know better. I suppose some of you want to blame society for his vandalism?
Oh please, speaking of bullshit hypotheticals. The space shuttle analogy is just retarded.
Perhaps you were one of those little bastard children that did shit like that.
So you think I shouldn’t give a shit what this kid did because it’s not MY goddamn painting? Really? First off all, I frequent the DIA and am glad that instituitions such as that are there so I and the people that come after me can enjoy the great pieces of art within. Now, some little shit has ruined one of those pieces and it’s going to take a lot of money and effort to hopefully restore it. I’m glad you find it amusing that I care.
And yes, I still think the kid is an asshole.
From Human Rights Watch
Table 1: Minimum Age for Adult Prosecution
Colorado 12
Georgia 12
Kansas 10
New Jersey 14
Missouri 12
Montana 12
Nevada 8
Oklahoma 7
Source: National Center for Juvenile Justice, State Juvenile Justice Profiles
National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges with funding from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
available online at: http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles
I haven’t found a reliable cite for the actual numbers but I keep seeing these,
“about 200,000 children a year are prosecuted in general criminal courts”
“more than 11,000 children are in prisons and other long-term adult correctional facilities”
Being prosecuted as an adult does not necessarally result in being sentenced as one.
Is this directed at me?
Ack!, ok I concede. Though as you said property damage vs. First Degee murder are not on par.
JIm
Great stats, I will use your stats as my excuse for my ignorance. I highlighted my state. As you see we would never prosecute a 12 year old as an adult. I cannot even comprehend Oklahoma at 7. Geez, many 7 year olds still wet the bed.
Jim
No, I was trying to make the same point you tried to in your post #24!
Heh. That’s one way to look at it.
What I find interesting here is not the kid’s vandalism. For my two cents, I’d cane the kid and fine the parents. It’s the irony that you could stick a pack of gum on that painting and I wouldn’t know the difference. That doesn’t make it right, and it [probably] doesn’t say much for my taste, but it certainly has more than a touch of the absurd to it even before you went into meltdown mode.
I’d tend to expect better from an adolescent than sticking gum on other peoples property, be it a $1 poster or $1.5M painting.
Our state, exit 135!
If you go and look at that table there are a number of states with the number 0, if I’m reading that right, they have no minimum age!
I can’t believe an infant could be tried as an adult.
LHOD, I have a feeling that the quaintly contrarian position you picked up at the beginning (looka me! I’m an iconoclast!) is now the tail to your dog, but you’re too dug in to adjust your position and you’re stuck with it now. Too bad; when you’re not trapped in a stubbornness loop you can have interesting things to say.
A twelve-year-old kid in a charter school knows he would get in trouble for sticking gum to a chair. I’ll also wager this is not his class’s first trip to a museum. I’ll also bet the farm that he was showing off for his trip-mates. He didn’t “do something dumb”–this was not an accident. He decided to do something that he knew, top to bottom, was the wrong. Thing. To do.
Your approach of ruffing his hair and giving him a stern smile and a “Let’s be more careful next time, Champ” would do far greater to his future than the responses you’ve judged too “extreme.” A kid crosses a line to see what he can get away with. Answer? Not this.