. . . far greater **[harm] **to his future . . .
Just because they prosecute children as adults doesn’t mean it’s right or effective. Kids still do stupid stuff. If they weren’t expected to have serious lapses in judgement, they’d be driving, voting, getting married, and handling your stock portfolio. Besides, unlike a kid who murders another person in cold blood, the painting can be fixed.
Would it still be absurd if it was a Rembrandt or a Van Gogh or a Picasso?
What crime could an infant commit that would require a trial at all? Producing too much poop? Crying too much?
Regarding the OP - the kid is an asshole. Hopefully he will grow out of it. My cousin is 12 - he would never do something like this. My niece is 7 - she wouldn’t either.
And for those that are dissing the painting - what do you have on your walls? AC/DC posters? Keee-rist I find discussions like this boring. You don’t have to like every piece of art work that you see, but the fact of the matter is that artworks that you don’t enjoy can still have important cultural and social implications that warrant a $1.5 million price tag. And frankly, the suggestion that because the artwork is not to your liking somehow makes what this little fucker did less rotten than if it had been a painting that you recognized and enjoy, is moronic.
Finally, for those that say “I could do better than that!” Well, put up or shut up. If you’re so clever, you’ll be a millionaire before the year is over.
I know it’s hard to pass up an opportunity to show the world how wonderfully cultured and sophisticated you are, but KayElCee already covered this back on page one. Thanks for playing though.
No, the worst I ever did at age 12 was call people retarded. I managed to outgrow it though.
Did you not bother to read the whole article you linked to? The museum said they expect the painting will be fine. Since your reading skills are lacking, you may have missed that I said I would be bothered had he done some permanent damage. He didn’t, and I’m not.
And I do indeed find it amusing - not necessarily that you care, but that you seem to care So Damn Much. I can just picture you walking up to the paining in the museum, spying the discolored dot in the corner, and falling to your knees rending your garments atwain as you cry out WHY?!?? WHY!?!?! Maybe I’m retarded, but that’s a funny mental image.
Excellent point.
Art is definitely subjective in what we are willing to call art and the value we place on such things. I know the fact that it’s an abstract gets alot of titties in a twist as many here feel they can go shit a box of Crayolas onto canvas and that it’s equally as artistic as a Pollock. We could debate that issue until the sun ceases to shine, but THAT’S NOT THE POINT!!
I don’t care if you don’t like the painting. Hell, I don’t really like the painting. But I do care that some little shit decided to show his ass and deface something that obviously someone values very much.
Since I explicitly said the cash value was irrelevant, I’ll assume that this is partly directed at me.
I don’t put a cash value on my level of anger or irritation. There are simply some crimes for which a cash value is inappropriate or impossible to judge, or which require consequences even in the absence of cash damage.
If let myself angry based on the relative expense of the damage, then assault would be worse than murder. (Assault requires expensive hospitalization; murder does not.) Stealing someone’s hamburger would be worse than stealing somebody’s kid. And vandalizing a $2M painting would be twice as bad as vandalizing a $1M painting.
The kid should have known better than to stick his gum on anything, but I’m not blaming society: I’m blaming him and his parents. It’s up to his parents to punish him — and it’s up to the museum to punish the parents.
If I were his parents I’d pass some of that along to the kid. I don’t know enough about the kid in general to say he’s an asshole, but that’s certainly an assholish thing to have done.
Then leave.
Wow, just wow. So, you really can’t come up with anything substantial to say so you resort to childish personal swipes, as you did in your earlier post to this thread. I realize this is the pit, and it’s fair game but damn kiddo, looks like your problem is you missed naptime today. I really couldn’t give two shits in barrel if you find my appreciation for art amusing.
To be frank, if I was there when that little pissface fucked up the painting, I would, indeed, be mortified. I am sorry you are too vacuous to understand that. It’s a shame really
Or my ‘80’s Cheryl Tiegs poster? Any other hypothetical non-event you want me to consider. Gum on the Magna Carter? Gum on the Constitution? How about we replace gum with semen in our hypothetical? Now we’ve got something.
Actually it wasn’t directed at you and you make a bood point. I realize it may seem misguided to call the kid an asshole but dammit, this is the pit and I’m going for it. Righ now I am pissed at what he’s done. This is the extreme of my irrationality at the moment. Hey, at least I’m not on my way to the Louvre to go take a dump on the Mona Lisa.
And only 43 years old, on top of that… not like it was one of the Old Masters or anything. The $1.5 mil price tag is not a sign that it is a priceless cultural heirloom, it’s a sign that rich people with too much time on their hands have blown the lid off the art market.
See, I know that you’re a liar and an idiot, so responses like this from you don’t much bother me. You lie about me. So what? The sky is blue.
But other folks I thought better of. Y’all can read. Y’all aren’t inherently dishonest people. Why, then, claim that my position is laissez faire? I described my position several times. I described the consequences that I think are appropriate. I believe the consequences should be severe enough that the child learns very clearly the lesson he obviously hasn’t learned yet: property damage is not acceptable.
What I’ve argued against are two things:
- Characterizing this behavior as indicative of the child’s being a thug, an asshole, a prick, etc. No. He’s a kid. Kids do dumb things, and they learn by making mistakes. This is a time for this kid to learn.
- Suggesting physical violence against the kid as a learning technique. No. That’s not going to teach him effectively and compassionately.
Am I saying that the kid should experience no consequences for his actions? No, of course not, and only the most reading-impaired poster could conclude otherwise. I am saying, however, that he may be a great kid who did something amazingly stupid and malicious.
Some of you claim that you were angels as kids. No, you weren’t; you’re just liars as adults. Or else you’ve got a pathologically faulty memory.
And the idea that punching another kid in the mouth is somehow less harmful than putting gum on a painting? That’s just contemptible.
Daniel
It would have been quicker to type “I know you are, but what am I?”
Nothing substantial? I countered your argument that the the painting is “ruined,” and (re)explained my position that I’d be more concerned if we were talking about permanent damage. You responded by decrying my childish personal swipes while simultaneously adding a few of your own.
And “vacuous” is a nice attempt at an upgrade from “retarded,” but it doesn’t quite work in this situation. When someone disagrees with you in a matter of opinion like this, that person can be an idiot, misinformed, an asshole, whatever. It doesn’t make him or her vacuous.
Left Hand of Dorkness,
Please stop. I agreed in entirety with your last post. If I die from the shock to my system, my blood will be on your hands.
For folks that need a review in what I’ve said, lemme summarize.
From post 2: He’s being punished for his dumb decision, which is how kids learn the consequences of dumb decisions.
Post 4: he kid is learning the consequences of acting stupid. No permanent harm done, as long as the kid learns from the experience.
Post 11: Actually, I agree that this would be a perfect response; in fact, I’d couple it with having him pay, at minimum, part of the labor costs of cleaning it up. Either take it from his allowance, or have him pawn some valued toy in order to make the payment.
Maybe his charter school could allow him to work after-hours with the school’s custodial staff for a few weeks to earn the money for this.
Post 21: Kids do dumb things, and they need to learn the consequences of that. He needs to experience some serious consequences here.
Post 25: If your version of unforgiving is requiring community service, then you and I are equally unforgiving.
Again, if you’re suggesting the kid should face serious consequences for his behavior, then you and I agree. If you’re suggesting that the kid be branded as some sort of villain based on this one act, then you and I disagree (and I’d suggest you study a little more developmental psychology). If you’re suggesting physical violence against the child based on this act, then you and I disagree (and I’d suggest that you not be allowed near children).
And if you’re suggesting that the above, after having read it, constitutes laissez faire child-rearing, then you get to go join lissener in the dunce’s corner.
Daniel
Don’t worry, man. If you start bleeding, I’ll patch you up. Just gimme a few seconds to break in this stick of Wrigley’s…
Daniel
What makes you vacuous, is that you mock my concern over the painting, you “picture me falling to my knees” at the sight of a defaced painting. That you can’t understand why those of us who are upset are as defensive as we are.
Whatever dude.
You’re at the point of missing the point. You’re using this thread as a vehicle to attack and to pass off your immature comments as wit. I get it. You’re a fucking comedian. Now move along.
Once again, that makes me an asshole, not vacuous.
And what are you using it for? Ending world hunger?
The kid’s fuckin’ 12 years old. If he hasn’t yet learned that you don’t stick gum anyplace except a trashcan (let alone on a painting), then he’s not going to learn. I would MAYBE expect this from a four-year-old, but not from someone who in some cultures would approach manhood in less than a year. And yes, it is more juvenile than being in a fistfight. Learning to control anger is something that takes years, and there’s any number of adults who still haven’t mastered it. Learning not to litter is something that should take two seconds. “Don’t be a jerk, throw your gum in a trashcan or swallow it.” Simple!
It’s not about being lasseiz-faire, it’s about you having low expectations of how kids of relative ages should act. It’s attitudes like that which lead to kids living at home till they’re thirty and then climbing into the tiger pit at the zoo because nobody told them any better.