:rolleyes: Yes! That’s it! You finally figured it out. Give that kid a gold star.
I think I had it right, however. Let’s see
Vacuous: *Devoid of matter; empty.
Lacking intelligence; stupid.
Devoid of substance or meaning; inane: a vacuous comment.
Devoid of expression; vacant*
I have to disagree with his. He should have known better than to stick gum anywhere but the trash, yes, but did he realize that the gum could cause chemical damage to a piece of artwork? Probably not. He thought it’d be a funny gag, and someone would pop the gum off later and the world would keep on a-spinning.
He certainly exhibited poor judgement, but writing him off as a lost cause because of this incident strikes me as a severe overreaction.
Go sit next to lissener. You’re the one who thinks a twelve-year-old can’t learn something new, not me. You’re the one who is entirely ignorant of developmental psychology, not me. You’re the one making jaw-droppingly stupid analogies, not me. Hell, if I didn’t know better, I’d think you were a radio talk show host.
Daniel
So when you are instructed by your teacher before entering the museum not to touch anything and again, once inside, there are signs posted telling you not to touch the artwork, that’s not an adequate clue that there’s a reason for this?
As I said earlier, I could understand the boy not knowing that merely touching it could cause damage from the oils on his skin but he’d have to be daft not to know putting gum on it was a pretty destructive thing to do.
Thanks for the C&P. Now explain to me how someone thinking something isn’t as big a deal as you do makes them less intelligent than you? Not only less intelligent, but devoid of intelligence all together. Do you care as much about who wins the Amazing Race as I do? No? OMG yer vacuous!!! :eek:
And damn you all for making me nod my head at Left Hand Of Dorkness posts. Damn you all to hell.
As I said, LHOD, when you’re not stuck in a stubbornness loop your participation in a thread can be an asset. I’ll try to comb through your sleight-of-backtracking for the valuable bits, and spit out the rest. Hold on while I go get a bigger spittoon.
Excuse me, how many kids do you have? I seem to recall that you have none. Which means you get all your knowledge of developmental psychology from a book. Now, I don’t have any kids either, but you’re the one who sees fit to tell real parents (like DianaG) that they are shitty parents because they don’t agree with your very lax standards for when a kid should know not to put gum on a painting. But go right ahead, call me a dummy because I believe a 12 year old is capable of being more than a drooling numbskull. It fits your previous pattern of insult flinging.
I agree with all of the above. That’s kinda sorta why I said he should have known better. I know you’re probably not enjoying my contributions to your thread, but you don’t have to respond to the things I say that you agree with and pretend to argue with me anyway. I was only disputing the absurd notion that the child is a lost cause because he did something stupid at age 12.
No Slacker, it’s not that you disagree, please note, there are a lot of people in this thread that disagree with me. There just not making asses of themselves.
My opinion of you is based not on your position regarding the news article and that you think I’m overreacting, it’s based on these posts of yours:
Actually, I’ve met a lot of fully-grown and responsible adults who didn’t realize how fragile some works of art are, and they would look at such warnings as telling people not to touch it because what they really want is just for people to not knock it over or write on it.
So, how valuable does a painting have to be before it gets its own glass case?
Nobody is saying the kid is a lost cause. We’re just saying that this is not normal behavior for a 12 year old, and that it’s immature even for adolescents.
I personally don’t feel that the kid is a lost cause. My initial post was that I thought he was an asshole and well, I guess I threw in a “shit-eyes” in there too.
I had no idea my virtually speechless OP was going to cause such inflammatory discussion. As I said earlier, I don’t think the kid should be beaten, jailed, or branded as an asshole for life, but damn, that was a stupid fucking thing to do. Today, however, I think he’s an asshole, a big asshole,a flaming shit-eyed little turd. 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.
Ok, I can buy that. My apologies if I misrepresented what you were saying.
Seems like it’d be a hell of a lot less than 1.5 million smackers. Seems like once you break six figures it’s time to protect that sucker.
LOL - I give up. Ok, I’m vacuous because I was an ass to you, a feat only the unintelligent would dare attempt.
There’s the rub. Glass cases may be added insurance against theft, vandalism, or “accidents” but it really removes the viewer from the moment. There’s the glare, the inability to look closely at brushstrokes and an adverse effect on the lighting.
I think a painting has to be famous, not valuable, to get a glass case. If it’s likely to attract the kind of crazies who want a place in history as “that guy that destroyed the Mona Lisa,” then it gets a glass case. “That guy that destroyed Helen Frankenthaler’s ‘The Bay’ doesn’t have the same romantic ring to it.”
Although, I expect some wag to stick a piece of gum to it again, so maybe now it needs at least a velvet rope and a rentacop.
Prediction: this is going to become a cultural, what? meme? anybody got a better word? and we’re gonna start seeing a lot of gumwads stuck to a lot of paintings. I predict this is gonna bring out the philistine–sorry; art critic–in a lotta class clowns.
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?
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.
He probably didn’t realize it would chemically react with the paint and/or varnish to leave a permanent stain, but he must have known that had it been left there to dry, it would have been difficult to remove, and may well have caused damage to the painting.
Again, of course he’s not a lost cause. He’s twelve! But at twelve, he *is * old enough to know better, and should be punished pretty severely. I think the primary difference between how I see this and how you (and, I think, LHoD) see it is that you would impose a punishment fitting the assumption that he didn’t know any better, and I’d punish him more harshly because I know he **did ** know better, and did wrong anyway.
You mean fingerstrokes, right? Admittedly, it would be unfortunate if we couldn’t see the nuanced interplay of the 3 monochrome blobs.
I totally agree with that. Just in your OP you called the kid an “asshole” which is kind of an adult-sized term of character assassination. If you had said “little shit” or “brat” then it might have implied no final judgement… just that his upbringing is unfinished or maybe lacking thus far.
I have done things exactly like that when I was 12 years old on impulse, and been horrified by it moments later when I fully thought about it. I didn’t think I’d gotten away with something cool. Nobody called me an “asshole” or demeaned my parents. I was given a punishment that increased the likelihood that I’d think first. I learned a lesson, and I grew up more or less fine. That’s how growing up works.
Actually, now that I think of this, the best possible outcome would be that Yoko Ono offers the museum 1.6 million dollars for the piece of gum. That would probably be the most relevant lesson for all parties involved.