Boy accidentally punches hole in 400 year old painting

[Borgholio]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-25/t ... ng/6724464

A 12-year-old boy has accidentally punched a hole through a centuries-old, $2 million Italian oil painting after he tripped and fell into the piece during an exhibition in Taiwan.

The painting, entitled Flowers by Italian artist Paolo Porpora, dates back to the 1600s and is part of a collection of 55 artworks on show in the country's capital, Taipei.

Video footage released by the organisers showed the boy trip over a platform in front of the artwork and then brace himself against the painting to break his fall.

He then looked around helplessly before walking away.

"The child fell and pressed onto the painting, putting a fist-sized tear in it," said an employee at TST Art of Discovery, which organised The Face of Leonardo exhibition.

Who painted the damaged artwork?

Paolo Porpora (1617–1673) was an Italian painter of the late Baroque period
He specialised in floral still-lifes
His work was influenced by still-life painters in the Netherlands

The organisers have decided not to seek damages from the boy's family, according to China News Agency.

The painting was restored on site on Monday and is now back on exhibition.

A self-portrait by Leonardo Da Vinci worth 200 million euros ($321.6 million) is also being exhibited at the show, according to the exhibition's website.

It is not the first time a priceless piece of art has been accidentally damaged.

In another instance, gaming tycoon Steve Wynn accidentally poked his elbow through the canvas of a $139 million Picasso painting.

In 2006, a British man smashed a set of 300-year-old Chinese vases after tripping over his shoelaces at a museum in Cambridge.

Whoops...

[Elheru Aran]

Welp. Accidents happen. If you don't want paintings to get poked, put a vitrine sheet in front of them. Surprised the museum didn't bother taking that simple precaution.

[Kon_El]

I can't believe there wasn't some kind of protective barrier. Is it common for paintings of this value to be displayed without any kind of covering?

[Thanas]

Yes.

[Simon_Jester]

Is there a logical reason for it? I'm not seeing one... or at the very least, not one that makes sense if the public is being allowed within arm's reach of the painting.

I mean hell, even buffets have plastic sneeze shields to keep the merchandise from accidentally being damaged.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Yeah I will agree the only one to feel shame at this is the museum.
The kid slipped and there's not much he could have done.
The museum meanwhile had a priceless painting hanging with nothing but a flimsy rope around it.
I mean other museums which at least have certain "exposed" paintings higher up

[Grumman]

The museum meanwhile had a priceless painting hanging with nothing but a flimsy rope around it.

They might have been better off if it was just a flimsy rope. It's hard to tell for certain, but it looked like he might have caught his foot on the edge of the raised platform.

[Elheru Aran]

I can't believe there wasn't some kind of protective barrier. Is it common for paintings of this value to be displayed without any kind of covering?

Yes.

Seriously, there's not even a flat sheet of glass immediately in front of the painting? I understand that might mess with flash photos of the painting but still, you'd think they'd want to protect them from even just people casually leaning over for a closer look and *breathing* on it (moisture+bacteria=bad for organic-based paints). It seems quite irresponsible to not take better care of historic artwork like that. Certainly cost is an issue, but I can buy a piece of Lexan at the hardware store for $40... it's not that expensive.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Seriously, there's not even a flat sheet of glass immediately in front of the painting?

Have you never been to an art museum or something?

[Thanas]

Yeah, I can't remember an Art museum that had protection for the paintings, except in case of very few works.

[Flagg]

This is not news, it's public shaming for something everyone agrees to be an accident (not saying that's what's happening in this thread). And I'd guess that having workmen, even very well trained ones, putting paintings behind a protective barrier would likely end up damaging more paintings, is the thinking behind not doing it for most works. This is like a double tragedy, though. A 400 year old painting gets damaged and some poor kid goes down in history as "the clumsy doofus who damaged the painting in 2015 CE."

[Broomstick]

Yeah, I can't remember an Art museum that had protection for the paintings, except in case of very few works.

The only artwork in a museum I can recall having a protective case was the Mona Lisa... and everything else in the Louvre I saw was uncovered.

Here's the problem - if you want people to see and enjoy art you have to display it, and if it's out there in public, with the public moving around it, there is a non-zero risk of something terrible happening to it.

Now, the display for this particular painting perhaps could have been better designed, that's an issue any display of art faces.

[Ahriman238]

Good on the museum to not seek damages from the boy or his family. Sill, I'm amazed this is so, most art exhibits I'm familiar with are either in cases or have a barrier of some kind to prevent people from getting within arm's reach.

[Hillary]

Good on the museum to not seek damages from the boy or his family. Sill, I'm amazed this is so, most art exhibits I'm familiar with are either in cases or have a barrier of some kind to prevent people from getting within arm's reach.

I doubt they'd be able to claim damages anyway. Certainly wouldn't be able to under UK law, anyway.

[General Zod]

Good on the museum to not seek damages from the boy or his family. Sill, I'm amazed this is so, most art exhibits I'm familiar with are either in cases or have a barrier of some kind to prevent people from getting within arm's reach.

I doubt they'd be able to claim damages anyway. Certainly wouldn't be able to under UK law, anyway.

They're probably insured for this sort of thing.

[Thanas]

No, very few museums carry insurance because it would cost a lot.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, I can't remember an Art museum that had protection for the paintings, except in case of very few works.

Why the hell not? At least for the really old stuff and the more valuable works by modern-ish 'masters' like Monet, Van Gogh, etc. Like I said, vitrine sheets probably don't cost *that* much, and you can easily set them up so that they don't contact the painting at all but sit right in front of it. Glare from overhead lighting might be an issue, but that can be minimized with coatings on the glass or by careful light planning.

It seems cheaper than taking chances with valuable artwork getting damaged...

[Thanas]

Several problems.

1. The costs are actually non-trivial for a museum. You can't just get any kind of glass. You need sturdy glass, because if it is not strong enough then it is better to not have it at all - far easier to fix a hole than digging tiny glass shards out of the painting and fixing a hole. Then you need anti-glare glass. Most museums have tiny operating budgets. Sure, they are worth a lot, but less money is spent on staff. This is why most museums are staffed by volunteers.

2. It may actually be more risky. Why? Because glass needs to be cleaned. Congrats, now you got non-professionals handling unwieldy equipment next to artifacts, even more fun when it is water because that can cause a host of issues with evaporation and humidity. Before you dismiss this, I shall point out that the mask of Tutanchamun was broken this way.

3. Very few people actually trip and fall because 99.999% of people realize to be careful and there are enough guards around to make them aware of idiotic moves.

4. Sure enough, great exhibit pieces like the bust of Nefertiti are under glass. But that is more because idiots want to touch them.

[Elheru Aran]

Fair enough. I still think it's somewhat irresponsible to leave valuable artwork in such a vulnerable position, but those are valid points.

[Thanas]

You want kid and idiot-proof museums, the tradeoff will be a dramatic increase in ticket prices. A lot of museums are free for the public over here in German or cost below 10 EUR to enter. If you change that, you in effect put the class system where only the wealthy enjoyed art back in place. I cannot condone that for I think the more people get exposure to culture the better.

[General Zod]

All of the non-standard painting sizes and limited wall real estate would add to the difficulty of putting up glass over the paintings.

[salm]

This happens so rarely that it´s simply not worth worrying about. And when it happens the pieces are often only damaged and not destroyed. This hole the kid punched can be repaired.
Making the experience more expensive and less enjoyable isn´t worth it.

[The Xeelee]

The idea of protecting them is silly, they are to be viewed and the stuff to protect them is very expensive if you want it to not ruin the viewing experience.

Interestingly of course this is why art heists aren't anything like they are in movies, they just stick the painting under their jacket and walk out.