Oops! Art lover trips, shatters ancient vases

[Skynetmain]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11100282/

Old story for those not in the States, but I think it bears a little debate.

"It was a most unfortunate and regrettable accident but we are glad that the visitor involved was able to leave the museum unharmed," museum director Duncan Robinson said on Monday.

PS: We will now be suing the hapless visitor for wrongful destruction of property.

[smudgeoffudge]

I wonder what will happen though. On one hand it was an accident but then again, those were priceless vases.

[Dragonfire]

Caretaker 1: "I think that these priceless vases should go on this windowsill. They look pretty there."
Caretaker 2: "Something's going to happen to them! They need to be behind glass."
Caretaker 1: "Psssht. Don't get paranoid. What's the worse that could happen?"
A Visitor tumbles down the stairs and shatters the vases.
Caretaker 1: "Hmm. I better go move that painting by Da Vinci out of the bathroom..."

[Skynetmain]

I say they should let the hapless visitor join their art display. He would be 'the curse of the mummy'. First they wrap the guy in toilet paper. Then they put him in a sarcophagus filled with scarabs. Finally, he shakes the sarcophagus for visitors until he runs out of air. The museum gets a new attraction, and the guy gets fame. It's win-win!



...at least until the poor guy dies and comes back as a super-being bent on world domination, but then all we need in Brendon Fraser to bring him down

[ahoteinrun]

Museums fault for not properly protecting the vases. They can't have a case against him for an accident when they were clearly asking for it from the get go.

[Skynetmain]

Museums fault for not properly protecting the vases. They can't have a case against him for an accident when they were clearly asking for it from the get go.

Very true, plus their insurance pay out must be making the museum staff dance like 12 yr old girls. (Not saying 12 yr old girls dance like museum officials )

[ahoteinrun]

Museums fault for not properly protecting the vases. They can't have a case against him for an accident when they were clearly asking for it from the get go.

Very true, plus their insurance pay out must be making the museum staff dance like 12 yr old girls. (Not saying 12 yr old girls dance like museum officials )

Possibly. But to be honest, the loss of what was broken has probably hit them pretty hard. Insurance or not, it's a ugly blow. You can't simply recreate those vases, art doesn't work that way. When arts destroyed it's not like someone can come back and say "i'll just make another" it's never the same twice.

[Skynetmain]

Possibly. But to be honest, the loss of what was broken has probably hit them pretty hard. Insurance or not, it's a ugly blow. You can't simply recreate those vases, art doesn't work that way. When arts destroyed it's not like someone can come back and say "i'll just make another" it's never the same twice.

Agreed, again. I was really thinking the heartless business men and finaciers at the top of museum were the ones dancing. The curators, scientists, art historians, etc are definately crying their eyes out still (this is a week old story). Them and the visitors are the ones I feel are the ones that are getting the raw end of this.

Not to sound too mean, but the Qing is only 200 (start) - 80 (end) yrs in the past and was a total knock off of the Ming. The Qing loved mass produced Ming style products. But the loss of any piece of history is too horrid. I'm glad they withheld the visitor's name, or he would have been lynched by now

[ahoteinrun]

Agreed, again. I was really thinking the heartless business men and finaciers at the top of museum were the ones dancing. The curators, scientists, art historians, etc are definately crying their eyes out still (this is a week old story). Them and the visitors are the ones I feel are the ones that are getting the raw end of this.

Not to sound too mean, but the Qing is only 200 (start) - 80 (end) yrs in the past and was a total knock off of the Ming. The Qing loved mass produced Ming style products. But the loss of any piece of history is too horrid.

I'm sorry, but when does age have to do with what art is worth more then others? I'm sure the people who own late Picassos, Rothkos and Nolands certainly wouldn't think much of placing a high price on the work they own.

And anyone who lynched the guy for being human would be an idiot. If he had walked up to the vases, looked at them, commented that he hated them and then pushed them off the windowsill, then lynching would've been smart, but you can't peg a guy for tripping. It'd just be rash and idiotic.

[Christopher]

Agreed, again. I was really thinking the heartless business men and finaciers at the top of museum were the ones dancing. The curators, scientists, art historians, etc are definately crying their eyes out still (this is a week old story). Them and the visitors are the ones I feel are the ones that are getting the raw end of this.

Not to sound too mean, but the Qing is only 200 (start) - 80 (end) yrs in the past and was a total knock off of the Ming. The Qing loved mass produced Ming style products. But the loss of any piece of history is too horrid.

I'm sorry, but when does age have to do with what art is worth more then others? I'm sure the people who own late Picassos, Rothkos and Nolands certainly wouldn't think much of placing a high price on the work they own.

By that argument you could just then reproduce the vases in the same style and method and say they're 'Ping' vases, or name the new lot after the current Chinese govt

[Skynetmain]

I'm sorry, ahoteinrun. I was not thinking in the art historian point of view. Thanks for your help for helping me remember my outrage at this event. I had a hard time looking past the 'technological' history of the time, what with the Song, Ming, Qing mass-production methods. The worse part is not being able to get the vases back, even if the vases were mass-produced for their times.

Again, you are right. I was thinking from a completely different point of view, and I never said that age of art made it worth different amounts, just that Qing Dynasty works copied a lot from Ming Dynasty. Once more, thanks for your point of view.

[ahoteinrun]

By that argument you could just then reproduce the vases in the same style and method and say they're 'Ping' vases, or name the new lot after the current Chinese govt

New art styles pop up all the time. Copies of copies have been made for hundreds of years. There's always a return to the old methods and ways. We're still copying roman and greek art and making new marble statues in the same manner as the Classical masters. We're still painting realistically in oils and tempura. We're still drawing in charcoal, classic methods of drawing are still being taught in school. It's not really any argument at all. Art... guh. Art is weird. It's not easy to classify, there are a lot of fuzzy borders, and what it takes to make a new generation or designation of style is not easily made. Most people now would not call knock offs art. And most people don't. art prints, are art prints. Copies, copies. There is no name for the movement that is prints and copies except for "money making".

Edit:

Sorry Skynetmain, I didn't mean to jump down your throat. *ahem* which I may've done just a little bit. It's just... not a simple subject matter. I think i'm being warped by my hated Cultural theory course. In which all you do is talk circles about how art isn't art but is art, but how all art is as good as what the cows in the back 40 make after eating lots of grass.

[Skynetmain]

...

Sorry Skynetmain, I didn't mean to jump down your throat. *ahem* which I may've done just a little bit. It's just... not a simple subject matter. I think i'm being warped by my hated Cultural theory course. In which all you do is talk circles about how art isn't art but is art, but how all art is as good as what the cows in the back 40 make after eating lots of grass.

No need to apologize, and I spent the last third of my art history class fuming over your line that I bolded.

[ahoteinrun]

...

Sorry Skynetmain, I didn't mean to jump down your throat. *ahem* which I may've done just a little bit. It's just... not a simple subject matter. I think i'm being warped by my hated Cultural theory course. In which all you do is talk circles about how art isn't art but is art, but how all art is as good as what the cows in the back 40 make after eating lots of grass.

No need to apologize, and I spent the last third of my art history class fuming over your line that I bolded.

My art history courses have never been about insulting art, but instead about appreciating it. What art history class were you taking? Just a general overview? The course i'm in, is cultural/visual theory and it's incredibly awful. I've actually lodged a complaint to my school about my prof. He tells us every class that we're not supposed to understand the material, so it doesn't make sense to me why he's teaching it... and a whole lot of other stuff. Blah. Stupid course. *prods it*

[Skynetmain]

It was a general overview, but I want to take era specific classes now that I'm at a school that offers it. We did spend a lot of time on technique and on specific eras. A lot on Greece, Egypt, Frieda Calo (sp?) and the Impressionists. Fortunately, we breezed over everything after Picasso and his contemporaries. I really want to take classes on Asian, African, Islamic art. In my Asian history class and my own studies, I learned a lot about Asian art, which is why I took a particular intrest in this story. PS: Ukiyo-e is the best mass-produced art I have ever run across

Edit:
I meant to mention this. Countdown covered this story on their 30/01/2006 broadcast. The main joke was Keith bringing up a Pink Panther-style bit. Clouseau smashes the vases. Curator: Those were priceless Qing vases! Clouseau: Not any more.
Humor to mask tragedy.