• Zip2@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    If it’s so important, why was it just on the floor with no protection around it?

  • Jaberw0cky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Nowhere does it mention the nationality of the tourists, but somehow we all immediately know…

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    In the Wyoming and Montana (Yellowstone) area we call these people “tourons” (tourist morons). Sitting on a priceless piece of art or petting a giant bison, it all comes from the same place. Profound stupidity driven by an unhinged sense of privilege.

  • dariusj18@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    The video shows, it isn’t that they accidentally sat in a seat, but they were posing as if they were going to sit on it, but fell back into it.

    • Ragnor@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      16 hours ago

      To me it appears that he didn’t sit on it at first, but then changed his mind and sat down. I’m convinced that what you saw as him falling onto it is because he sat on it and then the legs buckled. The buckling caused him to fall further back, because the legs were stronger when they were straight.

    • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      It’s fairly clear that he meant to touch and put at least some weight on it on his 2nd attempt. He only stumbled after the chair gave way.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      Yes, but that headline would get less clicks.

      The museum is mad that they left after that, but honestly I’d be pretty terrified going up to them and mentioning that I’d fallen into a priceless artifact and broken it. In theory, they didn’t put up glass, and as professionals knew that means there’s a risk accidents could happen. In practice, maybe they’re short on funds and whatever bureaucrat sees suing me as a way out.

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        A chair frame covered in glued on glass rhinestones doesn’t really sound priceless. It looks like something you’d buy at TJ Maxx.

        • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Not even a chair frame, but likely a wire frame, probably covered in foil and then crystals. That’s a common method for art pieces. This wasn’t a chair covered in crystals, but a ‘delicate internal structure’ in a chair shape.

          e: that’s probably also why it was fairly easy to fix: re-bend the wire, then replace any crystals that fell of. This idiot is lucky he didn’t get a stabilising rod up his proverbial.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          I mean, there is that too, lol. I just have better things to do than start a totally subjective art argument.

          Also to that point, they’ve already fixed it. Which might be why they didn’t worry about protecting it that much in the first place.

  • protist@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    21 hours ago

    But the artist said he could see a “positive side” to the incident. “It’s like a kind of performance. Ordinary people can do it too, not just artists.”

  • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    My brother is one of the more intelligent and scientifically-minded people I know, but I’ll never forget the time we went to the Detroit Institute of Arts and he got yelled at for touching too many exhibits.

  • NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    20 hours ago

    “and off they go. Indifferent to what happened”

    Not sure about that. The guy was shitting bricks and they scurried off pretty fast.

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Why would you cover Van Gogh‘s chair in crystals? I love art but I could do without some artworks.

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      19 hours ago

      It isn’t actually Van Gogh’s chair, that’s just the name of the piece. It’s described as having a delicate inner structure covered in crystals (probably a wire frame). It’s not a real chair, which is why it collapsed instantly – it wasn’t created to hold any weight.

      • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Of course it isn‘t. It‘s based on his painting and completely misses the point. It‘s a really stupid piece in a tasteless gallery.

        • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          Your comment made it sound like the artist had defaced an historical object.

          I’m no art critic, but I would interpret the work as a statement on a mundane, usually overlooked object becoming something dazzling and valuable (eta: as literally happened to Van Gogh, and you could go further and say he was sat on and used during life, etc; I can think of much more, but it doesn’t sound like you’ll care), but that’s just me.