I FELT bad for that little kid last week. You know, the one that had been dragged along to an art gallery to see an exhibition full of Italian paintings in Taiwan.
I felt bad for him, not because he tripped and punched a hole into what was until then, a relatively unknown painting, but more because it was clear that by being allowed to walk around in a room with a soft drink in hand and alleged masterpieces on display, he was being let down by both his and the paintings' guardians who failed in their task to minimise any risk to a (loan) collection (and teach the kid some basic art etiquette).
Whatever. The museum decided to chalk it off to experience, and quickly set about restoring the work once it got the publicity it wanted to.
But was there more behind the expediency with which they dealt with the matter? Was it Taiwanese efficiency or something more sinister behind it? After all, any art space that enters into a loan arrangement for artworks, particularly pricey artworks, beyond its insurance obligations, would want to present itself as being compliant with the basics of care and risk management to avoid becoming a parriah or un-lendable.
But talk is shifting from the damage scenario, to one in which the providence and authenticity of the work has been brought into question. Awkward!
Just in case there is substance to the fake allegations, I have provided you with an alternative still life with flowers. You'll note that it's as real as it gets.
Let's see where the snooping leads...
I felt bad for him, not because he tripped and punched a hole into what was until then, a relatively unknown painting, but more because it was clear that by being allowed to walk around in a room with a soft drink in hand and alleged masterpieces on display, he was being let down by both his and the paintings' guardians who failed in their task to minimise any risk to a (loan) collection (and teach the kid some basic art etiquette).
Whatever. The museum decided to chalk it off to experience, and quickly set about restoring the work once it got the publicity it wanted to.
But was there more behind the expediency with which they dealt with the matter? Was it Taiwanese efficiency or something more sinister behind it? After all, any art space that enters into a loan arrangement for artworks, particularly pricey artworks, beyond its insurance obligations, would want to present itself as being compliant with the basics of care and risk management to avoid becoming a parriah or un-lendable.
But talk is shifting from the damage scenario, to one in which the providence and authenticity of the work has been brought into question. Awkward!
Just in case there is substance to the fake allegations, I have provided you with an alternative still life with flowers. You'll note that it's as real as it gets.
Let's see where the snooping leads...
RSS Feed
