tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post6028659116760572872..comments2023-06-13T08:29:39.914+00:00Comments on MAKING A MARK: Who pays? Liability when exhibited items are damagedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-81898199283758252442018-06-21T08:16:26.127+00:002018-06-21T08:16:26.127+00:00I was hoping to see more of your comments on the v... I was hoping to see more of your comments on the video, regarding the child. It did not look to me as if the children were simply running and the "vibration" or "wind from movement" or anything was the reason for the topple. Instead, it looked as if the child intentionally pulled the sculpture towards him and then managed to get enough out of the way to avoid falling under it. <br /> This intention makes the problem more complicated in my mind. I am NOT suggesting that it is all the child's fault. The sculpture looks a bit top-heavy and should have an adequate base to counter that or been more secured to the pedestal. [However, if the latter happened, would the pedestal have toppled WITH the sculpture?].<br /> I feel that if the parents are not liable for something, then the law sends out the dangerous message that we are not responsible for our own actions. Would that child have done that with his parents in the same room... next to him even? <br /> And, yes, agree: The glass sculpture does not appear to have broken. Did it chip? If not completely destroyed in the fall, why pay all of the value [whatever that legally is]?<br /> Liability is such a complicated issue. Community centers often do not have resources to pay for insurance, which can be high for works of art. I hate to discourage anyone from hosting an exhibition for that reason. Artists rarely pay for insurance because we just cannot. Galleries, on the other hand, are in business and take a hefty fee [esp. for sculpture since the costs of labor are so much higher than for 2-d works]. Galleries rarely BUY inventory. They may have paperwork telling artists that we are liable, but ... why? we have the overhead of production costs, including real estate. They have normal business expenses, except inventory! My experiences have been that galleries break [or "lose"] art or damage frames, etc. and sometimes never even apologize, much less compensate. But... another topic from this thread. <br /> However, my main point is that this case seems to be a shared responsibility of damages. If the community center asked the artists to install the show, then my vote is that the costs of damages or loss must be shared between artist, center, and child [in this case, his legal guardians/family], perhaps equally, or perhaps a wee bit more for the parents. That may suck for them, but if this child is left on his own a lot, it may be that he has never learned respect... he may be a little terror... hahah.. but also, in the end, the sculpture did not fall on its own. It was intentionally pulled down. If we as a society decide that the exhibitors are wholly responsible for the ABILITY for this to happen, we are creating or I daresay, continuing this problem today of people not feeling responsible or liable for their own actions. I would not want to encourage this young "vandal."<br /> It seems to me the most respectful thing to have happened is that the parent(s) offer to pay for something and the artist and community center allow that and fix what they can on their end. The three should have had a conversation. I am not sure that this sort of thing was handled very well. If so, the parents would not have been shocked by the bill. <br />Kelly Borsheim Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07069782765023276614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-45852329146872640852018-06-20T14:10:13.890+00:002018-06-20T14:10:13.890+00:00Thank you for taking a more logical approach to th...<br />Thank you for taking a more logical approach to this issue. You have outlined many interesting factors that I did not see in the general news - for example who determines the value of the sculpture. It's my understanding that the insurance company was demanding 99,000 from the parents, is it possible the insurance company was willing to pay the amount to the artist based solely on what the artist paid for the premium?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04306536476670416021noreply@blogger.com