What have we come to?

[[XAP]Bob]

Just seen on the news that someone has been jailed for two years for.....

...drawing on a painting.


Is it just me or is this completely bonkers?

[Mick F]

Not just you.
I think it's bonkers too.

Vandalism can be the only charge. Vandals don't normally get two years.

[[XAP]Bob]

And then I hear on the news that someone who has killed someone else got 3 years....


Guess the mechanism

[Mick F]

They said on the R4 news today, that he'd caused £200,000 worth of damage and it would take 18months to put right.

Serious for the owners of the painting, but hardly worth two years in prison.

[reohn2]

Yes it is bonkers
The way crime is evaluated in this mad and obscene country that I live in,increasingly,is that everything is related to money.
If you're rich you are able buy your way out of almost anything and woe betide you if your crime is against the rich.
I do not live in a fair or even approaching fair society.
I do not live in a democracy.
I do not live in a society ruled by law or justice.
The slime and sickness of wealth is everywhere I look.

[Si]

2 years for intentionally ruining an expensive piece of art - I don't think that that is bonkers. Rather it is the low tariffs attached to other more serious crimes that i see as bonkers (esp. those that cause harm to people).

[Swallow]

2 years for intentionally ruining an expensive piece of art - I don't think that that is bonkers. Rather it is the low tariffs attached to other more serious crimes that i see as bonkers (esp. those that cause harm to people).

+one

[horizon]

In his novel The Secret Agent, Joseph Conrad creates a terrorist group who plan to blow up the Greenwich Observatory. Conrad notes, through his characters, that blowing up people will not attract much reaction and thus not trigger the suppression hoped for by the group. However, attacking the symbols and artefacts of art and science will provoke a huge outrage and thus meet their ends. Nothing changes.

PS I do have a Rothko poster here at home and really like it - it hung in our kitchen for a long time. So I was a bit sad at the act. I wouldn't have wished him two years for it though (... six months... ?)

[Mick F]

No-one was hurt, no-one was killed, but Criminal Damage was committed.

Max sentence is life imprisonment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_d ... nglish_law

[horizon]

Serious for the owners of the painting, but hardly worth two years in prison.

It isn't serious just for the owners. It's serious surely for everyone (millions of people in this case) who love that piece of art. The act of this man was selfish, stupid, childish, self-centred and immature. He chose to do it and risked the punishment. He offended and hurt an awful lot of people, myself included, who are not rich but would enjoy seeing the painting.

Just to add: the painting is owned by all of us through the Tate Gallery. It has nothing to do with rich people.

[al_yrpal]

Some people here obviously don't like that painting. Cant say I am that keen myself... Now if it had been the one Tracy did with the Clanger...

Al

[Mick F]

I would think if I'd been part of a jury, I'd have obviously found him guilty. He pleaded guilty of course. No doubt the judge listened to art lovers and not someone like me.

Had the artist still been alive, he could have just painted another?

Just to add: the painting is owned by all of us through the Tate Gallery. It has nothing to do with rich people.

Can I sell my share please?

[mrjemm]

A classic recipient of the "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like", and "a kid could paint that" critical repertoire. Which is likely from the same mouths as "nothing wrong with Franz... except the Freng, har har".

But yes, sentencing is a tad skew-iff (?).

[661-Pete]

Had the artist still been alive, he could have just painted another?

I'll do one for you, with pleasure. In fact, my attempts at daubing a coat of Dulux on the kitchen wall, generally come out indistinguishable from a Rothko. And what's more, you're welcome to come and graffiti-ize my efforts, any time....

Seriously, what is art? Leonardo, I can understand. Rembrandt, I can understand. Goya, I can understand. Turner, I can understand. Van Gogh, I can understand. But Rothko????????

[horizon]

Van Gogh, I can understand. But Rothko????????

Just try ... just try ...

Yum.

rothko.jpeg (4.62 KiB) Viewed 944 times