  |
|
|
|
What is more damaging, loaning artworks to other museums, or art vandalism? A recent act of vandalism at the Rijksmusem is cited as the act of a serial art vandal.
The mission of ArtWatch International is "to serve as an international advocate for the conservation and stewardship of historically significant works of art and cultural monuments." They also have an article on their front page that talks about how loaning out art to museums worldwide can be potentially damaging to the work of art and yet cites no examples of artwork being damaged while in transit. It seems their objections to the loaning out of art has to do with the monetary burden not with the potential harm to art. And if you google the words "art" and "damage" most articles are about acts of art vandalism usually conducted by an individual. Maybe ArtWatch should think about an article that contemplates the vandalism of artwork? What drives people to damage a great work of art? Is there anything that can be done to prevent vandalism of art? In June 2006, a serial art vandal struck at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, Holland. The 69-year-old man is named Hans-Joachim Bohlmann and he has attacked 165 pieces of art in his total career as an art vandal. The attacked painting is called Militia Banquet and was painted in 1648 by Bartholomeus van der Helst and is considered a major piece in the Rijksmuseum. There are apparently many tools of the art vandal trade. The attack on the painting in the Rijkmuseum was with a syringe of sulphuric acid. Luckily, the curator has reported that the varnish was damaged but the paint itself is fine. Perhaps many incidents of art vandalism are the desperate acts of mentally ill people, but maybe part of it is that we live in a culture that does not respect art. It's worth considering.
The copyright of the article Vandalism: A Real Art Threat in Art & Society is owned by Mary Rayme. Permission to republish Vandalism: A Real Art Threat in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
