I would be assume if they let the public have access this room where the statue was displayed, that they would take protective measures.
Most people would not be able to afford to pay for a statue that the taxpayers paid for. Their solution is to file bankruptcy to discharge the debt or assessment.
The community center didn't "baby-proof" this art display, it would seem.
Those responsible for the display disregarded murphy’s law.
[ I would think the community center has some culpability in this for displaying a $132,000 statue out in the open without a plexiglas cover, no restraints, no hold downs, no signs that say “Do Not Touch”, nothing apparently to indicate it was valuable and breakable.
I would be assume if they let the public have access this room where the statue was displayed, that they would take protective measures.
Most people would not be able to afford to pay for a statue that the taxpayers paid for. Their solution is to file bankruptcy to discharge the debt or assessment.
The community center didn’t “baby-proof” this art display, it would seem. ]
Reminds me of the “art” that was just a pile of garbage that got “cleaned up” by the janitor... ART should always be protected by either enclosures or some sort of lock down or roping offf.
It doesn’t help that some art museums have “kid friendly” displays where kids are EXPECTED to TOUCH and FEEL. So they condition kids to touch crap then they get pissed a kid touched something and broke it... well... DUH!!!