Last Wednesday at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, a man tripped on his shoelace, tumbled down a flight stairs and landed unharmed on a set of 300-year old Qing Dynasty vases. Unfortunately, the 3 vases were not so lucky. In fact, they were smashed to smithereens… all because of an offending shoelace.
At least that is what the visitor bearing the aforementioned tie upon his shoe would have us believe. After regaining his wits and dusting the priceless particles of enamelled porcelain off his lapel, he looked up and said: “There it is! That’s the culprit!”, all the while pointing in the direction of the criminal cord. Although it might be interesting to consider the rise in criminal acts perpetrated by shoelaces, this costly little incident raises a few questions about responsibility.
Of course, the man who will now be fondly remembered as “The One Who Identified The Culprit” did not mean to take a flying leap. Does that free him of all responsibility towards the museum? It would appear to be the case… especially since the precious vases had been sitting on a windowsill at the bottom of the staircase for forty years. Should they have been protected by glass cases, perhaps “The One Who Identified The Culprit” would not have recovered so well from the incident, but the vases would probably be better off.
We tend to perceive museums as fortresses but, according to Charles Hill, a specialist in the recovery of stolen art, the truth is “most art collections are very badly protected. The reason is they’re on public display. You can’t turn the National Gallery in to Fort Knox, what’s the point?” Hill sums up the age old dilemma: can we be given access to art without posing a threat to its security? You never know when or where a renegade shoelace might strike...
Martine Rouleau
2 comments:
La vengeance du lacet.
Si ce lacet est devenu un voyou c’est qu’on l’avait poussé à bout. Jamais il a connu le plaisir de se faire attacher proprement et de faire le travail pour lequel on avait retenu ses services. Depuis des mois il était traîné dans la boue et les détritus des rues de Londres. Son propriétaire prenait même un malin plaisir à passer près des déjections de chien pour mieux l’humilier. Il n’a pu résister à l’opportunité d’attirer l’attention de son propriétaire.
Eh bien, c’est réussit ! La perte de vases anciens et irremplaçables a monopolisé l’attention de tous les Londoniens. La population est de plus en plus polarisée. À droite, on préconise rien de moins que la disparition pure et simple du lacet. Les grands lobbys du velcro, supportés par les études des plus grands instituts, dénoncent l’inaction des politiciens. À gauche, on défend le lacet. Tous les groupes sociaux et les syndicats, supportés par les études universitaires les plus récentes, dénoncent le manque de lois et de règlements pour protéger les lacets londoniens.
Le lacet est abasourdi par tout ce branle-bas. Depuis l’incident du musé il a obtenu tout ce qu’il désirait, retenir fièrement la chaussure de son propriétaire.
The destruction of art is always to be praised, no matter how it comes about
Post a Comment