Let’s Be Honest, This Kid Wasn’t Going To College – IOTW Report

Let’s Be Honest, This Kid Wasn’t Going To College

The Overland Park, KS community center had a glass sculpture titled, “Aphrodite de Kansas City.”


That was until an unattended pre-school graduate appeared to be trying to hug the art work.
Now the city is demanding $132,000 from the parents. This kids college fund will probably just about cover it. Here 

31 Comments on Let’s Be Honest, This Kid Wasn’t Going To College

  1. Breakable glass sculpture, on an unsecured pedestal, top-heavy, not roped off. This is the result of the community center’s incompetent and stupid govt workers’ negligence. That bullshit about the parents not supervising the kid is mighty lame when you consider that the “community” the center serves includes all ages. And the insurance adjuster is a low-life bottom feeder.

    21
  2. Wonder how it would have worked out, and who would be screeching louder if the statue was damaged AND the kid was too.

    Parents, watch your kids.
    At this point in their lives, I’m pretty sure any advice would be ignored by community center employees. Unsecured is not good. Try that.

    12
  3. I see two problems; unsupervised kids and unsecured sculpture.
    Perhaps the liability should be shared between parents and community.
    And the community should be glad the kid wasn’t hurt.

    20
  4. Questions:

    1. Why is the city spending that much on meaningless art?

    2. Why is such an expensive item located in an insecure area, where any kid could go?

    3. Don’t they have this shit insured for precisely this kind of predictable event?

    This is a shakedown by the city, plain and simple. They didn’t get the item insured, so they’re using the power of government to rip off the parents for the incompetence of the city. The parents should talk to a lawyer and find a way to protect their assets now before the gubmint crime syndicate uses this as an excuse to make them bankrupt and homeless, and those motherfuckers absolutely will do that.

    19
  5. It’s the “artist” demanding the money, art is worth what somebody is willing to pay for it.
    Give him a sawbuck and call it even.
    If anybody is at “fault” it’s the center.
    Kid cudda been killed.

    9
  6. How was the market value of the sculpture determined? From the article, I gathered they were going by the sculptor’s word alone. The county’s negligence in not properly securing and insuring the sculpture makes them a lot more culpable than the kid and his parents.

    6
  7. Any insurance company will tell you that something like that should have been secured. Vending machines, shelving and anything top-heavy are required to be secured! Yes, better supervision of yer kids is appropriate, but I’d call this one a wash regardless of any value they put on that piece of glass!

    7
  8. You guys nailed my points,too.
    It’s a community center! Not an art gallery. I’m surprised that they put an ‘expensive’ glass statue, where people, not just children, can walk around it. The center put it there, and the artist agreed to where it is. Well, they have to share the blame for that.

    “Aphrodite de Kansas City”? ROTFL.
    What’s next? “Nike of Butcher Hollow”?

    12
  9. I’m going against the crowd here. The mother wasn’t paying a bit of attention to her little monster as he raced around doing whatever the F*** he pleased. I won’t comment on the quality or value of the art, but to me, that’s not the point. Supervise your kids when out in public.

    12
  10. No no no…before you clean it up let me take a still life of the wreckage of my statue in situ, in tasteful black and white and a subtly gauzed lens. I’ll call THAT art — no, I’ll call it ANTI-art! Irony sells big in the Village! The rich fags and hipsters will eat it up with a recycled wood spoon! I’M EVEN RICHER THAN I WAS BEFORE! Thanks, kid!

    6
  11. Beyond repair? Looked in one piece to me. So it might have some cracks in it. That gives it character, making it worth more potentially. It’s now part of the story.
    Kid should sue for payment.
    Eh, it could have gone a lot worse, that hunk of sand could have fallen on the kids head.

    7
  12. @Larry The Liberal June 17, 2018 at 3:09 pm

    Did Aphrodite de Kansas City have a vagina? Or is that no longer a necessary characteristic of a female statue?

    2
  13. @Mark S. McGrew June 17, 2018 at 3:30 pm

    He was just fondling the tits. That’s a no-no to the liberal community. They’ll force him to play with Ken dolls.

    4
  14. Sorry, but the kid is a menace. Mom is one of those zoned out parents who probably believes, let kids be kids. Well, destroyed private property is the result of free ranged children. Parents should pay something for damages.
    Also, the local yokels in that podunk suburb need to wise up and not display expensive artwork where it can be easily knocked over.

    8
  15. I’m with you Riverlife and 99th. I am sick to death of lazy friggin’ parents who refuse to discipline their little brats, and let them run wild while they are engrossed in conversation or fiddling with their damned cellphones. I see this crap all the time at restaurants, with kids running around and servers having to avoid them. This is the result of snowflakes raising the next generation of snowflakes. Damned straight the parents need to pay whatever the price tag was on that “art”, shitty or not.
    Happy Father’s Day, holy shit. Where’s the Tylenol?

    9
  16. No way I’m giving the kid and parents a pass here. That’s why I wrote, sharing the blame. (The display wasn’t properly secured. If there was insurance on it, they should have made the attempt to secure it, so no sense laying the blame on the parents, fully.]
    I worked retail for 10 years. I’m not a fan of half-assed parents and full-assed kids. I once stopped a toddler from running in the aisle with steak knives. A co-worker went to the mother and told her, “This here is MY section of the store…Yo kid’s gonna trip and stab me, and I don’t do blood…” Rolled her eyes and went back to work. lolol.

    6
  17. Apples and Oranges
    Value is Apple
    He freely gave Time away
    Action is Orange
    She will pay more attention
    In the future
    He claims his Past is now valuable
    In the future
    Time keeps on slippin’
    Oranges and Apples

  18. The $132000 is what the artist considers it’s worth. He’s bound to have an inflated view of what it’s worth. I can do a paint-by-numbers and claim it’s worth a million but no one will give me that much.

    2
  19. Kid should have been supervised and art should have been secured.
    It is good that the kid wasn’t hurt. As displayed, it was arguably an ‘attractive nuisance,’ and lawyers love that one. The value is determined by the artist alone. What is the insured value? It could be a money laundering scheme.
    Call it a ‘work in progress’ and bill the artist for publicity.

    3
  20. It’s a community center, not the Louvre, tie the nekid glass lady down, Sport.
    I’m old, damn old, kids ran wild in community centers 60 years ago.
    Sheesh.

    5

Comments are closed.