A 4-Year-Old Boy Breaks a 3,500-Year-Old Jar at an Israeli Museum

[grunion]

Paywall link here.

A jar used for oil and wine during the Middle Bronze Age in the ancient Canaan region prevailed for thousands of years before it was put on display at the Hecht Museum in Israel.

Last week, it was felled by the curiosity of a child.

On Friday, a 4-year-old boy visiting the museum in the northern coastal city of Haifa with his parents tried to peer inside the 3,500-year-old jar to see what it contained, his father said. The object toppled from its metal stand at the museum’s entrance and shattered, the museum said in a statement this week.

The Hecht Museum generally presents its priceless archaeological items without placing them behind glass or having them cordoned off by other barriers. There “is a special charm” in experiencing historical objects that way, the museum said, because visitors can be almost as close to the artifacts as the people who handled them in ancient times.

That approach is in line with the vision of the institution’s founder, Dr. Reuben Hecht, the museum said. But it left the pitcher susceptible to the whim of the child, who, his father told the BBC, “pulled the jar slightly,” causing it to fall.

The jar dates to between 2200 and 1500 B.C., predating the era of King David and his son and successor, King Solomon. Its features align with similar objects attributed to ancient Canaan, the museum said, a region that includes what are now parts of Israel and the Palestinian territories.

“Similar jars have been found in archaeological excavations, but most were found broken or incomplete,” Dr. Inbal Rivlin, the museum’s general director, said in an emailed statement on Wednesday. “The jar on display at the Hecht Museum, however, was intact, and its size made it an impressive find, positioned at the entrance of the museum.”

The Hecht Museum, part of the University of Haifa, said the pitcher would be professionally restored in a process that would also be open for the public to watch.

 

[Thermal]

That's what totally freaked me out about museums in Paris. Everything was just... right out in the open. You could touch Venus de Milo if you wanted, not even velvet ropes around her. Rodin's Thinker just out in the front yard.

The Hecht Museum, part of the University of Haifa, said the pitcher would be professionally restored in a process that would also be open for the public to watch.

Mostly consisting of some guy with Krazy Glue mumbling "mother ******" under his breath.

 

[theprestige]

That's what totally freaked me out about museums in Paris. Everything was just... right out in the open. You could touch Venus de Milo if you wanted, not even velvet ropes around her. Rodin's Thinker just out in the front yard.



Mostly consisting of some guy with Krazy Glue mumbling "mother ******" under his breath.

My view is that the truth of cast art lives in the cast, not in the casting. There are many casts of Rodin's work around the world. For example, a casting of The Gates of Hell in a public park in California. The Thinker is a part of this piece. As was the artist's intent.

What makes your Rodin more special than mine, when both were derived from the same cast?

What makes unrestricted public access to a casting a problem, when the cast still exists (and when the original cast can be recreated from any of the castings)?

 

[theprestige]

Also, it is regrettable that this child's guardian had enough teeth left in his mouth to give a statement to the press.

 

[grunion]

My view is that the truth of cast art lives in the cast, not in the casting. There are many casts of Rodin's work around the world. For example, a casting of The Gates of Hell in a public park in California. The Thinker is a part of this piece. As was the artist's intent.

What makes your Rodin more special than mine, when both were derived from the same cast?

What makes unrestricted public access to a casting a problem, when the cast still exists (and when the original cast can be recreated from any of the castings)?

The lion’s share of the appreciation of an original precast (i.e. the vase from the OP) is the visceral bond with the creator. It is magical and can be overwhelming. Anyone who has seen the David can testify to the bond felt with Michelangelo.

 

[Puppycow]

Also, it is regrettable that this child's guardian had enough teeth left in his mouth to give a statement to the press.

If only you had been present I'm sure that you would have done it yourself!!

 

[dann]

The lion’s share of the appreciation of an original precast (i.e. the vase from the OP) is the visceral bond with the creator. It is magical and can be overwhelming. Anyone who has seen the David can testify to the bond felt with Michelangelo.

I can testify to no such bond with Michelangelo. It is magical only because it's imaginary. You can imagine a visceral bond with the creator of any old teapot (or new, if you feel like it).
I am not trying to diminish or put down your experience. Enjoy it if that's your thing.

As for the 4,000-year-old teapot (sorry, jar) used for oil and wine (that sounds disgusting), I would have enjoyed watching the kid investigate it. There's nothing more enjoyable than an inquisitive 4-year-old. (Somewhere the philosopher Hegel talks about a child playing deferentially with a toy and adds, 'It would have been better if he had pulled it apart'.)

A long time ago, I had a girlfriend whose parents owned several pieces of art by famous artists. IIRC, they had couple of Giacomettis. They had also donated their former textile factory to be used as the museum of modern art of their town.
They owned several paintings, too. One of them had a tiny ladder sticking out of it down to the floor. One day, I saw my girlfriend's 4-year-old nephew climbing that ladder for whatever reason, maybe to take a closer look at the painting or maybe just because it was there. He was pulled off the ladder and told not to do that again, which was a pity, in my opinion. If the artist hadn't painted a picture with a ladder sticking out of it for 4-year-olds to climb, he was an idiot.

Of course, not having any capital invested in the painting gave me a different perspective of the whole thing. I also don't have anything invested in the old jar, be it capital or sentiments. It's being put back together again by a professional to look as ... probably not brand new but as new as it was last week. Big deal. We are used to admiring old stuff, even skulls and bones, having been reassembled and with missing parts being replaced. Not even then do I feel a bond with the, in that case imaginary, creator.

 

[erwinl]

The lion’s share of the appreciation of an original precast (i.e. the vase from the OP) is the visceral bond with the creator. It is magical and can be overwhelming. Anyone who has seen the David can testify to the bond felt with Michelangelo.

Yes and no.

I've been to Firenze many a time and have seen both the original David as well as the replica, they have there.

And magnificent as the original David is, is does fall flat in that it never was intended to be seen in a museum.
It always was intended to be seen in the context of the surrounding city itself. Which, in this case, means in front of the Palazzo Vecchio, where it can be admired next to all the other statues there. That is the feeling the replica has, and which the original now lacks.


And yes, originally it was supposed to be set on top of the Duomo, but turned out to be too heavy for that.

Edit: Why is this thread in trials and errors?

 

[Oystein]

Being able to contemplate the distant past; being able to communicate to the distant future; being able to get a glimpse of the mind of another person, even and especially an already dead person, through their work; all these are part of what makes us humans special, and what makes art, or the work of artisans, valuable.

Context matters.

Rarity matters. A 3.500 year old jar clearly is a lot more valuable than a 3,500 hours old jar - mostly on account that so few of the former still exist, yet so many of the latter. Among 3.500 year old jars, the never broken ones clearly are more valuable than the broken and repaired ones - mostly because they are even rarer, and because as a general rule never broken items are considered more valuable than repaired ones.
(Surely that child's father agrees with my theses, for why else would he have gone through the trouble and expenses of bringing his family to that museum?)

---

If I encountered a grafiti artist in a railway tunnel, painting simple but pretty images of wild animals such as deer, badgers, foxes, wild hogs, I might find that nice and wonder why those motives - and soon forget about it.

But when I envcountered grafiti of wild animals (of the time) in a cave in the Pyrenees (near Niaux), I was most profoundly impressed, even stunned, pretty much a spiritual experience, inspiring later learning and creativity on my part.
What's the difference? Age of course makes a lot of difference, for I found it very difficult to take my mind back all the 12,000 years that these paintings have already existed. I asked the same "why" question I ask about contemporary grafiti artists, but I know there is 0% chance I can ever get a definitive answer - no one can't ask them, and they left no language to describe their intentions. At the same time, the style, the arrangement, the artistic capability felt perfectly contemporary, marking the unknown artists as clearly human as I am - an immediate bond, almost brotherhood. spanning a dozen millenia. And then the setting, the context - almost a kilometer inside a mountain, in complete darkness - you have to take an unusual, slightly scary hike in the dark to see them. I haven't been to the more famous Lascaux, and no interest, actually, for there you can't visit the original cave and can't see the original paintings. Instead, three copies have been created, one of which for a travelling exhibition, and the others on display nearby the original.
Would copies have impressed me? Probably somewhat - one thing that surprised me in Niaux was the size of the painted walls, including the fact that the painters definitely needed scaffolding, and that it must have been difficult, if not impossible, for the stone age people to see the entire wall, given the low luminosity of paleolithic lamps. But otherwise, a replica necessarily lacks the experience of entering and crawling through an actual, large cave. And you just KNOW you are looking at mere, recent copies and not extremely ancient artwork. That knowledge does something with you. Because you are human (and possess some education).

 

[Darat]

Kid didn't do anything wrong, the issue sounds as if the stand for the jar was not "fit for purpose",

 

[3point14]

Kid didn't do anything wrong, the issue sounds as if the stand for the jar was not "fit for purpose",

Call me a cynical, miserable old git if you like, but I vaguely suspect the parents of not being fit for purpose.

I'm quite surprised there's no CCTV footage.

 

[Thermal]

My view is that the truth of cast art lives in the cast, not in the casting. There are many casts of Rodin's work around the world. For example, a casting of The Gates of Hell in a public park in California. The Thinker is a part of this piece. As was the artist's intent.

What makes your Rodin more special than mine, when both were derived from the same cast?

What makes unrestricted public access to a casting a problem, when the cast still exists (and when the original cast can be recreated from any of the castings)?

The work in Paris is the original and first, done under Rodin's own hand. It sits in his front yard, having contemplated the Nazi occupation. The subsequent castings poured by random Joes using his casts have value, but are not considered as valuable as those which the original artist oversaw the creation.

Of course The Gates and other works produced from the same casts have value and retain the artists hand. But to many, they are echoes, not the speaker. As you said, you can just reproduce another if you like. You can't reproduce the original that came to life under the artist's own hand. You're just making a Xerox of what it took Auggie many attempts to create. The original in Paris was the one when he said "nailed it, bitches".

More to the point, I wasn't arguing that one Rodin was better than a repro using his stuff. Surely if a couple frat boys knocked over Venus and destroyed her, we could 3-d print a replica within a week, yes? Maybe fix her up with some arms and irises while we're at it.

What was weird to me was that Monet's Water Lilies and Nymphs were stretched out on the walls and you could reach out and touch them. I am.familiar enough with destructive impulses that I am dumbstruck that more works have not gotten the Mona Lisa treatment and had to be protected.

 

[theprestige]

The work in Paris is the original and first, done under Rodin's own hand. It sits in his front yard, having contemplated the Nazi occupation. The subsequent castings poured by random Joes using his casts have value, but are not considered as valuable as those which the original artist oversaw the creation.

Apparently it's more nuanced than that:

https://www.rodinthealmaproject.com/recent-casts

The section on patination was especially interesting to me.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think fault lies with the museum, the parents, and the child. And also whoever made the pottery because they didn't make it sufficiently durable for ordinary usage.

Fault isn't an all-or-nothing that can only be assigned to one party. (Except in Israel/Palestine conflicts.)

 

[dann]

More to the point, I wasn't arguing that one Rodin was better than a repro using his stuff. Surely if a couple frat boys knocked over Venus and destroyed her, we could 3-d print a replica within a week, yes? Maybe fix her up with some arms and irises while we're at it.

The Little Mermaid is on head number three or four.
New castings should be free for whoever desires them for the cost of the bronze required for the casting and the casting process itself.
Who gives a **** which one is the 'original' mermaid?!

What Was the Venus de Milo Doing With Her Arms?

 

[theprestige]

The Little Mermaid is on head number three or four.
New castings should be free for whoever desires them for the cost of the bronze required for the casting and the casting process itself.
Who gives a **** which one is the 'original' mermaid?!

The French give a ****, apparently. They actually have laws about how many 'original' casts can be made (12).

 

[Thermal]

Apparently it's more nuanced than that:

https://www.rodinthealmaproject.com/recent-casts

Only slightly. Bottom line is that the ones made while Rodin lived occupy a cherished place by the French, both at the musee and in its gifts to others and, as you note in a later post, not exactly open for mass production to be sold at souvenir shops.

The section on patination was especially interesting to me.

Thanks for that link (which in my egocentric dyslexia I read as "Rodin/Thermal Project"). I wondered about the patina when over there, and what the works originally looked like before acid rain and vehicle emissions. Like, I wasn't sure if they were originally in the bold bronze hues of the works preserved from the elements. Of course, Auggie and the boys were familiar and evidently planned accordingly.

 

[Thermal]

The Little Mermaid is on head number three or four.
New castings should be free for whoever desires them for the cost of the bronze required for the casting and the casting process itself.
Who gives a **** which one is the 'original' mermaid?!

What Was the Venus de Milo Doing With Her Arms?

Right? They should just line a birdcage with la Jaconde and put up prints so the occasional nut job can throw paint at her and they can pop a new one up.

 

[Thermal]

I think fault lies with the museum, the parents, and the child. And also whoever made the pottery because they didn't make it sufficiently durable for ordinary usage.

Fault isn't an all-or-nothing that can only be assigned to one party. (Except in Israel/Palestine conflicts.)

The fault lies with security. Not enough snipers and booby traps that would have sent one of those huge boulders to crush the kid and his free ranging parents.

 

[shemp]

I don't know what the big deal is. It was a right old piece of junk!