I remember reading about a Monet (i think it was one of his paintings) who was stolen in a heist. the thieves fled the country with their loot, and burried it somewhere. When they were arrested the mother of one of them burned the loot to protect her son. I think i cried when i read that. I'm sorry, future children of mine, but if you steal a beautiful piece of art like that and deprive the public of its beauty, then the least i'll do is protect you from the consequences of your actions.

Alpacalypse yes, although it is unclear if Monet’s paintings were burned too, because they were made with pastels and would have left no traces in the ashes. Anyway, she burnt the other paitings and the Monets are still missing. For anybody interested: search arttheft Kunsthal (The Netherlands)

I'm not sure jail time is an appropriate response to an act of this type of vandalism. I just don't think it was a coldly deliberate act. Intense emotions of some sort were involved, and need to be addressed to help with bringing these under control. Punishment will simply result in deeper resentment - not contrition, far less future safety of artworks.

Erin S. I agree Erin, I think with modern techniques and materials it would be possible to restore it so there is no sign of the damage whatsoever. It is a stunning painting, quite what possessed the person responsible for the damage is beyond me.

The world is indeed a place with full of crazy people. Crazy people who would worship a painting that someone made years ago, and treat it like its a piece of heaven. We are all gonna die, and to see that some people act like a tragedy happened, is sad. Terrible things happens all the time in this world, yet it barely anyone cares. But oh crap, a painting got destroyed, it will definitely be the end of humanity.

The argument "This doesn't matter because there are bigger problems in the world" is really problematic. This is art not any piece of paper that was teared apart; art is part of the history of the world, there is a lot of effort and creativity attached to it. Of course there are terrible problems in the world but I don't really see your point by diminish the action of destroying art.

Well it makes the painting more interesting, because it triggered someone to do that.

NELSON X I didn't notice & now I can't unsee it 😭😭😭😭

Funny how piggybacking works. You, an idiot, hates on art that should never be associated with the artist, because then, let's destroy the pyramids, let's crush the renaissance, let's burn all the copies of Nietzsche's work and forget about them forever, BUT WHY stop there? Let's find all the bibles in the world, and all the knowledge and all the people that ever touched or have any relation to their creation from agnostic text to sellable copy. All those horrid creators and pasts, surely we can't look at them anymore, now can we? In short, you're an idiot, the same kind of idiot that did this idiocy, difference is, between you and the painting now sits a bulletproof glass that reveals the damage to everyone because of the way it reflects the light. I would thank death for taking your kind faster so we can all live in peace, for surely, then, people like Dali wouldn't exist in such numbers.

Yeah, I'm not saying vandalism is good. I just think that knowing the whole story (that dali was a gross person who painted well, a man who was likely upset at him tore one of the paintings, and then conservators were able to repair it decently) is more productive than saying "how could anyone do this". I'm also trying to put a positive spin on something that happened decades ago--and although it's sad that the art got partially destroyed, I think that vandalism is a far tamer crime than some of the things Dali did. Context is everything. We need to look critically in how we view artists--we shouldn't deify people who happen to be good at painting/drawing/whatever just because they made something we like. We need to be aware of who we're supporting. If we separate all art from the artist, we risk people thinking their racist, sexist, fascist, narcissistic (etc.) behavior is okay. It's not. Dali was not a good person, but he made some art people liked. And that's okay! You can look a one of his paintings and say "this looks pretty and i like it" and be perfectly fine. But you can't act like anyone who doesn't like his paintings (whether its because they know how gross Dali was or if they just think it looks bad) is an idiot or scum or whatever. people are allowed to have an opinion. Personally, I would happily sacrifice all art made by gross people. It would let good, decent human beings fill those spaces instead. Purge the racists, the pedophiles, the misogynists, the anti-semites and islamophobes. Don't let them think their behavior is okay. Don't sacrifice basic decency for shallow aesthetic pleasure. It's not worth it. (Sorry, I didn't mean to write so much. I just have strong opinions on this topic and I wanted to be clear.)

+Vin 950 Thanks for the support, but I'm not a man. jsyk

I think that we indeed should separate art from the artist, this doesn't mean that we are gonna accept racism, sexism or some of those terrible things. Art should be looked by the message that it tries to give (or the lack of it) not by the actions of the autor that aren't related to it. It's like saying that we should forbid scientist to do science just because they are bad parents, one thing isn't related to the other.

Epiphany Paige I understand what you're saying, even if you dont agree with some of Dali's behaviors I think it's blatantly wrong to destroy any work of art unless you are the creator itself. To destroy art is to destroy human culture. Even if that part of human culture doesn't fit in with society's standard of morals.

Oh dear, is that like saying I'm glad the beautiful woman was raped, as it shows she really was beautiful, and who could resist such beauty?

erm...what sense does that make??? Like the previous reply that's like saying "good a woman was raped because it showed she was pretty". Why attack a painting if you thought they mattered? The whole point of the attack is that it didn't matter to the attacker...They just did it to be asshats...If the painting mattered to them then they would of done what everyone else naturally does and just admired it and analyized it like a normal human being...The painting didn't matter; they just wanted to destroy history and get publicity.

It's as good as it could be. Good is relative, and when every other method would make a worse result, this cam certainly be considered good.

This was restored way before our time, so the restoration methods were different to say the least. Yes it is infact not that great, and i've seen restoration jobs that are more equisit than this one, HOWEVER this was done in a time when restoration was still...in progress of developing techniques. It's certainly better than what it was and what it could of been if it was in the wrong hands, that's for sure.

are u ok lol

geronimon I'm intrigued, why do you say he's a fascist ?

mult1coloured because he was a fervent supporter of the fascist dictactor francisco franco

Your dislike of someone doesn't justify vandalism you moron

I couldn't care less to be honest. I know enough art history and context to care about more important things than Dali's art destruction, which in my opinion is already a rebellious artistic act in itself.