Your comment made me laugh so hard xD

😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😅😅😅😅😅😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂😅

HAHAHA Wow!

That's exactly what the European curators said. Along with. "If we wanted Michaelangelos shattered we'd keep them here and do it ourselves", just like the hammer attack I recall from the news in the 70s, when I was a boy.

Signed... The Citizens of The United States of America

I wouldn't really call it an 'inevitable' mishap.

@@23daughters I would, nothing lasts forever.

It wasn't the fault of the plywood pedestal. It was god himself giving it a little push because he's still angry about the whole fruit thing.

As an art student this entire situation is so infuriating, but holy fuck that joke is the best!

Boris Pickett Good one. 😜

I like that way you think

@Alexander the Great wow just wow

how come?

@@orangutank626 If you dont get the joke you're it.

Jayden Louise Nicholas Townsend that was the joke dipshit lol

@@orangutank626 sorry my friend, sometimes people around here are just too good at sarcasm.

HSVSVSHSBBS YEP!

plywood sucks. you don't put a heavy carved statue on plywood.

@@azadalamiq Some Roman shields were made with plywood, especially since it's quite flexible, light, but still strong. Plywood isn't inherently bad, and doesn't "suck". The plywood box just wasn't constructed too well, and plywood possibly shouldn't have been used for this specific scenario.

Obviously the one that held the statue was....really weak. Hence the fact it collapsed, destroying the statue in the process. Brilliant conservancy decision, that one.

They also used some really good Elmer’s glue

an accountant.

Why not in a wooden box? With soft fillings of course.

They should evaluate these bases from time to time.

JBs POP, I think that they filled it in during the restoration in order to make it fit with the story of creation.

So for everyone talking about about the "cheap" plywood pedestal, I was a little intrigued, and did a little research. The video really doesn't go into much detail but from what I was able to find the pedestal was more than just plywood and was pretty heavily reinforced internally with several braces and supports. Also the pedestal had been holding the statue for at least 65 years without incident going back to 1936 when the museum acquired the statue and put it on display in that location. Whatever caused the pedestal to fail was unusual enough that the Met had 2 separate engineering firms conduct forensic investigations on the pedestal to determine why it suffered a sudden and catastrophic failure www.odonnellconsulting.com/project-view/statue-base-failure/ rapperport.com/case-studies/pedestal-collapse copy & pasted from centerioun so you could know this :)

@@grezgu didn't it deserve a marble pedestal? And drills with supports in case of hearthquakes?

My thoughts EXACTLY! 😅

Marius M That's what I though immediately too. Plywood of all things for god's sakes. Americans.... smh

@Anti-Federalist 1776 nope, tullio lombardo was italian, what they said is that the marble is one of the few high quality outside of italy and ome of the firsts nudes.

Yup, the sculptures in Italy have lasted for centuries, often outside in the elements. Tullio's Adam lasted for over 300 years in Venice unharmed, but gets taken to the USA and gets dropped on the floor after only 70 years. Ruined.

@@DanielSann Correction: WAS one of the few. Certainly can't be considered "high quality" now that it's been smashed and glued back together.

Do some research before you complain crybabys

Plywood does not automatically mean bad or cheap, its just how the wood was constructed. Layers ("plies") of wood are stack on top of one another with the grain rotated to increase stability, strength, and reduce warping. Quality plywood is stronger than and can sustain higher stress than regular wood

@Kingston Anderson they received the statue in that condition. the plywood was of high quality and was reinforced internally with struts and other supports. literally no one could have predicted that the pedestal would have given out when it did.

Well it's a stone statue so should be on a stone plynth

@@torinjones3221 my point exactly! thank you. *it's bloody stone.* i don't care what kind of wood it's on it shouldn't be on wood at all.

@Anti-Federalist 1776 and yet that not-cheap-piece-of-non-home depot wood failed and look at the consequences. had the statue been placed on something that was literally more concrete, i'd argue we wouldn't even be watching this video.

Nobody will tell you to go back or stay-in school either. But now you know what’s best for you.

meandbigboy Hindsight is always 20/20.

nacs This is more than hindsight being 20/20. From a physics & structural engineering perspective, using a substandard wooden base was an imprudent choice that could've been realized relatively easily beforehand.

The pedestal always looked cheap/cheesy to me - you could see it was plywood painted gray; I never understood why they didn't have it on a beautiful stone pedestal, as it deserved to be. Now, in hindsight, it apparently was truly foolish. I don't understand why such a decision was ever made. As I remember it, the other large Renaissance sculptures in the Blumenthal courtyard were on similar plywood pedestals. The courtyard layout has been redesigned since then. Initially the story was that the sculpture was smashed as they were installing new pedestals, and the inadequacy of the handlers caused the fall. Now they say the pedestal gave way. I wonder what the truth is.

Seems like common sense to me. I'd care about the artwork more than the floor.

Top-quality plywood is actually very strong and very durable. It should be a perfect material for pedestals, so long as each one is properly designed and carefully constructed. Stone pedestals, on the other hand, may very well have invisible faults - and their weight when combined with the sculpture above is potentially devastating to flooring underneath.

Lol yea

No, they took so much time because late 20th century and early 21st century restoration/conservation has the principle of total reversibility. There is also the problem of steel pins doing considerably harm in future falls. So, they took the time to find pins which would hold up but not do damage in a fall and acrylic resins which can be completely removed but will hold firm indefinitely.

Is it still in the same room that’s shown at 7:28? I got to see it there back in 2014 just a few days after it came back on display.

Right? Who gets to decide what work of art is ugly and what's not? I really hope that David statue wasn't very old.

@t fi from what they showed it looked like a nice replica of the David. I don't think saying it's kitche can count for something that purposely a replica of an existing piece.

@t fi well maybe, the way he said very "ugly" is what made me comment, I didn't think it deserved to be called that, that's all.

@t fi hm, in what ways? Sorry I don't know alot.

Nor me. He's trying to justify the destruction of another work of art.

actually , when a person who works at the museum or the visitors break something on accident ( literally anything that isnt someone intentionally , consciously damaging a piece ) they have a lot of money to cover the damage and repair costs. Basically everyone is safe because accidents do happen be it because they failed to use a proper pedestal , or they bumped something or whatever it may be, accidents are inevitable. Plus I doubt most people would visit or work in a museums if they were terrified that they may have to pay a ton of money because they tripped or something. I guess that system lacks a sense of justice but that's how they decide to do things.

it's always the nose that gets it.

According to the New York Times, the pedestal was 2 years old www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/arts/met-s-15th-century-adam-shatters-as-pedestal-collapses.html

Well the museum had the piece insured for $80 million prior to the incident which covered the cost of restoration.

MrNakitjamuusi ....like cut the Salaries of the Directors.

Fuck off. Don't make this about America my dude, but if you do, at least be right.

The pedestal was the highest bullshittery though.

Wood construction is fine, much more economical, easier storage, maneuverable. Moving 600lb of stone for each piece in an exhibit would be senseless. Plywood, though. Man wtf. I hope she was exaggerating.

@@evindrews not really there are supports and systems that makes moving tone/ marble pretty easily. and you should have to move it all that much or often.

Well they roasted a fake David statue. The real one is like 5 times bigger than that one here.