If you read the article, it is possible to have a charitable interpretation. Difficult, but possible. Here it is:

The sculpture (such as it is) consists of a set of sturdy shelves mounted on the wall. It is not fenced off or protected. One of the girls lay down on the lowest shelf - this could happen quickly, before the parents even noticed. They should have been appropriately embarrassed and apologetic.

However, if that is what happened, then all the defensiveness is difficult to explain.

Perhaps they're Indigo Children of a Crystal Mother.

Or spoiled.

We went to the Detroit Institute of Arts with my mom and grandma a lot and I'm sure were instructed in proper art museum behavior, because we knew not to touch or climb on the art.

If you take kids to a museum, it is your responsibility to see that they don't climb on the art, not your responsibility to defend them as right when they do.

I hope these parents can support their kids after they die because they are raising brats who will never be able to work for people.

And please remember that I'm not exactly a wilting violet. I question authority all the time -- loudly, at airports, sometimes. But I also have boundaries.

I wouldn't apologize to the post-modern ugliness worshipper Carl Sandburg anyway

I remember when the Museum of Modern Art opened (or maybe when I first went to it). I was in high school with a school group and we were reminded to check ANYTHING we wanted to touch at all for a placard because "modern art might look like a really funky bench" (not an exact quote, but the flavor of the instructions). There were some pieces in the center of rooms that looked like benches - and I am SURE that was what they were thinking about. However, to be confusing, some of the pieces WERE interactive. There was a musical one based on position, etc.

So, for such places, it's best to leave kids at home until at least age 8 or so, because it's hard for the adults to tell where the art ends and the gallery begins (is that a water fountain and bathroom door, or is that a sculpture?).

"seduced"?

Just wait until they are older and something else "seduces" them.

I remember when the Museum of Modern Art opened (or maybe when I first went to it). I was in high school with a school group and we were reminded to check ANYTHING we wanted to touch at all for a placard because "modern art might look like a really funky bench" (not an exact quote, but the flavor of the instructions).

Like the trash installation at the Tate Modern that the janitor threw out.

"Seduce" does in fact have more than one meaning. (I didn't know this until about two years ago.) It can simply mean "tempt." It doesn't mean the target of the seduction necessarily succumbed.

And I'm sure the excuse for them being there in the first place is because they need to be "socialized". *eyeroll*

You teach your kids to behave AT HOME. You don't take them out until they learn to mind, and on the occasion they don't, you deal with it then and there. You don't make excuses for bad behavior because you don't feel like doing your job. You know, the one YOU signed on for. Sheesh.

Now, I'm all for teaching kids to mind, but Daghain, if you wait until they learn, you are going to be stuck at home until at LEAST age 3!

I would say, in fairness, you keep it minimal and necessary (groceries are necessary, as is buying a Mother's Day present for your own mom)... and be willing to drag a screaming child out when necessary and go home. They learn pretty fast that if they can't keep it under control you LEAVE. Also, you save something fun for the end - even if it's tossing a penny in the fountain in the mall - it works!

As I wrote in I See Rude People, if you don't have it in you to parent children, kindly use birth control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K45m79fEyz8

Every time I hear the whining, screaming, crying, totally out of control child in a store or a restaurant, I remember this commercial and giggle.

Then I growl 'Charming child.' and go the other way.

In light of her dad's having been a collector, I was a little surprised undermother didn't give her Sissi better training. Perhaps Sissi will become a world renown art dealer.

Beat on the Brat

"modern art"

From Current Communist Goals (1963):

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

I would say, in fairness, you keep it minimal and necessary (groceries are necessary, as is buying a Mother's Day present for your own mom)
______________________________

Absolutely. While some kids scream because they WANT to leave, most, I'm guessing, enjoy the adventure of being out and about - they just don't want to have to sit in a chair or a shopping cart and are too small to be trusted not to run in places they shouldn't. The point is, being desperate to eat someplace other than McDonald's is NOT an excuse to allow a screaming child to bother people in a more upscale eatery, since that type of outing is simply not necessary. The argument some parents make is that if you cave in to the screams, you're teaching the kid to "manipulate" the parent, but many doctors will tell you that kids have to be much older than toddler age to be that smart - toddlers are usually just tired, hungry, or bored. Not allergic to public places.

Seduced? So the artwork is an attractive nuisance? Because, ya know, mah dahling Snowflake coulda gotten HURT!!!!

I hope they ban these douchebags for life. Nay, for GENERATIONS.....

My little girl has understood since she was three that We Do Not Touch Things in the Museum (unless it's a children's musuem.)

That last line was awesome.

Daghain;

I see one flaw in your argument. In regards to socialization,which in fact is completely necessary to a child's healthy emotional dedevelopment, how would you recommend one socialise their child? While social interaction with children is of course preferred by the child, socialization with adults is also necessary. How does one teach a child to behave in a museum without actually visiting one?

The kids shouldn't have been on them, but 10 million for a set of shelves?!?

My town only paid $128,000, and we got mangled metal that will stand up to kids being kids (if they can even find a handhold):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Grande_Vitesse

How does one teach a child to behave in a museum without actually visiting one?

Posted by: wtf at February 3, 2014 3:45 PM
_________________________________

I don't see that museums are any different from stores. That is, in stores, since there are breakables there too, you simply order the kids not to touch anything without permission, and if the kids break that rule, you strip them of their privileges until they maintain their good behavior over a nice long period. Or something like that. Why would visiting a museum be any more difficult for kids?

And, when you think about it, running and screaming serve no purpose when it's time to sit down and eat, plus those things are irritating to the parent who's trying to set the table, so what's so hard about ordering the kids to cut it out at HOME? Besides, even at McDonald's, running and screaming should NOT be acceptable, simply because one might knock over an elderly, fragile customer, and you never know who might be having a migraine but needed to grab a bite to eat.

Finally: A lot of people need to realize that it isn't just the childfree who are demanding better behavior from kids in public places - so are those parents who actually PARENT. Including those parents who have the sense to hire a babysitter because they wanted a QUIET evening out at some nice restaurant - only to have it spoiled by some other family. The misunderstanding is not about being a parent or not - it's about the importance of respecting the rights of strangers, no matter how haggard you might be.

"Why would visiting a museum be any more difficult for kids?"

It isn't. How does one teach a child to behave in a store without actually visiting a store? How does one teach a child to behave in a restaurant without actually visiting one?

While I agree with your assessment, some leeway should be given, as in perhaps 5 minutes, to allow for correction. After that, if your child is still misbehaving, the parents should have enough respect to leave the establishment.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When the HELL did it become wrong to spank the brats?!?!?

My siblings and I were taken to lots of museums as children. What I remember, more than any exhibits, is my dad's voice, saying quietly and as often as necessary (seldom more than once): "Look with your eyes, not with your hands."

As a result, we were trained very early on how to behave in museums.

"She was seduced by the bright colors"? No, she was seduced by an under-parent not holding her darling's hand until Darling learned not to wander off.

"As a result, we were trained very early on how to behave in museums."

Exactly my point. Children learn both by example and by doing.

At three years old, you can lecture a child till your ears turn purple, and they will agree with everything you say.

Till the rubber meets the road, however, it's all theoretical to the child. The child needs to be placed in or observe a certain situation before they understand the behaviour required.

How does one teach a child to behave in a restaurant without actually visiting one?
_______________________________

I thought I made that clear in my last post. There is no good reason to run and scream at HOME when it's time to eat, so nip that in the bud (as well as the habit of throwing food) and the kid will already know the basics of table manners - sufficient for any quiet restaurant that doesn't already ban small children. If they're too young to follow those rules at home, taking them to a restaurant and telling them that they can't do those things in special places like restaurants likely won't work either - and even if it did, it's still a wimpy abdication of parental authority, and too many kids sense that and will keep refusing to behave any better at home. Not what one wants.

(BTW, there's a problem with banning kids under six. On the one hand, one can't blame some restaurants for doing so, since parents often cause a scene when asked by managers to control their kids, and more-polite adults tend to flock to those restaurants after the ban. BUT....it gives bad parents an extra excuse not to discipline their kids at all, since infancy is being extended from 2 to 6. So when all those monsters turn six and are still behaving like 2-year-olds, the restaurants will just have to ban all kids under 12. And on it goes.)

If your child is throwing food at home, I say give up and place your child into foster care, because you obviously don't know the first thing about parenting.

Otherwise, children will often test limits in public places. The only way to break them of this habit is to take them into public places where they learn thru doing and example.

I fully support restaurants banning children. As in real estate, location location location. Your eight year o,d is not going to appreciate the fancy Malaysian cuisine, so why should patrons and staff be forced to listen to him shriek because he's bored and hungry? Take him to Chucky Cheese for Chrissake.

Speaking of parents who don't care when babies or kids throw food at strangers, I found this at Bratfree.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552424/Moment-bus-passenger-blinded-pepper-spray-battered-thug-asking-children-stop-throwing-sweets-him.html

(Obviously, those were not typical parents - thank goodness - but it's an extreme example of how too many parents think their kids should never be restrained.)

And while yes, kids do often test the rules in public, that wouldn't happen so much if parents stopped repeating/bleating their impotent "warnings" so much and simply told the kids, ONCE, that for breaking the already-familiar rules, they were going to be punished and there was nothing they could do to change the parent's mind. (I assume that, whether one believes in spanking or not, most parents don't want to risk doing that in public, so any punishment usually has to happen at home.) Then, CARRY THROUGH. Plus, make sure it's the type of punishment that's harsh enough that the kids really won't want to repeat it. Otherwise, why would they believe you mean business?

If your children can't be controlled because there are shiny objects, obviously they should not go out in public.