The local council said they could not remove the eyes without damaging the artwork

(emph. mine)

Ok, but why is their incompetence an argumen?

And that's why, kids, you should never cheap out and skip primer. This piece won't last two years of Australian weather before it start chipping, and this kid proof it.

Can't deface what doesn't have a face. If anything she faced it.

As an Aussie, I can confidently say we would have preferred the googlies left on

Looking at the "damage" - it seems whoever removed them used a hard scraper and some sort of aggressive solvent. This is not damage from the googly eyes, but from the hands of the remover, who probably had too much caffeine and enthusiasm that day.

Looks better with the eyes.

I'm kind of sympathetic to the idea that there should be some sort of fine associated with petty vandalism, but I've also seen a number of comments here and elsewhere that it's unlikely that whatever she did actually required causing this much damage to remove it, and that if it did, the sculpture was poorly designed in the first place. One user on Reddit asked whether, if the city had decided to use dynamite to remove the eyes, she should be liable for all the damage caused by the dynamite. I think that that's probably a fair point to make. The blame doesn't need to be entirely on any one party here.

I could see fining her for whatever one might reasonably expect a competent removal to run from a properly-designed artwork, but not dumping costs on her from failures in those other areas.

I charge Amelia Vanderhorst with being a legend.

Like it better with the eyes.

That in itself is art.

the best kind of art is art you interact with. if this art is for the public, then allow the public to have it.

I'm torn.

I love the googly eyes. Everything is better with googly eyes but I do know the pain of going through the council process to get stuff like this installed to make the area more interesting and engaging local artists.

I suppose getting the teen's family to cough up the repair money is fair. I hope they got lots of photos of it with the eyes before it was taken down.

Grumpy old prudes could have just laughed and left it.

1. It was an obvious improvment.

2. There was an unfortunate choice in adhesive or removal technique.

Involve her in the repair. look into wth it was so hard to remove them and make the knowledge public so future 'pranks' won't be as bad.

Someone needs to yarn-bomb this thing. Perhaps something like a headband that falls to googly-eye level maybe. Perhaps, you know, with eyes on it.

Either way, I'd be tempted to put up a sign next to it that says "Help! I've gone blind!"

Well looks like sales of googly eyes are about to go through the roof.

We must googly eye EVERYTHING!

Does Australia not have vinegar and oil technology? Maybe Wd40?

Why is she punished for vastly improving it?

If they used more than about 2 coats of paint it prob wouldn't have been an issue.

This is like a SimCity news ticker item.

Perhaps they shouldn't have used a paint chipper to remove the eyes.

It shouldn't be a crime if it's objectively hilarious.

Costing A$136,000 ($89,000; £68,000), the artwork

A R T W O R K

A kid does something truly artistic and it gets called "defacing". 🤡

Punishmwnt is a high-5

So, charged with being cool and awesome? Cuz that shit's great.

And yet Trump continues to get away with crimes against humanity

We treat art, especially old art, with far too much reverence.

It's largely just collection trophies for rich people or rich countries.

Most of the historical data, if any, could be collected through scans and downloaded, but we insist on treating these with a weird reverence that makes no sense, often takes up space, and takes money to upkeep.

I honestly don't support this use of taxpayer funds.

19 so they're an adult.

Fuck the teen line off.

I don't care beyond the stupid headline.

Sure 19 is ending in teen but in Australia 18 you become an adult

%s/charged with/applauded for/