The piece was damaged because the museum had placed a wooden structure on the floor in front of the painting. The boy was merely trying circumnavigate around the unnecessary obstruction and lost his footing. Aside from being cost prohibitive, I would not step foot inside any art museum that covered the works in shatterproof glass. I might as well look a photograph. You think the art should be roped off and kept 7 feet from people? No offense but that's absurd. Art is created to be observed not concealed. There are millions of works of art being displayed and viewed daily. If there were an epidemic of art accidents constantly happening than there would be need for more draconian measures. As it is, art is generally protected well. Displaying art is hardly on the scale of putting it in harms way. It's one painting. It's unfortunate. Take a pill and move on. Jezz.

So you are saying to put it like most popular paintings under million or security stuff so that could people no longer see it in normal conditions and people could not enjoy paintings of good painters? And good painters would not be appreciated and their works of art would not be seen by people? And yes yes, people can still see art under million glasses but that's not that painter wanted to. Some paintings look best in normal room conditions with lots of natural light and stuff.

Accidents will still happen and nothing lasts forever.

burn them and keep printouts or digital.