Recently, there was a man who ate a banana that was part of an art exposition in New York. The piece of art in question featured a banana taped to a wall and was priced at 120,000$. As far as I know, the artist never pressed charges and they are not suing either for vandalism.
However, it got me fairly curious as to how a judge would decide damages if this were to go to court. When it comes to art, the valuation, at least in my opinion, often seems to be extraordinary. I think any reasonable person would come to a deduction that a banana taped to a wall wouldn't be worth 120,000$ but I also understand that some people with extraordinary means can afford to pay these sums. I also believe the reason the man ate the banana was to send a similar message : it's just a banana taped to a wall.
Now there are some pieces of art that I think would justify it's costs such as paintings from Rembrandt or Vermeer that dates from hundreds of years ago. But when it comes to such simple artwork, could a man really be forced to pay anything close to it's valuation as damages if he were to damage the artwork? In this case the banana could even be replaced. But what about cases when it's not easily replaceable? Is it more valuable because a famous person taped the banana to a wall?
P.S. : I am not a student of lawyer or a lawyer. I am simply a man with a curious mind and this question has been itching me for sometime.