Details of damage done to Michaelangelo’s “Pieta” (1498) by Laszlo Toth, who used a hammer to attack the work while it was on view at the Vatican, May 21, 1972.

Roland Luchinger, “Action Sculpture” (1980) / thieves

This outdoor sculpture was meant to turn “the aggression of the public” into a participatory artistic act: a sheet-iron column with four hammers attached to the base with rope, the work invited viewers to physically intervene, smashing the exterior layers around a interior steel cylinder. While a few initial visitors complied, the hammers were promptly stolen. No arrests were made.

Scar left after Richard Serra’s “Tilted Arc” was removed from New York’s Federal Plaza on March 15, 1989

Richard Serra’s “Tilted Arc” being dissected and removed from New York’s Federal Plaza on March 15, 1989.

Above: Interview with Vladimir Umanets, who was convicted of defacing Mark Rothko’s “Black On Maroon” (1958) in October 2012 while the work was on view at the Tate Modern.

Umanets, a Russian-born artist, used a marker to write “Vladimir Umanets, A Potential Piece of Yellowism” on the bottom right corner of the canvas. Yellowism, he later explained, was an art movement he’d founded, which he described as “neither art, nor anti-art”; his inscription on the Rothko piece had been intended not as defacement, but as an artistic gesture.

“Some people think I’m crazy or a vandal, but my intention was not to destroy or decrease the value, or to go crazy. I am not a vandal,” he said.“I don’t need to be famous, I don’t want money, I don’t want fame, I’m not seeking seeking attention. I am a Yellowist. I believe what I am doing and I want people to start talking about this. It was like a platform. Maybe I would like to point people’s attention on what it’s all about - what is Yellowism? What is art?" 

Still, he admitted, he was pleased that his actions had made waves. “It’s good people are shocked about what happened. No one is realizing what actually happened; everyone is just posting that the piece has been damaged or destroyed or defaced. But I believe that after a few years they will start looking for it from the right angle. So that’s why I did it.”

He was arrested on-site and later sent to prison.

Władysław Podkowinski “The Frenzy of Exultations” (1894) / Władysław Podkowinski

In April 1894, this canvas was damaged while on view at Warsaw’s Zacheta National Gallery of Art. On the 37th day of the work’s exhibition, Podkowinski himself entered the gallery, drew a knife, and slashed at the work, focusing his efforts on the female figure. 

While the artist’s motives were never clarified, it’s been suggested that the woman portrayed in the work had been the subject of Podkowinski’s unfulfilled affections. He died a year later of Tuberculosis; the work was eventually restored and placed back on public view. 

Yoko Ono “Part Painting–A Circle” (1994) / marker

In November 1997, this work was damaged while on view at Cincinnati’s Contemporary Arts Center. Uncapping a red magic marker, 22-year-old Jake Platt painted a line across Ono’s work, comprised of a series of 24 canvases with a horizontal line drawn across their surfaces. He marked five panels before being stopped by security.

Platt, who considered himself a follower of the Fluxus movement and a big Ono fan, apparently believed that visitor intervention was encouraged. He later explained that he’d been inspired to add his own touch to “Part Painting” after interacting with another work by Ono called “Cleaning Piece” - a participatory installation where viewers could move around rocks and leave behind notes for future visitors. “No one said anything about me writing on the rocks, so I figured it would be OK to write on the painting,” Platt said. “So what I did was underline the black line with a red line, to sort of highlight it.”

He also pointed out that next to "Part Painting,” there was a posted quote from Ono reading, “No one can tell you not to touch the art.” 

The works were restored; charges against Platt were eventually dropped.

Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres “The Sistine Chapel” / scissors

In 1907, this painting was damaged while on view at the Louvre. An unemployed woman named Valentine Contrel attacked the work with a pair of scissors, repeatedly slashing through the canvas.

While Contrel turned herself in at the museum, it took her several minutes to convince the police that she had actually committed the act. Finally, she had to drag the police to the painting to get them to listen. As she later explained, “It is a shame to see so much money invested in dead things like those at the Louvre collections when so many poor devils like myself starve because they cannot find work. I have just spoiled a picture at the Louvre in order to be arrested.”

Here is Contrel’s full statement: 

It is a shame to see so much money invested in dead things like those at the Louvre collections when so many poor devils like myself starve because they cannot find work. I have just spoiled a picture at the Louvre in order to be arrested. My name is Valentine Contrel, and I was born at Rouen in 1880. My parents died three years ago, leaving me penniless. I served as a governess in England, but English life did not suit me. I did dressmaking in Paris. I had to get up at four in the morning and work till midnight to earn 13 cents a day, and I could not pay my rent. I returned to my native town, but could earn my living no better there than in Paris. I came back to Paris and was determined to get “run in.” The papers lately mentioned that a man had slashed a Louvre picture. That is what I must do to avenge myself. At 3 o’clock in the afternoon I went into the Louvre. As there was a crowd in all the galleries, I waited until 4:30 when the visitors began to leave, and went to the unfrequented Ingres room, where I chose the Sistine Chapel picture because it was not under glass. I had no intention of making a demonstration against religion. With a small pair of scissors I first tried to cut the Pope’s eyes away, but the canvas was too thick, and I had to content myself with slashing the figure and several others. I had to stop several times for fear of attracting the notice of the visitors. A young woman was copying near me, but she was too intent upon her work to notice me. When I thought I had done enough damage to be arrested, I went away and came here to give myself in charge. As a matter of fact, this is not the first outrage of this kind that I have committed. Some months ago, in a room of the Jardin de Plantes museum, I smashed a glass case containing a fine butterfly, which I destroyed. I was arrested, but the police let me go out of pity for the wretched penury I was in.

Jean François de Troy “The Triumph of Mordecai” (1736), various works by Nicolas Poussin / rain

In July 2017, a group of works were damaged by rainwater while on view at the Louvre. Following a torrential rainstorm, water leaked into the mezzanine of the Denon wing, affecting the “Arts of Islam” and “From the Mediterranean Orient to Roman Times” rooms.

Among the pieces affected were two works from Nicolas Poussin’s series “The Four Seasons” (1660–64) — those depicting fall and spring — and Jean François de Troy’s “The Triumph of Mordecai.”

The works were quickly removed, restored, and placed back on public view. 

 Leonardo Da Vinci ’‘The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist” (1490s) / shotgun

In July 1987, this drawing was damaged while on view at Britain’s National Gallery. Robert Arthur Cambridge, 37, an unemployed resident of south London, pulled a sawed-off shotgun from beneath his coat and shot at the piece from a distance of 7 feet. After firing, Cambridge sat quietly in a chair, the gun at his side, until he was arrested.

The drawing, set behind a protective glass plate, was largely protected from the shotgun pellets, but suffered damage from shattered glass. It was eventually restored through an elaborate process in which dozens of tiny paper fragments were glued back together, one by one.

Cambridge told police his intent had been to show his disgust with “political, social and economic conditions in Britain.” He was later sent to Broadmoor asylum, an institution for the criminally ill. 

This was not the first time the drawing had been attacked: In 1962, a German painter (later deemed insane) threw a bottle of ink at the piece. The bottle did not break and no ink was spilled, but slight damage, included scratches and a small cut, was inflicted. The work was quickly repaired.

(Further reading: Here’s an interesting account of the restoration process: https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/08/arts/restoring-a-leonardo-drawing-that-was-hit-by-a-shotgun-blast.html) 

Artist’s rendering of a 1914 attack on Velazquez’s “Rokeby Venus” by suffragette Mary Richardson. On March 10, Richardson entered the National Gallery in London with a meat cleaver hidden under her coat and attacked the painting, leaving several large tears in the canvas. She surrendered when apprehended by the guard on duty.

Richardson claimed that her actions had been taken on behalf of fellow suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst, who had previously been arrested and was on hunger strike. “Yes, I am a suffragette. You can get another picture, but you cannot get a life, as they are killing Mrs Pankhurst. I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history as a protest against the Government for destroying Mrs. Pankhurst, who is the most beautiful character in modern history.”

Barnett Newman “Cathedra” (1951) / knife

In November 1997, this canvas was damaged while on view at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. Gerard Jan van Bladeren, 41, slashed the work seven times with a small, Stanley-brand knife. Upon completing his act, he made no attempt to flee; when museum guards apprehended him, he simply leaned against a wall and calmly waited for police.

This was not van Bladeren’s first attack on a Newman canvas. In 1986, he had walked into the same museum and repeatedly slashed “Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue III” (1967). At that time, he was convicted and served five months in jail.

After being arrested for his attack on “Cathedra,” van Bladeren was interviewed on Dutch radio, where he described himself as an artist who tears his own paintings for effect and hates abstract art: “I don’t hate all art; I just hate abstract art and realism.” He also said that he felt his slashing 11 years prior had added something to “Red, Yellow and Blue,” and that he was angry that the painting had been restored, thereby undoing his work. In fact, he said he’d returned to the Stedelijk in order to find the painting and strike again - but instead, he found “Cathedra.” 

Museum director Rudi Fuchs described the museum’s on-site response: “We immediately closed that section of the gallery and began first aid. We laid the painting on a flat, wooden surface and taped the cuts together, so they can’t crack, curl or rip further. Luckily the attacker used a very sharp knife, and before the museum acquired the painting in 1975, it had been relined, so the cuts are relatively clean.” Though the restoration process was arduous, given the monochromatic surface, the piece was eventually repaired and returned to public view.

The incident raised questions of how museums should present and protect works on display. “It’s a dilemma,” said Carol Mancusi-Ungaro, the chief conservator of the Menil Collection in Houston, who specializes in the restoration of postwar paintings. “These pictures are too big to be successfully seen under Plexiglas, because all you would see is the reflection of the Plexiglas.”

Above: An interview with Barend la Grange, the 58-year-old South African Internet businessman who vandalized Brett Murray’s “The Spear” (2010) on May 22, 2012. 

According to La Grange, his actions were driven by pro-government, anti-racist sentiment: “No one deserves to be exposed like that - that’s the number one thing. Of course the artist is free to make that expression, how he feels. But when it became a racist issue… Racist issues to me are more important than damaging property. We can’t allow freedom of expression to be an excuse for letting [racial] conflict to begin again. The artist who painted it is a white person. The owners of the gallery are white people. So I felt it was the right thing for a white African-speaking person to cover it.”

La Grange also notes that he’d visited the gallery on a prior occasion and spoke directly with the gallery owners, saying he wanted to create a copy of the painting and apply X’s to the duplicate rather than the original: ”I told the gallery owners I was going to do this… but I didn’t want to do it on the original, because I respect property.” He says he then gave the gallery owners his phone number and blog URL so they could contact him - but he did not hear back. “Nobody contacted me. So I thought, ‘Well, if they don’t want to respect my freedom of expression, then I’m going to do the real thing.’” 

(Side note: The interviewer, Iman Rappetti, was on-site at the time of the attack, confronting la Grange and capturing his act on video.)

Brett Murray “The Spear” 2010 / paint

On May 22, 2012, this controversial painting of South African president Jacob Zuma, depicting the politician, genitals exposed, in a dramatic pose reminiscent of Soviet-era poster work, was defaced while on view at Johannesburg’s Goodman Gallery.

The artwork was damaged by two men - one of whom painted a red X across Zuma’s face and genitals as the other threw black paint onto the canvas.

Both men were arrested on-site; asked of his motives, one of them said simply, “The painting was offensive.” The work was damaged beyond repair.

Lee Woo Hwan, outdoor sculpture (2015) / K-Pop fans

In March 2018, this outdoor sculpture was damaged while on view at the Busan Museum in South Korea. Unidentified parties damaged the work’s surface, leaving footprints and drawing hearts alongside the names of Wanna One members Kang Daniel and Lee Jaehwi.

The piece was promptly restored and placed back on public view. While the museum has since put signs and additional security cameras around the work, police expressed little confidence that arrests would be made in this case, as the poor quality of the surveillance footage made it all but impossible to identify the culprits.

Pablo Picasso “Woman in a Red Armchair” / spray paint

In June 2012, a man defaced this 1929 painting while it was on display at the Menil Collection in Houston, TX. The vandal, a Mexican-American artist named Uriel Landeros, used spray paint and a stencil to place a bull and the word “Conquista” upon the work’s surface. When a witness confronted Landeros, he identified himself and said the act was intended to honor Picasso’s legacy. Landeros left the museum before he could be arrested; the damaged painting was able to be restored in short order.

Multiple paintings by Andy Warhol, unnamed sculptures / bad first date

In December 2017, numerous works of art, including two Warhol originals and a pair of unnamed sculptures, were damaged in the home of Houston attorney/art collector Tony Buzbee.

On the evening of December 23, Buzbee was on a first date with Lindy Layman, a Houston-based court reporter. After returning to his home, Buzbee called an Uber for Layman, who was visibly intoxicated and became agitated, refusing to leave. After a second Uber driver was called, Layman tore numerous paintings off the wall (including two original Warhols), threw them to the floor and poured red wine onto both canvases. She also threw numerous sculptures across the room, damaging them in the process. (She also removed paintings by Monet and Renoir from the wall, but those were left intact.)

Layman was charged with criminal mischief. There was no initial word as to whether the damaged artworks could be restored.

Ben Edwards, various works / marker

In February 2017, multiple works on paper were damaged while on view at the Arts Center of the Ozarks in Springdale, Arkansas. Sometime during gallery hours, unidentified parties used permanent marker to make various inscriptions (”BAD ART,” “THIS IS NOT ART,” “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN”), damaging the works beyond repair. The perpetrator(s) left the gallery before their acts had been discovered.

Though a report was filed with police, Edwards claimed he would not pursue any criminal charges in the case of an arrest. The works were damaged beyond repair.