The Day a Selfie Shattered a Prince

Ferdinando de’ Medici, Niccolò Cassana, and the Tragedy of Looking Without Seeing

It wasn’t the first time. And it won’t be the last.

We live in an age where the sacred is often mistaken for the scenic. Where the museum, once a temple of memory and meaning, is increasingly treated as a backdrop for personal branding. And the consequences of this shift are becoming more visible, and sometimes painfully so.

Not long ago, I wrote about a tourist in Verona who damaged Van Gogh’s Chair, a contemporary sculpture by Nicola Bolla, painstakingly crafted from thousands of Swarovski crystals. The visitor sat on it, perhaps thinking it was interactive, or perhaps not thinking at all, just to take a photo. The chair cracked. The moment went viral. And then, as always, silence. No real reckoning. No deeper conversation. Just another blip in the endless scroll of digital spectacle.

Niccolò Cassana (Nicoletto) - Potrait of Ferdinando de’ Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany

And now, it’s happened again. This time in Florence, at the Uffizi Gallery, one of the most revered spaces in the world for the preservation of human creativity. A tourist, attempting to take a selfie, stumbled and collided with a 17th-century painting: Portrait of Ferdinando de’ Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany, by Niccolò Cassana. The canvas, a delicate and dignified artifact of Baroque portraiture, was left with a gash. A literal wound. The prince—once heir to one of Europe’s most powerful dynasties, a man raised in the shadow of the Renaissance, surrounded by philosophers, artists, and scientists—was not undone by political intrigue or historical decay, but by a smartphone.

It sounds absurd. And yet, it is tragically emblematic of our time

---

The Museum as a Stage, the Visitor as Performer

We no longer go to museums to see. We go to be seen.

This shift may seem subtle, but it marks a profound transformation in how we relate to culture, history, and beauty. The museum, once a sanctuary of silence, reverence, and introspection, has become a stage. A place not for inner reflection, but for outward projection. The artworks are no longer the protagonists of the experience. They are the scenery. The backdrop. The props. And we, the visitors, are no longer viewers, we are performers in a never-ending play of self-presentation.

We walk through galleries not with curiosity, but with choreography. We pose. We smile. We turn our backs to the painting, raise our phones, and capture ourselves in front of something we barely understand. The act of looking has been replaced by the act of appearing. The experience of art has been reduced to a moment of digital proof.

And the tragedy is not just that a painting was damaged. The deeper tragedy is that we don’t even know what we’re looking at.

Who was Ferdinando de’ Medici? What did he represent in the grand narrative of European history? Why did Niccolò Cassana choose to depict him in that particular way, in armor, with a red drapery cascading behind him, his hand confidently resting on his hip, his gaze fixed beyond the viewer, as if contemplating a destiny that never came to pass?

What does this portrait say about power, about legacy, about the Medici family’s obsession with image, immortality, and the performance of grandeur? What does it reveal about the aesthetics of authority in the Baroque era, about the relationship between art and propaganda, about the way rulers used portraiture to shape their myth?

Most visitors don’t ask. They don’t read the label. They don’t know the artist. They don’t know the title. They don’t know the story. But they take the photo. And they move on.

This is not a failure of education. It is a failure of attention. A failure of presence. A failure of humility.

Because to truly see a work of art requires more than eyes. It requires time. It requires silence. It requires the willingness to be changed by what you encounter. And that is precisely what the culture of the selfie resists. It resists change. It resists depth. It resists the possibility that something outside of ourselves might matter more than the image we project.

In this new paradigm, the museum is no longer a place of learning or transformation. It is a showroom for the self. A curated environment where the visitor becomes the exhibit. And the artwork? It becomes a tool. A means to an end. A silent witness to our performance.

But art was never meant to be used. It was meant to be met. To be encountered. To be respected.

And when we forget that, when we treat a 330-year-old painting as just another photo opportunity, we don’t just risk damaging the artwork. We risk damaging our capacity to feel wonder. To experience awe. To connect with something greater than ourselves.

Art Is to Be Seen, Not Proven

There is a fundamental confusion at the heart of modern museum behavior—a confusion so widespread that it has become almost invisible. It is the belief that taking a selfie with a work of art is the same as experiencing it. That by appearing next to it, we’ve somehow absorbed its meaning. That we’ve “done” the museum, as if culture were a checklist, and beauty a commodity to be consumed and displayed.

But art is not a checklist. It is not a trophy to be collected, nor a stamp in your passport. It is not a badge of cultural capital to be worn like a medal on your social media profile. Art is not there to prove you were present. It is there to make you present.

To truly see a painting is not to photograph it. It is to enter into a relationship with it. A relationship that requires time, attention, and vulnerability. It is to stand before it and ask: What is this trying to tell me? What world does it open? What silence does it speak into? It is to feel something, perhaps confusion, perhaps awe, perhaps discomfort, and to allow that feeling to linger. To be changed, even slightly, by the encounter.

But the selfie interrupts that relationship. It replaces the inward gaze with the outward pose. It turns the painting into a mirror, not of the soul, but of the ego. When you take a selfie with a painting, you are not entering its world. You are not becoming part of its story. You are standing outside it, using it. And often, misusing it.

This is not to say that photography in museums is inherently wrong. It can be a way of remembering, of sharing, of celebrating. But the problem arises when the photo becomes the purpose, rather than the byproduct. When the image replaces the experience. When the act of seeing is reduced to the act of showing.

And this is where the tragedy lies, not just in the physical damage to a canvas, but in the spiritual damage to our capacity for wonder. We are losing the ability to be still. To be quiet. To be receptive. We are so busy proving that we were there, that we forget to actually be there.

Art demands more of us. It asks us to slow down. To listen. To look not just with our eyes, but with our minds and hearts. It asks us to surrender our need for control, for performance, for validation, and to simply be present.

Because in the end, art is not about us. It is about something beyond us. Something that transcends time, ego, and spectacle. Something that invites us not to take, but to receive.

Why Do We Even Go to Museums?

This leads us to a deeper, more uncomfortable question—one that we rarely dare to ask aloud: why do we go to museums at all?

We pay for tickets. We wait in line. We walk through corridors filled with centuries of human expression—paintings, sculptures, manuscripts, relics of civilizations long gone. We stand before masterpieces that once moved kings to tears, that once challenged empires, that once redefined what it meant to be human. And yet, when we leave, we often remember nothing.

We don’t recall the names. We don’t recall the stories. We don’t recall the emotions. We don’t carry the art with us. We carry only the photos.

We speak of Stendhal syndrome, of being overwhelmed by beauty to the point of dizziness, of tears, of collapse. We write essays on aesthetics, on the sublime, on the metaphysics of art. We quote Kant and Rilke and Susan Sontag. We talk about how art elevates the soul, how it connects us to something eternal.

But when we are actually in front of it—when we are standing before a Caravaggio, a Rothko, a Cassana—we are too busy trying to prove we were there to actually be there.

We are too busy framing the shot to feel the silence. Too busy curating our experience to let the experience curate us.

And this is not just a cultural failure. It is a spiritual one.

Because the museum is not just a building. It is a threshold. A place where time collapses. Where the living meet the dead. Where the present is invited to listen to the past. Where the human story is told not in words, but in color, in form, in gesture.

To walk through a museum is to walk through the memory of our species. It is to be reminded that we are not the first to feel longing, or grief, or wonder. That others came before us, and they too tried to make sense of the world through beauty.

But if we walk through that memory with our eyes on our phones, if we treat the museum as a content farm rather than a cathedral of meaning, then we are not just missing the point—we are desecrating it.

We are turning sacred spaces into stages. We are turning encounters into performances. We are turning art into noise.

And perhaps the most tragic part is that we don’t even notice. We leave the museum with a full camera roll and an empty heart. We post the photo. We get the likes. And then we forget.

We forget what we saw. We forget what we felt. We forget that we were ever there.

So again, we must ask: why do we go to museums?

Do we go to be changed? Or do we go to be seen?

Do we go to listen? Or do we go to speak?

Do we go to remember? Or do we go to forget?

Do we go to be better person?

Until we can answer these questions honestly, we will continue to walk through museums like ghosts, present in body, absent in spirit.

The Fragility of Beauty

Cassana’s Portrait of Ferdinando de’ Medici is more than just a depiction of a prince in armor. It is a historical document, a visual echo of a time when power was performed through paint, posture, and symbolism. It is a political statement, crafted to project strength, lineage, and divine right. It is a meditation on legacy—on what it means to be remembered, and how art can outlive the body it represents.

Ferdinando de’ Medici never became Grand Duke. He died young, his promise unfulfilled, his destiny interrupted. And yet, through Cassana’s brush, he remained—frozen in time, dignified, eternal. The painting has survived over 330 years. It has endured the fall of the Medici dynasty, the rise and fall of empires, revolutions, wars, floods, and the slow erosion of centuries. It has been moved, restored, reframed, and reinterpreted. And still, it endured.

But it could not survive a single careless moment in the age of the selfie.

This is the paradox of our time: the more we try to get close to beauty, the more we risk destroying it. Not out of malice, but out of ignorance. Out of distraction. Out of the desperate need to be seen, rather than to see.

We approach art not with reverence, but with entitlement. We treat it not as a gift, but as a backdrop. We forget that these works are fragile, not just physically, but symbolically. They carry the weight of memory, of meaning, of centuries of human striving. And yet, in a single second, with a single misstep, that weight can be torn open.

The damage to the painting is repairable. But the damage to our relationship with art, our capacity to approach it with humility, with curiosity, with care, that is harder to mend.

Because when we reduce art to a photo opportunity, we are not just trivializing the object. We are trivializing the entire human endeavor that created it. We are saying: This is not worth my time. This is not worth my attention. This is only worth my image.

And in doing so, we lose something irreplaceable, not just in the museum, but in ourselves.

Relearning How to Look

We need to relearn how to look.

Not just to glance. Not just to scan. But to truly look—with intention, with patience, with presence.

To stand still in front of a painting and let it speak before we do. To resist the urge to capture and instead allow ourselves to be captured—by color, by form, by silence. To read the title. To ask who the artist was. To wonder why the painting was made, and for whom. To consider what it meant then, and what it might mean now.

To feel something, not just show something.

Because art doesn’t need us to be in the picture. It needs us to be present.

It needs us to be moved. To be humbled. To be silent.

In a world that constantly demands we perform, art invites us to pause. In a culture obsessed with visibility, art asks us to become invisible for a moment—to dissolve into the experience, to surrender our ego, to listen.

And that is perhaps the most radical thing we can do today: to look without needing to be seen. To witness without needing to document. To experience without needing to prove.

Because in the end, art is not about us. It is about something larger than us. Something that transcends time, ego, and performance. Something that speaks across centuries, across cultures, across lives. Something that asks us not to take, but to receive.

To receive beauty. To receive memory. To receive the fragile, fleeting miracle of human expression.

And if we can relearn how to look, truly look, then perhaps we can also relearn how to live. Not as performers in search of applause, but as witnesses in search of meaning.

The Day a Selfie Shattered a Prince

The day a selfie shattered a prince is not just a headline. It is a metaphor. A warning. A mirror held up to our time.

It tells us something uncomfortable, something we may not want to admit: that we are losing the ability to see. Not just with our eyes, but with our minds, our hearts, our attention. That we are turning beauty into spectacle, memory into content, reverence into performance. That we are mistaking presence for proof, and experience for evidence.

It tells us that we are no longer visiting museums to encounter something greater than ourselves, but to insert ourselves into something we barely understand. That we are no longer asking what art means, but what it can do for our image. That we are no longer seeking transformation, but validation.

But this moment, this torn canvas, this wounded prince, also offers us something rare: a chance.

A chance to pause. To reflect. To ask ourselves why we go to museums in the first place. Why we stand before paintings that have survived centuries. Why we preserve these fragile windows into the past. Why we still believe, somewhere deep down, that art matters.

And the answer is not to prove we were there.

It is to be there.

To be present. To be quiet. To be open.

To let the painting look back at us. To let it ask us questions we cannot answer. To let it remind us that we are part of a much longer story, one that began long before us, and will continue long after we are gone.

Because in the end, art is not about the moment. It is about the eternal. And if we can learn to see again, not just to look, but to truly see, then perhaps we can begin to live differently, too.

Not as performers. But as witnesses.

Not as consumers. But as caretakers.

Not as tourists. But as pilgrims.