I called the video "mildly provocative" because it first notes that the editing marks are a form of vandalism. Yet the narrator expresses approval of the vandalism, even saying it improves the artworks.
I'm curious about publication of this video by the New York Times. A short article accompanies the video, but it doesn't repeat the narration in the video or descriptions of the video images. So I wonder how the printed newspaper dealt with the key information of the video. Did it just provide a link for more information? Or did it even appear in the printed edition?