January 5, 2012

Abstract Expressionism meets concrete expressionism.

"A Colorado woman dropped her pants at a museum and rubbed her rear end all over a painting valued at $30 million..."
Clyfford Still's "1957-J no.2"... was spared additional damage when the woman tried to urinate on it but apparently missed.
She was drunk, but still... one wonders what it was about that painting that brought out such hostility.

32 comments:

edutcher said...

Most of us can tell modern art isn't without getting plastered.

CachorroQuente said...

Sure, the woman exhibited bizarre behavior; but, which is more bizarre, the woman's behavior or the estimation of the paintings value?

It sure will be nice when President Santorum puts a stop to all this crazy shit.

ironrailsironweights said...

God, I sure hope there is some security camera footage. It will be an online sensation.

Peter

Methadras said...

It's an abstract for gods sake. She only enhanced it.

Coketown said...

Clyfford Still's "1957-J no.2"... was spared additional damage when the woman tried to urinate on it but apparently missed.

Ugh. Don't send a woman to do a man's work. I could have drawn a smiley face on that piece of junk. And signed it.

chickenlittle said...

the woman tried to urinate on it but apparently missed.

I didn't realize aim was involved.

chuck b. said...

Cy Twombly ellicits a similar response from me.

Pogo said...

Maybe it was her Master's thesis.

edutcher said...

If she tried to pee on it, Peter will be able to see if she's full flavored.

gadfly said...

How can anyone tell whether it was damaged or not - and who would be dumb enough to pay $30 mil for that ugly thing?

Pogo said...

I wondered about the urination attempt.

Transgender artist?

EMD said...

Note to self: Art, Crime, Urine -- new band name.

JAL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JAL said...

I'm am so glad you explained this.

When we heard it on the news earlier this evening I turned to hubby and asked "Did she put it on the floor? How does a woman urinate on a painting?"

Next exciting news .. . .

Palladian said...

Oh good. I was hoping to hear the informed, sensitive opinions of the Althouse mouth-breathers regarding art that wasn't even controversial 50 years ago.

I don't even particularly like Still's work (I'd love it if it were the same but smaller), but if it bothers the boors and losers around here, I'm all for it.

Patrick said...

Are we sure this was done in anger?

Palladian said...

Nah, Patrick, it seems like it was done in drunken stupidity. Like a lot of the comments here.

EDH said...

"Abstract Expressionism meets concrete expressionism."

Nearly, Excrete Expressionism?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"I was hoping to hear the informed, sensitive opinions of the Althouse mouth-breathers regarding art..."

Why don't you regale us all about how great your opinion on 'art' is Palladian. Put a cherry on top and affirm your sexual preference why don't you.

So cutting edge.

Moose said...

Heh - have to agree with Palladian - you might not like a piece of art, and you can say so. However Still's work isn't either controversial or good enough to engender hatred.

The Crack Emcee said...

She was drunk, but still... one wonders what it was about that painting that brought out such hostility.

Oh yeah, blame the painting,..

Crimso said...

"The smell of paint, a flask of wine, and turn those faces all to me..."

PWS said...

Who says it was hostility?

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

Palladian, did not modern art similarly rub its cheeks against traditional representational art for decades?

Even canning feces and photographing urine, calling that art, as I recall.

She seems to be merely extending the metaphor as intended.

gerry said...

Well, since postmodernism rebels against criticism contained or defined by facts, and embraces instead liberating conceptual possibilities founded upon intellectual absurdities redefined as cocktail party mesmerism, urine is not purely excretory, but also artistic.

Emerging from the feminine urethra, urine upon art - especially anything estimated by male-hegemonic art markets - expresses, minimally, a proper disdain for repressive, bourgeous harnesses bourne by unenlightened women everywhere.

And while application of the anus upon the same objet d'art might be viewed as extreme, even by afficianados of urinary expressionism, more advanced criticism, derived from the principles of anaphylactic dialecticism, would accept the expression - in this case at least - as fecalistic d'femme, and completely acceptable.

Therefore, this woman's action, especially if the display is supported in any way by tax dollars, is itself art, and is certainly worthy of First Amendment protection.

Word verification: fightfu. No shit.

george said...

It would have taken far more effort and talent for this woman to have successfully peed on it than it took to create the thing in the first place.

Clyde said...

Looking at her booking photo, apparently it takes bad art to know bad art.

Fernandinande said...

..one wonders what it was about that painting that brought out such hostility.

For me it'd be the fact that some people seem to think that picture is worth more than $2.50.

Joseph said...

Since it seems most modern art is valued not for the craft and quality of the work, but rather the "story" behind it - this event will only serve to increase the work's estimated value.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

one wonders what it was about that painting that brought out such hostility.

Well, just look at it. It looks like squashed dead cats on a yellow gym floor.

Rusty said...

well. If it looks like toilet paper....................