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.
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..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
Most of us can tell modern art isn't without getting plastered.
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.
God, I sure hope there is some security camera footage. It will be an online sensation.
Peter
It's an abstract for gods sake. She only enhanced it.
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.
the woman tried to urinate on it but apparently missed.
I didn't realize aim was involved.
Cy Twombly ellicits a similar response from me.
Maybe it was her Master's thesis.
If she tried to pee on it, Peter will be able to see if she's full flavored.
How can anyone tell whether it was damaged or not - and who would be dumb enough to pay $30 mil for that ugly thing?
I wondered about the urination attempt.
Transgender artist?
Note to self: Art, Crime, Urine -- new band name.
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 .. . .
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.
Are we sure this was done in anger?
Nah, Patrick, it seems like it was done in drunken stupidity. Like a lot of the comments here.
"Abstract Expressionism meets concrete expressionism."
Nearly, Excrete Expressionism?
"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.
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.
She was drunk, but still... one wonders what it was about that painting that brought out such hostility.
Oh yeah, blame the painting,..
"The smell of paint, a flask of wine, and turn those faces all to me..."
Who says it was hostility?
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.
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.
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.
Looking at her booking photo, apparently it takes bad art to know bad art.
..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.
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.
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.
well. If it looks like toilet paper....................
Post a Comment