Rothko Defaced (Really)

[cronus]

Two years for adding something to a blank undercoat on a canvas. He didn't put anyone's life in danger by riding a motorbike through the monstrosity. He didn't plagiarize it like countless house painters do every day....two years?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20444436

Mark Rothko Tate Modern painting damage man jailed

A man has been jailed for two years for defacing a Mark Rothko painting at London's Tate Modern gallery.

Wlodzimierz Umaniec, 26, of Worthing, West Sussex, had previously pleaded guilty to criminal damage to property valued at more than £5,000.

Witnesses saw a man daub the mural, Black on Maroon, on 7 October, before fleeing the gallery.

(continued)

[Audley Strange]

Personally, while I think those paintings are actually more important than Wlodzimierz Umaniec, 2 years for 5k of damage on a painting? What next hecklers getting 18 months for breach of the peace?

This country is becoming an ugly police state.

[Callan]

Alas, Tate Modern hadn't noticed that the thing's been hanging upside down since the day it was installed.

[Audley Strange]

Alas, Tate Modern hadn't noticed that the thing's been hanging upside down since the day it was installed.

The curator is facing 6 months.

[mistermack]

I don't mind the two year sentence, even thought I think the painting is rubbish.
It's not rubbish to other people, and it's worth a fortune, from a supply and demand point of view.

Someone put a huge amount of money into that daub, and they deserve as much protection as anyone else from the courts.
Anyway, it was a stunt that someone hoped to increase the value of "yellowism", so they probably thought it might make them rich.
So fuck him, two years is lenient.

[hadespussercats]

I rather like Rothko's paintings. Close up they have real impact.

Sadly the obscene market value of his and so many other interesting artists distorts any sense of the intrinsic worth of the paintings in an aesthetic sense.

I can do one in a tick, for a nominal sum of four and half grand.

Prove it.

[cronus]

I rather like Rothko's paintings. Close up they have real impact.

Sadly the obscene market value of his and so many other interesting artists distorts any sense of the intrinsic worth of the paintings in an aesthetic sense.

I can do one in a tick, for a nominal sum of four and half grand.

Prove it.

The money first. Canvas costs, and a large canvas costs even more.

[Pappa]

Two years for adding something to a blank undercoat on a canvas. He didn't put anyone's life in danger by riding a motorbike through the monstrosity. He didn't plagiarize it like countless house painters do every day....two years?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20444436

Mark Rothko Tate Modern painting damage man jailed

A man has been jailed for two years for defacing a Mark Rothko painting at London's Tate Modern gallery.

Wlodzimierz Umaniec, 26, of Worthing, West Sussex, had previously pleaded guilty to criminal damage to property valued at more than £5,000.

Witnesses saw a man daub the mural, Black on Maroon, on 7 October, before fleeing the gallery.

(continued)

Interesting how that compares to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/1 ... ti-artists

A graffiti gang (of three) caused £150,000 worth of damage and were given 2 years, 9 months and 6 months youth detention training order.

[hadespussercats]

I rather like Rothko's paintings. Close up they have real impact.

Sadly the obscene market value of his and so many other interesting artists distorts any sense of the intrinsic worth of the paintings in an aesthetic sense.

I can do one in a tick, for a nominal sum of four and half grand.

Prove it.

The money first. Canvas costs, and a large canvas costs even more.

Nope.

But if you paint one good enough that professional curators of contemporary painting are fooled by it, I'll pay up.

Hell, paint one, and place it alongside one of his, and if I can't tell the difference (and I'm no expert) I'll pay you for it.
But you've got to pony up.

[mistermack]

Nope.

But if you paint one good enough that professional curators of contemporary painting are fooled by it, I'll pay up.

Hell, paint one, and place it alongside one of his, and if I can't tell the difference (and I'm no expert) I'll pay you for it.
But you've got to pony up.

Nope. The real point is that if he painted one, and then Rothko said that HE had done it, all the arty types would say how wonderful it was, and it would sell for millions.
If it was different, it would just be hailed as a new direction, and much bollocks would be written about it.

The name is everything. The daub is nothing.

[Jason]

If I did a finger painting and this Rothko said he did it, it would be worth a fortune? Sweet.

[hadespussercats]

It would be pretty wonderful if some forgery you painted resurrected Rothko from the dead.

[Jason]

I'm very talented with my fingers.

[tattuchu]

Alas, Tate Modern hadn't noticed that the thing's been hanging upside down since the day it was installed.

[Tero]

Frank Stella