Overzealous cleaner ruins £690,000 artwork that she thought was dirty - Polidicks

[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y155/cricket50/artwruied.jpg[/img] [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/nov/03/overzealous-cleaner-ruins-artwork?newsfeed=true[/URL] [QUOTE]An overzealous cleaner in [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/germany"]Germany[/URL] has ruined a piece of modern art worth £690,000 after mistaking it for an eyesore that needed a good scrub.The sculpture by the German artist [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/11/arts/martin-kippenberger-43-artist-of-irreverence-and-mixed-styles.html"]Martin Kippenberger[/URL], widely regarded as one of the most talented artists of his generation until his death in 1997, had been on loan to the Ostwall Museum in Dortmund when it fell prey to the cleaner's scouring pad. The work, called When It Starts Dripping From the Ceiling ([I]Wenn's anfängt durch die Decke zu tropfen[/I]), comprised a rubber trough placed underneath a rickety wooden tower made from slats. Inside the trough, Kippenberger had spread a layer of paint representing dried rainwater. He thought it was art: the cleaner saw it as a challenge, and set about making the bucket look like new. A spokeswoman for the museum told German media that the female cleaner "removed the patina from the four walls of the trough". "It is now impossible to return it to its original state," she said, adding that it had been on loan to the museum from a private collector and was valued by insurers at €800,000 (£690,000).[/QUOTE] Whoops..

maybe if significant part of "modern art pieces" didn't look like somebody smeared a piece of shit around, it wouldn't happen

To me it just looks like loads of pieces of wood, connected together to make a little tower over a little trough. Art.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;33119975]maybe if significant part of "modern art pieces" didn't look like somebody smeared a piece of shit around, it wouldn't happen[/QUOTE] So long as we have Raushenberg's Monogram, I think the standard for what is considered art is going to stay pretty low. [img]http://heyokamagazine.com/rauschenbergGoat.jpg[/img]

That little bundle of planks in the OP? That's the "priceless art"?

[QUOTE=icemaz;33119987]To me it just looks like loads of pieces of wood, connected together to make a little tower over a little trough. Art.[/QUOTE] Here we go again...

[QUOTE=OpethRockr55;33120032]So long as we have Raushenberg's Monogram, I think the standard for what is considered art is going to stay pretty low. [img]http://heyokamagazine.com/rauschenbergGoat.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] well thats alot better than some "art" like this: [img]http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/imgs/artists/emin-tracey/tracey-emin-my-bed.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=OpethRockr55;33120032]So long as we have Raushenberg's Monogram, I think the standard for what is considered art is going to stay pretty low. [img]http://heyokamagazine.com/rauschenbergGoat.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] That actually looks pretty good in comparison.

Somebody please tell me that meaningless pile of sticks isn't what was worth that much money. Please.

Can someone post a picture of it? All i see is some planks.

I think that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit]Artist's Shit[/url] is the prime example of this. [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Piero_Manzoni_Artist%27s_shit.jpg[/img_thumb] This is a can of human feces. [quote]A tin was sold for €124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23 2007[1]; in October 2008 tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of £50-70,000. It sold for £97,250[2]. The cans were originally to be valued according to their equivalent weight in gold — $37 each in 1961 — with the price fluctuating according to the market[3].[/quote]

I could build an exact replica in my backyard and replace it in the museum overnight. No one would ever know.

Ruined? Or made it [b]better[/b]?

[QUOTE=sami-elite;33120085]That actually looks pretty good in comparison.[/QUOTE] Quality of art isn't based on how aesthetically pleasing it is (everyone who disagreed doesn't believe classic gritty and aesthetically unpleasing films such as Schindler's List are art)

I bet if you find one of the lesser known pieces and put some garbage on them or next to them, you could come back a month later and it would still be there.

£690,000 for planks. Okay. Sure.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33120215]Quality of art isn't based on how aesthetically pleasing it is[/QUOTE] There really isn't any sort of quality control...To control the quality of art is basically like trying to control speech. While we may not like what is said, that does not mean the words are meaningless.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33120215]Quality of art isn't based on how aesthetically pleasing it is[/QUOTE] Should I judge it based on how it smells? [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;33120140]I think that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit]Artist's Shit[/url] is the prime example of this. [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Piero_Manzoni_Artist%27s_shit.jpg[/img_thumb] This is a can of human feces.[/QUOTE] oh wait i guess in this case i should

Art is different for each person. That piece just appeals to a significantly different crowd. FP is the different crowd in where they see big eyes and tits as art. [img]http://images.wikia.com/bioshock/images/b/bd/Bioshockinfinite_elizabeth_portrait.png[/img]

ITT: Everyone makes opinions about art. But only one is the "pure" opinion

Good, fuck those modern art degenerates

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33120215]Quality of art isn't based on how aesthetically pleasing it is[/QUOTE] I'm confused I thought all art is is something that looks nice, it has no practical purpose

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33120215]Quality of art isn't based on how aesthetically pleasing it is[/QUOTE] I think it should be based on how much effort appears to be put in, as well as its aesthetic quality. It shouldn't be considered art if you put a few sticks together. The problem with art is the foolproof defense - if you don't like, you don't appreciate it. But this is clearly flawed.

Wasn't there some show where 2 guys took some trash they had, put it in various art museums with an artsy name, and were able to leave most of it without any trouble?

You'd think a cleaner in an art gallery/museum would know better.

If Hitler was right about anything, it is that Modern art is fucking awful.

It's only worth so much because he died. If he were still living it would be a pile of sticks.

[QUOTE=scotland1;33120630]It's only worth so much because he died. If he were still living it would be a pile of sticks.[/QUOTE] Fact: Art only gains value when the artist dies.

[QUOTE=peaceful guy;33120081]well thats alot better than some "art" like this: [img]http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/imgs/artists/emin-tracey/tracey-emin-my-bed.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Wow, that's amazing, I have art that looks just like that in my room and never knew it. I'm rich guys!

Well at least it was insured.