YouTube Video Captures 'Artist' Vandalizing Picasso Painting (VIDEO) - Polidicks

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhDgxNsLzgM&feature=player_embedded[/media] [quote] Uriel Landeros, a self-identified "up-and coming Mexican American artist" was looking to honor the work of Pablo Picasso. So, what did he do? He tagged an original Picasso, uploaded a video of the act on YouTube and then liked it on Facebook. In the words of his Facebook friend Natalie Marie Vickio: "What is wrong with you?" The act of vandalism occurred at Houston's Menil Collection in broad daylight, when Landeros spray painted an image of a matador slaying a bull alongside the word "Conquista" on Picasso's 1929 "Woman in a Red Armchair." The whole thing was captured on tape by a witness (and possible accomplice) who closes in on the tag before eloquently asking "what the f***?" The amateur filmmaker later identified Landeros as the culprit to Local 2, as well as calling the defacing "pretty cool." The painting was immediately removed from the wall post-tag, the paint still wet. All spray paint has since been removed and the piece is set to return to the its home on the collection wall next week. Was this a brave act of artistic intervention or an arrogant attack on priceless art? We thought Menil Collection spokesperson Vance Muse was surprisingly open to considering Landeros' tag as a possible artistic endeavor. He told KCRW: "We certainly live in a time where, you know, art is appropriated. You know that sort of thing, but there are clearly limits to that." Although eventually he dubbed the act as one of vandalism, he doesn't jump to the conclusion as quickly as, well, we did. But Muse was far from the most understanding when it came to Landeros' supporters. Hyperallergic even went so far as to suggest Picasso himself may have "embraced" the action, reading from the alleged stint in which he painted over a Modigliani piece. It's possible... but honestly we think this guy is just a jerk. What do you say, readers? Did Landeros 'conquer' Picasso or should he be conquered by law enforcement? Let us know your thoughts![/quote] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/youtube-video-captures-ar_n_1609100.html?utm_hp_ref=arts[/url] What a dick

I personally give a rats ass he's done this, but I imagine I'm going to get slaughtered for saying this. How is that image art? It doesn't convey anything, it's just a mess of shapes and lines that barely resemble anything.

[quote] Hyperallergic even went so far as to suggest Picasso himself may have "embraced" the action,[/quote] Okay, now try saying that with a straight face.

"Hyperallergic even went so far as to suggest Picasso himself may have "embraced" the action, reading from the alleged stint in which he painted over a Modigliani piece. " This man honored the spirit of Picasso, and the spirit of artistic intervention. We are way too stuck up about art. It seems people hardly even remember that the point of art is freedom and expression.

If you respected an artist, you wouldn't defile his work.

In his mind, he was merely trying to add to the art. But it's not his position to change what Picasso originally intended to convey when he painted that.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;36399380]I'd usually get all uppity about how this is actually art but I've lost the will to even try any more. I personally give a rats ass he's done this, but I imagine I'm going to get slaughtered for saying this. How is that image art? It doesn't convey anything, it's just a mess of shapes and lines that barely resemble anything.[/QUOTE] Yea, what the fuck? Art is supposed to represent something! [img]http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_1999.363.35.jpg[/img] This is absolutely disgraceful, just a bunch of shapes and lines that don't resemble anything!

[QUOTE=AutomataReturns;36399442]If you respected an artist, you wouldn't defile his work.[/QUOTE] if you respected art you would defile it without remorse

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;36399380]I personally give a rats ass he's done this, but I imagine I'm going to get slaughtered for saying this. [b]How is that image art?[/b] It doesn't convey anything, it's just a mess of shapes and lines that barely resemble anything.[/QUOTE] Art is simply the expression of one person's creativity and emotion. Jackson Pollock's art looks like a bunch of drizzles and scribbles, but it's raw emotion, freedom and colour put onto a large canvas. It doesn't have to resemble something to be considered art, it just has to express ones emotions.

Everything about this incident pretty much sums up why I don't like modern art. Also: Yay, modern art discussion incoming.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;36399380]I personally give a rats ass he's done this, but I imagine I'm going to get slaughtered for saying this. How is that image art? It doesn't convey anything, it's just a mess of shapes and lines that barely resemble anything.[/QUOTE] Artistic creativity and perspective what's that? :downs: The tagger is an idiot. Probably trying to out-do Banksy or something. Defacing a masterpiece for what purpose? Notoriety? Infamy?

Whatever his intentions are, he's gonna have a lot of fun in jail.

wow what a disgusting disregard for history. hope this fucker enjoys jail time and a long black dick in his ass.

[QUOTE=AutomataReturns;36399466]Art is simply the expression of one person's creativity and emotion. Jackson Pollock's art looks like a bunch of drizzles and scribbles, but it's raw emotion, freedom and colour put onto a large canvas. It doesn't have to resemble something to be considered art, it just has to express ones emotions.[/QUOTE] Then why do we worship and praise them like they're masterpieces? I could convey my emotions by splashing paint onto a blank canvas and drawing a smiley face with my finger and swing it off as saying it represents my inner anger covered up by a shallow and false expression, sure it's my expression of emotion on a page but it shouldn't be classed as a masterpiece or a work of art.

Why must people do these things. Your ruining culture!

I don't see why "artist" is in scare quotes when vandalism can most definitely be art.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36399538]I don't see why "artist" is in scare quotes when vandalism can most definitely be art.[/QUOTE] sure but vandalizing a great work of art i dont think that's considered art by most people???

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;36399509]Then why do we worship and praise them like they're masterpieces? I could convey my emotions by splashing paint onto a blank canvas and drawing a smiley face with my finger and swing it off as saying it represents my inner anger covered up by a shallow and false expression, sure it's my expression of emotion on a page but it shouldn't be classed as a masterpiece or a work of art.[/QUOTE] That's the whole philosophical question of what art is. One can draw a picture of a stick figure and as long as they consider it to be art, it is therefore art. Anything and everything can be art. All products we have are all interpreted by creative, marketing teams. They create art. Otherwise mechanical toothbrushes would look very painful and not appealing. What becomes popular art is pretty much what a populous decides they like. If a lot of people decide they like a particular painting, it is therefore "popular art." This ideal of specific works of art or artists being popular gets passed down from generation to generation. It's why certain artists are valued over others and some are equals when they perhaps shouldn't be. Art is such a finicky topic and it can just be boiled down to one word: Opinion.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;36399509]Then why do we worship and praise them like they're masterpieces? I could convey my emotions by splashing paint onto a blank canvas and drawing a smiley face with my finger and swing it off as saying it represents my inner anger covered up by a shallow and false expression, sure it's my expression of emotion on a page but it shouldn't be classed as a masterpiece or a work of art.[/QUOTE] There are two parts of art. 1) The emotions and concepts of the artist conveyed on a medium(words, canvas, music, etc.) 2) The emotional response of the audience. If a Picasso painting doesn't invoke an emotional response in you, that's absolutely fine, but it totally does for me. If your painting is able to invoke an emotional response in someone else, then its a beautiful work of art. What this "vandal" did is the definition of art. He not only expressed his emotions, but invoked an incredible emotional response from his audience.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;36399380]I personally give a rats ass he's done this, but I imagine I'm going to get slaughtered for saying this. How is that image art? It doesn't convey anything, it's just a mess of shapes and lines that barely resemble anything.[/QUOTE] I usually consider ~modern art~ as garbage but a painting like that one, that is more than a blank rectangle with a stripe in it, at least required an effort from the artist and it should be respected.

[QUOTE=lotusking;36399560]sure but vandalizing a great work of art i dont think that's considered art by most people???[/QUOTE] Most people are wrong If this work successfully gets people to reconsider what is and isn't defined as art then I would call this a pretty good work of art.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;36399567]I usually consider ~modern art~ as garbage but a painting like that one, that is more than a blank rectangle with a stripe in it, at least required an effort from the artist and it should be respected.[/QUOTE] real artists don't respect art

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36399594]Most people are wrong If this work successfully gets people to reconsider what is and isn't defined as art then I would call this a pretty good work of art.[/QUOTE] Exactly. He succeeded, he got his publicity, good work. He can do that, but I just don't want him saying that he thought Picasso would embrace his idea.

I respect art, which is why I can respect the artistic sentiment behind this act of vandalism.

I actually see where you're coming from, I personally don't see anything in these old paintings but I shouldn't have been ignorant enough to disregard anonymous paintings which I find enjoyable (but not necessarily invoke emotion) I've just never thought of artworks as something that does that for me and since I've never really been told by somebody else what it does for them I've just assumed it's a load of whollop. But thanks for 'showing me the light' (for lack of a better phrase) I've actually realized something with what you said, I'm not stepping down, simply understanding you better. Sorry If I offended you. [sub][sub][sub][sub]maybe this post is art ;o[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

[QUOTE=AutomataReturns;36399618]Exactly. He succeeded, he got his publicity, good work. He can do that, but I just don't want him saying that he thought Picasso would embrace his idea.[/QUOTE] Maybe he would have. Are you, personally, knowledgeable enough about who picasso was to make that a claim to the contrary?

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;36399640]I actually see where you're coming from, I personally don't see anything in these old paintings but I shouldn't have been ignorant enough to disregard anonymous paintings which I find enjoyable (but not necessarily invoke emotion) I've just never thought of artworks as something that does that for me and since I've never really been told by somebody else what it does for them I've just assumed it's a load of whollop. But thanks for 'showing me the light' (for lack of a better phrase) I've actually realized something with what you said, I'm not stepping down, simply understanding you better. Sorry If I offended you. [sub][sub][sub][sub]maybe this post is art ;o[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/QUOTE] Oh no, I was never angry, if you are talking to me. It's actually helping me study for the aesthetics portion of my philosophy final. Thanks

Andy Warhol totally would have gotten it.

I don't care what type of art is, but I would prefer he would have taken something other then an original.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36399648]Maybe he would have. Are you, personally, knowledgeable enough about who picasso was to make that a claim to the contrary?[/QUOTE] I know of him. I know why he created what he did, and I think that in a general sense he would "embrace his idea." Considering Picasso wanted to think outside the box and break the societal norm, but that's all I can make a connection to between Picasso and this guy's actions.