Overzealous cleaner ruins £690,000 artwork that she thought was dirty
308 replies, posted
Good god, i thought it was going to be a legitimate piece of art.
But seriously, I could piss on a piece of carpet and make millions off of it by these guy's standards.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;33120248]£690,000 for planks.
Okay. Sure.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://images.wikia.com/edfanon/images/a/a4/Gimme_Gimme_Never_Plank.jpg[/img]
Kill them Johnny, kill them all.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;33128341]Good god, i thought it was going to be a legitimate piece of art.
But seriously, I could piss on a piece of carpet and make millions off of it by these guy's standards.[/QUOTE]
You're just looking at the literal, materialistic value of the piece.
I don't like that particular piece of artwork.
However, I can see how some people do, so I guess it's bad that it got destroyed.
On the other hand, the damage could just as easily be disregarded or in the same line of work as the original creation, now be deemed as 'its own creation, modification or contribution' so I don't see why anyone would really get so wound up about it's so called 'destruction'.
[QUOTE=An Armed Bear;33120404]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?[/QUOTE]
The chasers
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;33128341]Good god, i thought it was going to be a legitimate piece of art.
But seriously, I could piss on a piece of carpet and make millions off of it by these guy's standards.[/QUOTE]
If someone finds it worth that though I doubt you'll find someone who'll buy a urine-stained carpet for such a large sum of money. Pieces of art have no objective price. People and museums trade these because they like them. Maybe I won't buy something like that but these people do and that's okay. And what's wrong with someone making money off of doing something they have a passion for and which makes other lovers of art happy to see?
You would think with such expensive assets being on display[I] and some of them being quite ambiguous when it comes to recognition as an artistic piece[/I] that they would have instructed their cleaning staff more thoroughly.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33120755]I think that's for each person to determine.[/QUOTE]
I think it's for the artist to determine
Yes I know this was the first page but this is an art thread on facepunch so I know nothing substantial has been said in these 6 pages
[QUOTE=Scotchair;33121591]Also.
[img]http://www.morenewmath.com/img/equations/69.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Fairly certain the guy who made 'Artist's shit' wasn't the first guy to shit in a can
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33120215]Quality of art isn't based on how aesthetically pleasing it is[/QUOTE]
maybe I'm just turning into a snob from taking an art history course but seeing the disagrees on this comment made me facepalm
The most witty art piece I had ever seen was a stack of $10 notes making up to $20,000 which the "artist" got from a government grant, so he had to spend it on Art shit or whatever, but he sold the $20,000 stack of notes at an art museum for $15,000.
Pretty damn smart if you ask me.
(if you don't get it, he's able to go and spend that $15,000 on anything he wants)
If these creations were $10, would half of you object to this type of creation being shown as art?
What pieces are valued at is completely irrelevant in terms of their artistic value. Art isn't a best seller's list.
[QUOTE=vagrant;33129388]maybe I'm just turning into a snob from taking an art history course but seeing the disagrees on this comment made me facepalm[/QUOTE]
if facepunch ran the world everything would be designed for maximum efficiency and any form of art or expression would be banned
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33129686]if facepunch ran the world everything would be designed for maximum efficiency and any form of art or expression would be banned[/QUOTE]
no it wouldn't
there are like 2 or 3 people who actually believe that and they all post in SH
we have a thriving subsection devoted entirely to art. you're just being hyperbolic now
-snip-
most of us like art, we just find the concept of someone getting paid ridiculous amounts for something which was made in a few days to be bizarre.
isn't true art supposed to be made without profit anyway? isn't that the spirit of art - to do something that evokes emotions or tells a story, purely for the sake of expression?
[editline]5th November 2011[/editline]
also I'll just leave this to chill here
[url]http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_disumbrationist_school_of_art[/url]
[quote]In 1924 Paul Jordan Smith, a Los Angeles-based novelist and Latin scholar, painted a blurry picture of a South Seas islander holding a banana over her head. He intended the picture as a spoof of abstract styles of modern art such as Cubism, and as a joke he entered it into an art exhibition. He claimed it was the work of the Russian artist Pavel Jerdanowitch (a name he had invented), the founder of the Disumbrationist School of Art (another invention of his). Smith used the foreign name because he figured that painters with exotic names were always a bigger hit with critics.
To create a portrait of Jerdanowitch, Smith slicked back his hair and made himself look as much like a brooding Russian artist as possible. He submitted this photo along with his painting so that the judges could see that he was clearly a genuine artistic genius.
Smith titled his painting 'Exaltation' and wrote that it represented the shattering of the bonds of womanhood. He said the woman had just taken a bite of a banana and was waving the banana skin over her head in triumphant freedom.
To his chagrin, but not really to his surprise, the work was praised by critics. This inspired Smith to paint and exhibit more pictures under Jerdanowitch's name, including one with a lot of squiggles and eyeballs that he named 'Illumination'. More praise followed.[/quote]
Art is defined as "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination."
Like it or not, abstract and modern art are expressions of creative skills and imaginations. They're just far more abstract than the more concrete art found in the Renaissance and other artistic periods. Literally everything made by a human in a creative way is art. The definition is too loose to call something "correct art" or such. It's all a matter of personal opinion.
uhhh
when the cleaner thinks it just looks dirty
maybe
maybe it's not so great after all
[QUOTE=KingPariah;33129601]If these creations were $10, would half of you object to this type of creation being shown as art?
What pieces are valued at is completely irrelevant in terms of their artistic value. Art isn't a best seller's list.[/QUOTE]
I'd like it better if it was admitted to be just some dumb piece of shit that has some artistic value made in 5 minutes that's priced at $10 instead of $10,000 for a piece of coloured wood.
I understand "modern art" being something that is weird but has a meaning, for example a dead, cooked chicken with one of those six-pack ring things still on it's throat, which screams "save birds, cut the ring holder thingies"
I don't get the OP one.
It's a bunch of planks and an old bucket. I'm sure the artist knows what it means, i'm sure it's deep.
"Except you had to explain it to me! If you have to explain it there is no art!"
the big thing about modern art and it's meaning is that it's not supposed to be understood by everyone and that's just fine. modern art pieces are usually set to communicate to a specific group of people. most people today look at cubism and think "lol shapes ok" (and theres really nothing wrong with that) but to picasso, braque and a group of artists and admirers their ideas were valuable.
That means that whether you "get" Kippenberger or not doesn't matter (and I'm sure wouldn't give a fuck what you think). you're not a philistine if you don't get it but the fact remains that it has it's value as art you know? this art may have no relevance to you and that's just the way it is but dismissing it as crap or pretentious is disrespectful to the culture of that art.
[QUOTE=KingKombat;33130446]uhhh
when the cleaner thinks it just looks dirty
maybe
maybe it's not so great after all[/QUOTE]
I'd clean your posts if I could
[QUOTE=An Armed Bear;33120404]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?[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiqS2f9tjeU[/media]
This?
[QUOTE=agentgamma;33131694][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiqS2f9tjeU[/media]
This?[/QUOTE]
Guess what
That video, and what they did, was art
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;33132291]REMEMBER THIS?
[IMG]http://www.luxurylaunches.com/entry_images/0811/24/5-million-art-piece.jpg[/IMG]
[URL]http://gizmodo.com/5833654/this-5-million-piece-of-art-is-a-1-terabyte-hard-drive-filled-with-pirated-software-songs-and-more%20http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2011/08/17/the-software-heist-of-the-century-or-a-modern-art-masterpiece/[/URL][/QUOTE]
Nobody can say that that didn't spur any discussions. The commentary was brilliant.
[QUOTE=Wam;33128246]And there we go, he's finally resorted to posting random questions without addressing any one.
My job is done here.
Poor 'lil troll, you lost around the time you began responding to everyone with 'UR JUST MAD LOL XD'[/QUOTE]
Oh, [I][B]NOW[/B][/I] I remember you.
Hey guys, if you want to see how this guy "debates" check his previous ban. Does wonders to invalidate the majority of the statements he's previously made by making assertions to his ability to understand [I]anything[/I].
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOMmvI2y4u8&feature=related[/media]
how to make "art"
When Duchamp made Fountain he was poking fun at mainstream art. Now, modern art [i]is[/i] the mainstream.
[url]http://www.stuckism.com/[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
