Cops: Colorado woman punches, rubs her buttocks against $30 million painting - Polidicks

Anybody can draw a bunch of random splotches on a canvas, but only an artist can convince someone it means something.

[QUOTE=Wilford Brimley;34077469]So are you trying to start a game where you take a shot every time you say the words "facepunch circlejerk" or[/QUOTE] I like using the word circlejerk more than bandwagon, but if I was using it as an excuse to drink I'd just be copy-pasting it over and over

Honestly, I think that we can all agree that is criminal act was an awful thing to do, regardless of the content of the piece (and its price).

Everyone posting MS paint images are so hilarious and original. Really breaking new comedic ground there guys.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;34081721]Everyone posting MS paint images are so hilarious and original. Really breaking new comedic ground there guys.[/QUOTE] Criticizing sarcasm with sarcasm woo yeah

[QUOTE=Wilford Brimley;34075698]As we can see we have the basis for a nice, neutral argument[/QUOTE] Hi. I'm the arts mod, I guess you don't know me. Maybe I am biased towards art because I understand that it's part of a particular art movement that involved a lot of similar works that- though abstract- can have meaning found in them. I do not enjoy pissfests of 15 year olds who compare expressionist works to piles of shit scribbled in MS Paint every couple of days. 90% of the people who show up in these threads need to sit in the corner instead of shitting on the topic, which has in this case already seen enough ass. This thread is about a drunk idiot who ruined an expensive thing, not contemplation of how that thing is expensive and how everyone in this thread is apparently an expressionist goldmine bursting with creativity, just waiting to be discovered

That painting isn't half bad, I'm sure it may look better in person. I'd totally hang it up on my wall... [sp]well not anymore after that happened[/sp]

"abstract expressionist". As far as art movements and my opinions are concerned, this vandalism simply added to the meaning of the painting. For some anyway.

whether or not you like the art, what could possibly justify such reckless destruction of property?

The difference between modern art and the art that has a realistic look is that all the work in modern art is done thinking of your composition instead of the actual craftsmanship most of the time. Whereas realistic paintings don't really have as much thought put into what you're putting down because you're just drawing what you see.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;34082328]This thread is about a drunk idiot who ruined an expensive thing, not contemplation of how that thing is expensive and how everyone in this thread is apparently an expressionist goldmine bursting with creativity, just waiting to be discovered[/QUOTE]Alright, I'll play your game, you rogue.[QUOTE=From the article]"It doesn't appear she urinated on the painting or that the urine damaged it, so she's not being charged with that," Kimbrough said according to the Denver Post. "You have to wonder where her friends were," she said.[/QUOTE]I don't think she has any friends, why else would she get drunk alone and go to a museum alone?

[QUOTE=Wilford Brimley;34075698]As we can see we have the basis for a nice, neutral argument Such as zeke, who viciously defended that other thread about where someone pissed on a 3d sculpture called "When It Starts Dripping From The Ceiling" and derailed it after the third post And thisispain, who did the exact same thing, and also there's the fact that he is thisispain [/QUOTE] hmm that argumentum ad hominem is delicious. i mean don't even add anything to the conversation, just whine. [editline]6th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;34077356]They pretend to be artists but just want to get money from rich fucks who buy their stuff for astronomic prices. [/QUOTE] you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, and given the context of this thread i can assure you the artists wasn't interested in syphoning money off of anyone.

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34077504]Because they won't get those millions until they're dead, if at all.[/QUOTE] Except the people who made that shit were alive when it auctioned. Now would be the appropriate time to scream. [editline]6th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Number-41;34075610]Well yeah you don't need to study art to become a professional artist. I think the main reason people study art is because they know it's difficult to make a living out of it, but with their degree they can become a teacher (which is a steady job)[/QUOTE] He is working towards getting a teaching degree now, but not for art, just general education (what level, I don't know).

[QUOTE=Ridge;34071565]I unlocked that for my M4 ages ago.[/QUOTE] Your avatar colors match the painting.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/PWGnN.jpg[/img] I accept that this is called art, since practically anything that affects us can be considered art. However I can't say I'm fond of these kind of pushing the edge abstract expressionism art. I understand that Stills was a central figure within movement, which probably also makes it worth this much. But this paintings monotone colors, large blobs of colors and jagged edges doesn't make me feel anything special. I can't put me into Stills mind, where he wanted the colors to "fuse together into a living spirit". All I see is a mess. If I visualize it "literary", I see someone with some kind of mental illness going on a spree with the brush. However then this is abstract art after all. The point isn't to paint or draw something out of the real world, what the painting actually resembles is up to each individual to decide. Some can be very interesting, while others are less interesting. Just like music or movies.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;34086014]Except the people who made that shit were alive when it auctioned. Now would be the appropriate time to scream. [/QUOTE] which people? abstract expressionism was something that started 60 years ago.

[QUOTE=thisispain;34085861] i mean don't even add anything to the conversation, just whine.[/quote] [quote]you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.[/QUOTE] In the same damn post Are you high?

heh "art" guys lol "art" i could do better lol "art" "abstract" "art"

[QUOTE=Swebonny;34087915]If I visualize it "literary"[/QUOTE] isn't this the whole problem

[QUOTE=Swebonny;34087915]But this paintings monotone colors, large blobs of colors and jagged edges doesn't make me feel anything special. I can't put me into Stills mind, where he wanted the colors to "fuse together into a living spirit". All I see is a mess. If I visualize it "literary", I see someone with some kind of mental illness going on a spree with the brush. [/QUOTE] Perhaps you or I might not see anything special, but somebody out there does and thought it was worth paying for - after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what is beheld is far from a choice of the viewer; when somebody sees art, they call it art because there's little else they can call it. They're not going to deny that they see something appealing in it so it is art to them, and if you feel a need to deny what somebody else is seeing, you obviously aren't seeing the same things. It might be pretentious. But a good chunk of people genuinely like the things that they buy, and I think debating what [I]somebody else[/I] feels is not only totally fruitless, but also an action as ignorant and self-centered as it's possible to get. tl;dr you guys are being dumb and debating what's art is pointless. It's a weird phenomonon but it's logical, so shut the fuck up and deal with it.

[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43307106/shitpost/sexualregret.PNG[/img] Jumping on the abstract bandwagon here. I call it [i]Sexual Regret.[/i]

[QUOTE=Lemonator;34071933]here comes the kids who don't get modern art[/QUOTE] Care to explain?

[QUOTE=Wilford Brimley;34090507]In the same damn post Are you high?[/QUOTE] high? you cut off part of the post. you even put a period behind it which is really a slimy thing to do.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;34071733]This is why my friend stopped studying art at the University: Why go through all that effort to paint an elaborate land-scape or life-like portrait if some clown can half-ass slap some paint on a canvas (or a bucket, or a jar of piss, in fact, forget the paint on the last one), say "it's art!" and get millions for it?[/QUOTE] Because art isn't a debate about how much effort is put in. Otherwise Avatar would be the best movie of all time according to your logic. [editline]7th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Swebonny;34087915][img]http://i.imgur.com/PWGnN.jpg[/img] However then this is abstract art after all. The point isn't to paint or draw something out of the real world, what the painting actually resembles is up to each individual to decide. Some can be very interesting, while others are less interesting. Just like music or movies.[/QUOTE] Precisely, I'm not particularly interested in these arts, but I can relate to the experience someone might have to look at that.