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

I kind of understand the point of view of the guy, but at the time of modern technology and photocopy it's pretty dumb to make that on the original painting IMO.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;36399697]I kind of understand the point of view of the guy, but at the time of modern technology and photocopy it's pretty dumb to make that on the original painting IMO.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zambies!;36399675]I don't care what type of art is, but I would prefer he would have taken something other then an original.[/QUOTE] If it weren't an original then the act wouldn't have been the same.

"Not allowed to take pictures sir" Wow, guy just completely missed what had happened.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;36399697]I kind of understand the point of view of the guy, but at the time of modern technology and photocopy it's pretty dumb to make that on the original painting IMO.[/QUOTE] if it was just a copy nobody would have cared, they wouldn't have asked any of the questions he wanted to be asked when he did this.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;36399697]I kind of understand the point of view of the guy, but at the time of modern technology and photocopy it's pretty dumb to make that on the original painting IMO.[/QUOTE] Would the same sentiment and message be conveyed on a photocopy or a print? Would it have invoked the same emotional response? There is a reason this guy chose an original work.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;36399697]I kind of understand the point of view of the guy, but at the time of modern technology and photocopy it's pretty dumb to make that on the original painting IMO.[/QUOTE] do you not realize that the act of vandalism is the art???? not the fact that he thought a bull would look cool on one of picassos paintings.

[QUOTE=lotusking;36399505]wow what a disgusting disregard for history. hope this fucker enjoys jail time and a long black dick in his ass.[/QUOTE] why the fuck should he get raped just for doing some art I mean jesus you act like he murdered a guy or something

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36399434]"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.[/QUOTE] Freedom of expression is not the same as painting over somebody else's painting when they're not around to approve the paint over. [B]Edit: [/B] Yes, the act of painting over a Picasso could be considered art but it's a pretty dickhead art form. If somebody vandalised something I'd spent hours (or even days or weeks, in the case of an oil painting) I'd punch them in the teeth

[QUOTE=Maloof?;36399791]Freedom of expression is not the same as painting over somebody else's painting when they're not around to approve the paint over.[/QUOTE] actually yes that's exactly what freedom of expression is. the fact that it hurts your feelings doesn't change anything

[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] Well hey, at least Picasso actually came up with something to draw, better than that woman who made a career out of dumping paint buckets on the floor.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;36399791]Freedom of expression is not the same as painting over somebody else's painting when they're not around to approve the paint over.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about freedom of expression. I'm saying that art is freedom and expression. What he did might be illegal, and he will probably go to jail for it. That doesn't mean that it doesn't fit the idea of art.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36399765]Would the same sentiment and message be conveyed on a photocopy or a print? Would it have invoked the same emotional response? There is a reason this guy chose an original work.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I haven't thought of it that way.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36399818]Well hey, at least Picasso actually came up with something to draw, better than that woman who made a career out of dumping paint buckets on the floor.[/QUOTE] freedom of expression mang, that shit's art just as much as anything Picasso did

[QUOTE=Sanius;36399808]actually yes that's exactly what freedom of expression is. the fact that it hurts your feelings doesn't change anything[/QUOTE] Last time I checked, freedom of expression didn't overrule legal protection over personal property. [B]Edit:[/B] Am I exercising freedom of expression if I spraypaint a penis on somebody's car?

[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] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Mural_del_Gernika.jpg[/img] Yeah like what the fuck does this even mean

[QUOTE=Cone;36399864]freedom of expression mang, that shit's art just as much as anything Picasso did[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but I absolutely refuse to call pouring paint on the floor "fine art".

[QUOTE=Maloof?;36399866] Am I exercising freedom of expression if I spraypaint a penis on somebody's car?[/QUOTE] yes

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36399896]I'm sorry, but I absolutely refuse to call pouring paint on the floor "fine art".[/QUOTE] That's your decision and nobody has the right to tell you that you're wrong. But there's a whole segment of society that disagrees with you [editline]20th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;36399901]yes[/QUOTE] are we talking freedoms offered by law or?

so many edgy art critics in this thread "I DONT GIVE A FUCK IF ITS A FORM OF EXPRESSION, ITS NOT REAL ART UNLESS ITS A PICTURE OF SOMETHING IVE SEEN BEFORE!!!"

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36399896]I'm sorry, but I absolutely refuse to call pouring paint on the floor "fine art".[/QUOTE] so what do you believe constitutes art?

[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] Why are people rating this guy dumb? Isn't what is and isn't art completely based on opinion? If he doesn't want to consider it art, that's his opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Everything is art.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36399896]I'm sorry, but I absolutely refuse to call pouring paint on the floor "fine art".[/QUOTE] Then don't. No one has to call anything art. Respect my opinion that it is, however.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;36399887][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Mural_del_Gernika.jpg[/img] Yeah like what the fuck does this even mean[/QUOTE] looks like war... maybe the crazy look to it represents chaos? either way, kinda stupid

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36399434]"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.[/QUOTE] Bullcrap. It's a museum. You don't take something that you feel is worth capturing in a moment of time, and then "updating" it to reflect modern times. To adapt what The Oatmeal said recently... [IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/blog/funnyjunk_letter/1half.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Ridge;36400026]Bullcrap. It's a museum. You don't take something that you feel is worth capturing in a moment of time, and then "updating" it to reflect modern times. To adapt what The Oatmeal said recently... [IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/blog/funnyjunk_letter/1half.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] There is a difference between changing factual information and adapting artistic information, especially since artistic information is, by definition, subjective.

[QUOTE=J!NX;36399741]"Not allowed to take pictures sir" Wow, guy just completely missed what had happened.[/QUOTE] OH GOOD THE GUARDS ARE PAYING ATTENTION. By the way, how did everyone else miss this? It's the best part of the video.

[QUOTE=lord0war;36399983]Why are people rating this guy dumb? Isn't what is and isn't art completely based on opinion? If he doesn't want to consider it art, that's his opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that.[/QUOTE] It is art if it's made to be art. It doesn't mean it can't be crap though.

[QUOTE=Splarg!;36400080]OH GOOD THE GUARDS ARE PAYING ATTENTION. By the way, how did everyone else miss this? It's the best part of the video.[/QUOTE] Terrible guard gets pissed off at guy with camera [I]completely [/I] misses the fact that someone just drew all over the camera. :v: video is proof of bad guard FIRE HIM. I want to see what happens afterwards though, because the guard starts getting all aggressive. I bet he accused the guy with the camera.

I'm going to respond on a purely personal level. Personally, if I worked hard to make a drawing, sculpture, or painting, and some random guy comes and paints over it to express his own artistic feelings. I'd be peeved. I'm all for artistic expression, but at the same time, not if it means someone else's work pays the price.