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

Guys, guys Guys GUYS guys, If you don't understand Picasso's work, and think it's a piece of shit, it just demonstrates you don't understand art. It's not shit just because you can't see something you can relate to. Leave it for other people that actually understand it

[QUOTE=Loriborn;36400151]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.[/QUOTE] Draw on someone else's art isn't art it's being a dick. Flat out simple. There is no art to doing that, there IS doing it because you very heavily disagree with the person and there is having meaning behind it but, there's no art to it.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;36400151]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.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's your opinion. But that maybe (probably?) wasn't Picasso's. I don't say I approve what the guy did though, that's a difficult question.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36399896]I'm sorry, but I absolutely refuse to call pouring paint on the floor "fine art".[/QUOTE] Assuming you're still talking about Jackson Pollock (who is a man btw), he didn't just "pour paint" on the floor, he tried to capture his subconsciousness by intoxicating himself, then "attacking" the canvas from all 4 sides (as inspired by native American sand drawings). What was important with his paintings is how he made them and not how they look. Believe me when I say that they are really impressive in real life and have a threatening feel to them, because they are so massive, it's as if you are walking into someone's mind, it's chaos to an outsider, something only the artist himself gets. It's hard to describe. Also, art is entirely subjective, as conceptual artists tried to explain with their art, anything can be art, the message it's trying to get across is the most important factor of the artwork. Now, if the artwork is Aesthetic or not is up to the viewer.

Not even getting into the art debate. Instead, I will analyze the action made by the artist. Well firstly, the color blends in too well, its obvious from the fast movement of which what he did was just a simple in and out job. Meaning no amount of detail would go into it, the lines and color clash with the painting instead of complimenting. He limited himself to using a premade stencil so he couldn't do much beyond plant the stencil. Did he add anything to the actual piece? Not really, in fact this is the one case I'd say that a painting was ruined. It wasn't the same style, it the color didn't work, and the placement really sucked.

[QUOTE=J!NX;36400167]Draw on someone else's art isn't art[/QUOTE] That's collaborative art. The problem is that it was done without the artist consent and that we'll never know what he'd think about it.

[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] So freedom of expression also covers killing others, right? I'm expressing my hate towards an individual. Also, what gives this man the right to ruin the orginal work of art for those who wish to view the orginal?

I'm okay with this. Someone with a mind open enough to paint like this would probably also accept, maybe not love but accept, this way of expression.

[QUOTE=J!NX;36400010]looks like war... maybe the crazy look to it represents chaos? either way, kinda stupid[/QUOTE] Spain during ww2, the bombing of innocent people. The artwork is supposed to represent the pain and agony of a certain Spanish village, can't remember which one, the bull and the lady with the oil lamp represent hope, and that Spain will one day be strong again.

Nothing irritates me more than finding a well-made, meaningful piece of street art covered in other "taggers" signatures and initials and other meaningless "baby's first tag" shit. What this guy did is basically on the same level. He went up to a masterpiece, and drew his name on it.

Sainus I don't even get what you're arguing with that 'freedom of expression' comment. Are you arguing that every person should be free to express themselves in any way they see fit? Including vandalisation of the property of others?

[QUOTE=Maloof?;36400350]Sainus I don't even get what you're arguing with that 'freedom of expression' comment. Are you arguing that every person should be free to express themselves in any way they see fit? Including vandalisation of the property of others?[/QUOTE] Which is a pretty radical departure from Sanius's previous arguments relating to the portrayal of women in video games.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;36400350]Sainus I don't even get what you're arguing with that 'freedom of expression' comment. Are you arguing that every person should be free to express themselves in any way they see fit? Including vandalisation of the property of others?[/QUOTE] It's Sanius so the best response you'll get is "yes" Sanius does this a lot but is still a pretty OK poster and I think people who call him/her "the worst shitpost ever" just needs to kill themselves and leave. IMHO I think freedom of expression is key but, the only message I can see behind drawing on another art is saying "I dislike your message and think this is a terribly way to express a terrible message", plus it's kind of dickish. [QUOTE=OHNOES;36400338]Spain during ww2, the bombing of innocent people. The artwork is supposed to represent the pain and agony of a certain Spanish village, can't remember which one, the bull and the lady with the oil lamp represent hope, and that Spain will one day be strong again.[/QUOTE] Fair enough I guess. I'm used to more 'direct / basic' messages behind art. Where there can be tons of inner meaning but it's pretty direct in the message.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;36400350] Are you arguing that every person should be free to express themselves in any way they see fit? Including vandalisation of the property of others?[/QUOTE] I have yet to argue anything about the legality of vandalism

[QUOTE=J!NX;36400401]It's Sanius so the best response you'll get is "yes" Sanius does this a lot but is still a pretty OK poster and I think people who call him/her "the worst shitpost ever" just needs to kill themselves Fair enough I guess. I'm used to more 'direct / basic' messages behind art. Where there can be tons of inner meaning but it's pretty direct in the message.[/QUOTE] Telling people to kill themselves because they hold an opinion that you disagree with about somebody you know sounds like shitposting on your part.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;36400442]Telling people to kill themselves because they hold an opinion that you disagree with about somebody you know sounds like shitposting on your part.[/QUOTE] what are you even talking about and what relevance does it have to this thread

[QUOTE=Sanius;36400419]I have yet to argue anything about the legality of vandalism[/QUOTE] thank you for clearly and concisely explaining what you meant by freedom of expression

[QUOTE=OHNOES;36400249]Assuming you're still talking about Jackson Pollock (who is a man btw), he didn't just "pour paint" on the floor, he tried to capture his subconsciousness by intoxicating himself, then "attacking" the canvas from all 4 sides (as inspired by native American sand drawings). [/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong but you're implying he did it voluntarily, right? Because the man was an alcoholic and got himself killed because of it. Not trying to discredit the man (not a fan of him myself but hey, opinions) but I can't help but sense a certain rose-tinted glasses aura about this post.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;36400442]Telling people to kill themselves because they hold an opinion that you disagree with about somebody you know sounds like shitposting on your part.[/QUOTE] lol it's on basically the same level as the people telling sanius to kill them self / leave because of Sanius's opinions, you know sounds more like being fair.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;36400463]So ~ArTiStiC~ to draw on someone elses painting. What are you people on about, you don't just draw on someone elses painting because you want to change something about it. Just what the hell? How can you be okay with this?[/QUOTE] we are okay with it because we understand art

[QUOTE=OHNOES;36400338]Spain during ww2, the bombing of innocent people. The artwork is supposed to represent the pain and agony of a certain Spanish village, can't remember which one, the bull and the lady with the oil lamp represent hope, and that Spain will one day be strong again.[/QUOTE] It's actually in the title of the painting.

[QUOTE=Sanius;36400473]we are okay with it because we understand art[/QUOTE] yes but, if art is purely subjective and opinion based, how does one "Understand" art? then again, I really think I'm over-complicating this. :v: Wouldn't that mean you understand art by understanding the opinion based nature of it? That doesn't change the fact that art is still work, and represents something, and by drawing on that message you're essentially being kind of a dick IMHO.

[QUOTE=Sanius;36400473]we are okay with it because we understand art[/QUOTE] I understand art; I'm not okay with it. please don't try to speak for everybody

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;36400463]So ~ArTiStiC~ to draw on someone elses painting. What are you people on about, you don't just draw on someone elses painting because you want to change something about it. Just what the hell? How can you be okay with this?[/QUOTE] I've already said how I am okay with this. Try reading through the thread dude. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;36400473]we are okay with it because we understand art[/QUOTE] It isn't about understanding art. It's about understanding this particular piece. Someone might be able to understand the beauty of a Monet piece, but not get this particular work.

I recently had the luxury of seeing some of Picasso's work in a gallery. After a few moments of wandering around, I recall hearing a teenager remark "Wow, his art got bad". This thread reminds me of that. More relevant to the discussion; Art will always be subjective, especially in cases like this. I personally really like street art and things of the like even though most would regard it as petty vandalism at most (and admitadley, often times it is). I can see where this guys is likely coming from, sorta, but they way he went about it just seems flawed and almost more like an act attempting to garner attention to himself rather than pay any respects. Also, the way he describes himself as an "up-and-coming artist" rubs me the wrong way for some reason.

I still want to know why so many people think art comes out of effort. And hell, art is supposed to be something superior, to be admired. How the hell does that translate to just imitating landscapes or things you can see as real as they can be?

This guy is a massive cunt! There is no debate here. To me, it's pathetic more than anything, that he felt it is was 'art, to vandalise a priceless painting of significant artistic and historical interest. And for what? To get attention from the artistic world? As if the attention wasn't going to be short lived and would backfire. As if he wouldn't be hated by many, and get a prison sentence to boot! Fuck him! He is merely a leech on the reputation of an artist far more influential and greater than most artists alive today, let alone him. He has now ruined that painting for future generations of people to admire and enjoy, which is a real tragedy. Anyone who defends this crime as 'art' should be pretty ashamed of themselves.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;36400457]Correct me if I'm wrong but you're implying he did it voluntarily, right? Because the man was an alcoholic and got himself killed because of it. Not trying to discredit the man (not a fan of him myself but hey, opinions) but I can't help but sense a certain rose-tinted glasses aura about this post.[/QUOTE] He intoxicated himself so he could capture his subconsciousness on canvas, voluntarily. The reason why he killed himself was because he couldn't handle the pressure of selling his artworks and displaying on exhibitions. He became an even bigger alcoholic and he pretty much stopped painting and got himself in an accident. [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;36400475]It's actually in the title of the painting.[/QUOTE] Fuck, totally forgot about that.

[QUOTE=OHNOES;36400249]Assuming you're still talking about Jackson Pollock (who is a man btw), he didn't just "pour paint" on the floor, he tried to capture his subconsciousness by intoxicating himself, then "attacking" the canvas from all 4 sides (as inspired by native American sand drawings). What was important with his paintings is how he made them and not how they look. Believe me when I say that they are really impressive in real life and have a threatening feel to them, because they are so massive, it's as if you are walking into someone's mind, it's chaos to an outsider, something only the artist himself gets. It's hard to describe. Also, art is entirely subjective, as conceptual artists tried to explain with their art, anything can be art, the message it's trying to get across is the most important factor of the artwork. Now, if the artwork is Aesthetic or not is up to the viewer.[/QUOTE] Good and convincing argument, but that's not who I was talking about.

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;36400577]I still want to know why so many people think art comes out of effort. And hell, art is supposed to be something superior, to be admired. How the hell does that translate to just imitating landscapes or things you can see as real as they can be?[/QUOTE] Art doesn't need effort I guess, since how subjective it is. but in my personal view, when you work pretty hard with art in order to achieve some good, deep message of family, or war, or peace, or revenge, anything, and not only it looks good but it very well represents that message, [I]THEN[/I] it is good art. Working hard on making a message or ones own personal passion in something represented effectively is art to me.