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

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36407596]A facepunch thread concerning modern art is always a funny read for the discerning art enthusiast.[/QUOTE] I'm surprised there hasn't been more "I could shit on a canvas and call it art if that's art" commentary thus far also wow did sanius really keep on about this for 7 straight hours

[QUOTE=Sanius;36402121]I was questioning your reading comprehension not your spelling[/QUOTE] The fact that you haven't been permanently banned yet is simply mind-boggling.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;36407904]I'm surprised there hasn't been more "I could shit on a canvas and call it art if that's art" commentary thus far also wow did sanius really keep on about this for 7 straight hours[/QUOTE] Picasso is a recognized name. People hear his name, and know there's at least some meaning, even if they cannot grasp it. Similar to how people can read Shakespeare, and not get anything but the plot.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;36407904]I'm surprised there hasn't been more "I could shit on a canvas and call it art if that's art" commentary thus far also wow did sanius really keep on about this for 7 straight hours[/QUOTE] Sanius' name is ironic, because he is insane. Also, I would praise a shit smeared canvas more than this as a work of art, but that doesn't make this [I]not[/I] a work of art, it is just that the 'artist' deserves to be knocked out and have the word 'Dipshit' tattoo'd on his forehead. and if he bitches about it you can just tell him it is art.

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36408024]The fact that you haven't been permanently banned yet is simply mind-boggling.[/QUOTE]I think he's kept around for the occasional comic relief.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;36407233]picasso's art had a funny way of conveying dimension. Try to imagine it from different perspectives simultaneously.[/QUOTE] This actually isn't a Picasso. I just google'd Cubism since anything from that style illustrates the point I was going to make. This was done by Fernand Leger, and he was one of the foremost Cubism artists similar to Picasso(and others), but with his own style. The piece is called The Bargeman.

[QUOTE=Sanius;36400473]we are okay with it because we understand art[/QUOTE] "If you don't support the destruction of prized originals in the gallery you just dont understand what art really is, it's just too sophisticated for you." I don't care how artistic you think you are being, you are an absolute asshole if you go and destroy someone's work.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36408569]I think he's kept around for the occasional comic relief.[/QUOTE] And the occasional accusations of misogyny.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;36409030]And the occasional accusations of misogyny.[/QUOTE] Occasional? Hah

[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] Who gives a fuck if it's a Picasso or a four year old's shitty drawing of a tree. The guy spraypainted on someone else's work, in a gallery even. There is absolutely no reason this should be tolerated.

I hate the idea of putting artwork behind a layer of glass to prevent this because it's awesome getting so close to paintings and seeing the brush strokes and the texture. But I also know that it's so freaking stupid that people like this are out there. I hope there is a way to touch it up. I know a lot of museums repair paintings because they become faded or other things.

[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36409128]I hate the idea of putting artwork behind a layer of glass to prevent this because it's awesome getting so close to paintings and seeing the brush strokes and the texture. But I also know that it's so freaking stupid that people like this are out there. I hope there is a way to touch it up. I know a lot of museums repair paintings because they become faded or other things.[/QUOTE] If this artist gains any popularity, the piece will probably become more valuable. Art enthusiasts will flock around to see the Picasso that got defaced by some famous(or infamous) artist.

[QUOTE=Jordax;36401576]What is next, somebody is going to draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa because of some nutjob 'respecting' Leo da Vinci's work?[/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Marcel_Duchamp_Mona_Lisa_LHOOQ.jpg[/img] [sp]It's a postcard, not the original.[/sp] [sp]It's also from 1919[/sp] [sp]Twas also not out of respect for da Vinci, but to show everything can be recycled into art.[/sp]

[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] the fact that it didnt really resemble anything at first glance is sort of the point of picasso's paintings

if someone thought my work of art was important enough to make a statement out of i'd be cool with it

Probably already been said, but from what I remember when I was learning about Picasso, in his works, the Bull signified him, or his persona. Stenciling a picture of a matador killing a bull, is akin to saying 'I'm better than you.' That makes me angry.

[QUOTE=OHNOES;36409199][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Marcel_Duchamp_Mona_Lisa_LHOOQ.jpg[/IMG] [sp]It's a postcard, not the original.[/sp] [sp]It's also from 1919[/sp] [sp]Twas also not out of respect for da Vinci, but to show everything can be recycled into art.[/sp][/QUOTE] Duchamp had the tact and class to avoid doing that to the original Mona Lisa, though, so it's not really the same.

I think it's something of a compliment to try and make a statement out of someone's work, it shows that they think you're important enough that people will listen when they deface your work

[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] Maybe if you tried to actually understand the meaning behind that mess of shapes you wouldn't find it so dull.

[QUOTE=Cone;36411493]I think it's something of a compliment to try and make a statement out of someone's work, it shows that they think you're important enough that people will listen when they deface your work[/QUOTE] If it's a compliment, it's a backhanded compliment, to say the least. I'm not even close to a great artist but I have a few pieces that I'm rather proud of, and if anyone intentionally defaced them all in the name of making a "statement" I would be pissed. Even with the best of intentions, defacing someone else's property or artwork is disrespectful, pure and simple.

What I ask myself is how he managed to do that in "broad daylight"? Even if there are no visitors there should be either cameras or watchmen in each room.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36412645]If it's a compliment, it's a backhanded compliment, to say the least. I'm not even close to a great artist but I have a few pieces that I'm rather proud of, and if anyone intentionally defaced them all in the name of making a "statement" I would be pissed. Even with the best of intentions, defacing someone else's property or artwork is disrespectful, pure and simple.[/QUOTE] it may indeed seem disrespectful to you or me, but as the OP mentions, Picasso himself did something very, very similar, painting over another original peice of art. it's not really fair to judge how he'd react to this when he isn't alive anymore, but at the very least I think it's only in good nature to assume he wasn't a massive hypocrite.

this wouldn't piss me off as hard if it wasn't a self-proclaimed ARTIST doing this. if he truly was an artist he wouldn't stop and think "hmmmm this is one of the most important pieces of all culture ever what if i smeared poop on it in honor to picasso" though truth be told i doubt any thinking was done here

It's funny how this works, because in feudal japan, noblemen and such who could afford expensive paintings from renowned painters, would actually write poems right on the paintings if there was free space. As the painting would be passed on, more poems would be added by new owners. Interestingly enough this only added to the paintings value.

[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 if i come into your house and shit all over the walls and rub it into the furniture and say i'm expressing myself it's perfectly ok?

I'm not a fan of Picasso at all, but ruining [I]anybodies[/I] artwork is pretty not okay.

[QUOTE=Moupi;36413291]if he truly was an artist[/QUOTE] lol "true art" no such thing, it's an entirely subjective matter

glad to see the thread immediately turned to the shit-on-everything-and-call-it-art commentary after I was so proud it didn't [QUOTE=Cone;36422278]lol "true art" no such thing, it's an entirely subjective matter[/QUOTE] there is art form, a task that cannot naturally be performed without training or innate comprehension of instruction, and the result of the form is art, which is true to its form though not always immediately recognizable as being 'artistic'. however, [img]http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/53926574c5c6c9245bed83516186a06a89b08988.jpg[/img] the only way to look at this and not call it art is if you live under a rock or you're trying too hard to be argumentative about the subjectivity of art.