Woman defaces famous Louvre painting with black pen

[demoguy08]

It was easily restored, luckily. If you [I]really[/I] want to cry over recent damage to invaluable historical and cultural items then read this: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/28/timbuktu-library-centuries-african-history[/url]

[Bassplaya7]

Much like this restoration:

[img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02316/painting-fresco_2316720b.jpg[/img]

[editline]9th February 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=demoguy08;39534196]It was easily restored, luckily. If you [I]really[/I] want to cry over recent damage to invaluable historical and cultural items then read this: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/28/timbuktu-library-centuries-african-history[/url][/QUOTE]

Pretty sure most of the stuff turned out to be saved? Still tragic that anything was destroyed though.

[Meatbang]

Big fucking deal.

[TheHydra]

[QUOTE=Ripvayne;39533088]Yeah, I thought of that too. Here's a link to that trainwreck
[URL]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1191782&highlight=picasso+painting[/URL]

Also:
[IMG]http://sadpanda.us/images/1027783-02XLRJ8.png[/IMG]

:v:[/QUOTE]

terribly unbalanced composition 0/10

[shian]

[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;39529531]Why don't museums put the paintings behind a thin glass shield?[/QUOTE]

They did it to the Mona Lisa

[bunnyspy1]

[QUOTE=EmperorKabuto;39532302]I didn't realize there were people in other countries that were 9/11 truthers

I thought that type of stupidity was reserved only for Americans[/QUOTE]

you're a jerk

[Ast_risk]

That's one of my favorite paintings!

[Doofernaut]

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39535297]terribly unbalanced composition 0/10[/QUOTE]

You just don't ~get~ what that empty white space represents

[Col. Buggernuts]

[QUOTE=mac338;39529745]She's a 911 truther, and this is her shitty way of advertising for [I]Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth[/I][/QUOTE]Those guys are still around? Wasn't it revealed most of their signatures were from unqualified people like landscape architects (i.e. gardener)?

[TMBGFan]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;39530993]At least now we know the truth about 9/11. Silver lining, guys.[/QUOTE]
9/11 was a government plot to get this painting defaced.
[I]Spread the word, get the truth out[/I]

[dai]

[QUOTE=Aphtonites;39529670]You know that she probably didn't put any thought into it, right?
It's like taking a shit and then having a guy come along and talk about how your shit is a statement about how society rejects people and washes them away.[/QUOTE]

12 posts into an art thread and you've both managed to meet the requirement for an "I could shit on a canvas and it'd be more artistic" post, yet it's not stupid

good work

[QUOTE=mac338;39529745]She's a 911 truther, and this is her shitty way of advertising for [I]Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth[/I][/QUOTE]

I love that they call themselves that when any self respecting architectural engineer would give you all the reasons in the world that the buildings went down, including the one conspiracists say was undamaged and taken down in a planned demolition

[ewitwins]

Here's an idea, let people who are life-time members of the Louvre simply volunteer to stand by paintings during hours in which they please. You have an additional layer of protection that can prevent silly things like this, and they can stare at their favorite paintings for hours on end.

[RobbL]

Imo art is what the creator intended it to be, so unless the artist actually intended his original work to modified by others I think you should respect that

[editline]10th February 2013[/editline]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/NnGPwgh.jpg[/IMG]

oh dori, how I do not miss you so

[Bliblixe]

Fuck no, not this painting, it's one of my favorite, it depicts the revolution with such power. Marianne is a national symbol, not a fucking drawing piece, you fucking cunt.

[editline]10th February 2013[/editline]

I'm so mad right now oh god. Pic of that idiot?

[zakededodead]

God damn this is the worst thing since bush did 9/11

[Flameon]

Just print a copy. Art museums ruin art by making it about the "authentic real piece" rather than the art itself.

Check out
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_of_Seeing[/url]
by John Berger, I think you can find the videos on youtube.

[editline]10th February 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=Bliblixe;39537961]Fuck no, not this painting, it's one of my favorite, it depicts the revolution with such power. Marianne is a national symbol, not a fucking drawing piece, you fucking cunt.

[editline]10th February 2013[/editline]

I'm so mad right now oh god. Pic of that idiot?[/QUOTE]
There are literally millions upon millions of copies of this painting that look identical. I'm probably gonna get a dumb vote, but seriously nothing of value has been lost. In the age of mechanical reproduction, it doesn't matter if we lost "the original".

If you disagree with this statement then you also, logically, have to conclude that photography is a lower art form than painting, which is dumb.

[EmperorKabuto]

[QUOTE=Flameon;39538557]
There are literally millions upon millions of copies of this painting that look identical. I'm probably gonna get a dumb vote, but seriously nothing of value has been lost. In the age of mechanical reproduction, it doesn't matter if we lost "the original".

If you disagree with this statement then you also, logically, have to conclude that photography is a lower art form than painting, which is dumb.[/QUOTE]
Personally, I do tend to find photography a lesser art form

But that's because everyone with an iPhone thinks they're like the world's best photographer because they instagrammed their coffee woaaah

Also originals of art are just like originals of anything else, they have an added niceness of just being able to experience the real thing. Its like, sure, you can listen to recordings of songs, but people still like to hear live performances because its an experience.

[Flameon]

[QUOTE=EmperorKabuto;39538622]Personally, I do tend to find photography a lesser art form

But that's because everyone with an iPhone thinks they're like the world's best photographer because they instagrammed their coffee woaaah

Also originals of art are just like originals of anything else, they have an added niceness of just being able to experience the real thing. Its like, sure, you can listen to recordings of songs, but people still like to hear live performances because its an experience.[/QUOTE]
Live performances of bands actually sound different though. They add new lyrics, riffs, voice inflextion, etc.

A painting is a painting.

[pr00ch]

[QUOTE=Lukeo;39529794][img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m42si6OE361qi9wtso1_400.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

Although that movie prop is probably worth a fortune as well.

[EmperorKabuto]

[QUOTE=Flameon;39538674]Live performances of bands actually sound different though. They add new lyrics, riffs, voice inflextion, etc.

A painting is a painting.[/QUOTE]

And copies have minor errors and don't deteriorate the same as originals, its still basically the same work in either case, but it doesn't make sense to pretend originals don't have value because you can copy them.

[Sirias]

I wonder what she was thinking when she defaced that painting, its not like she could get away with it.

[Nitro836]

I bet the jackass posted the news picture in facebook and claimed him/herself as being the culprit and got like a million likes.

[Bliblixe]

[QUOTE=Flameon;39538557]There are literally millions upon millions of copies of this painting that look identical. I'm probably gonna get a dumb vote, but seriously nothing of value has been lost. In the age of mechanical reproduction, it doesn't matter if we lost "the original".

If you disagree with this statement then you also, logically, have to conclude that photography is a lower art form than painting, which is dumb.[/QUOTE]

Good job comparing photography to thousands of years old art which can arguably be considered a "higher art form" (don't get me wrong, I love photography, but you simply can't compare spending months painting something and taking amazing picture with a camera / eventually modifying it for a few days / weeks on Photoshop)
A reproduction of a painting isn't the original, you know it was made decades to hundreds of years ago by a man in a specific context, and even though I'm not sensitive to this, some people can actually feel something just with this simple thought in mind, it helps yourself immerse in the painting itself greatly.
If you disagree with this, you're disagreeing with every art lovers out there and we might aswell just put posters in the Louvre and every other museums, after all, they're just like the original since that's the same picture right?

[C O Y O T E]

[QUOTE=The mouse;39529599]She should've drawn a mustache on the Mona Lisa.[/QUOTE]

Jesus, I can't even begin to comprehend the outrage that would cause.

[TMBGFan]

[QUOTE=Flameon;39538557]Just print a copy. Art museums ruin art by making it about the "authentic real piece" rather than the art itself.

Check out
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_of_Seeing[/url]
by John Berger, I think you can find the videos on youtube.

[editline]10th February 2013[/editline]

There are literally millions upon millions of copies of this painting that look identical. I'm probably gonna get a dumb vote, but seriously nothing of value has been lost. In the age of mechanical reproduction, it doesn't matter if we lost "the original".

If you disagree with this statement then you also, logically, have to conclude that photography is a lower art form than painting, which is dumb.[/QUOTE]
There's sort of a magic in looking at a canvas and thinking "This is the very same canvas that, 200 years ago, Eugene Delacroix sketched and painted this image on."
You can't really say that with a reproduction; while the image is still the same thing, there's just not the quite same sense of majesty one might feel in the presence of the ~original~.

It's kind of silly, I guess, but that doesn't mean we should destroy the original works of the great artists of history just because there's reproductions.

[TheHydra]

[QUOTE=Bliblixe;39537961]Fuck no, not this painting, it's one of my favorite, it depicts the revolution with such power. Marianne is a national symbol, not a fucking drawing piece, you fucking cunt.

[editline]10th February 2013[/editline]

I'm so mad right now oh god. Pic of that idiot?[/QUOTE]

settle down beavis

[editline]10th February 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=TMBGFan;39545138]There's sort of a magic in looking at a canvas and thinking "This is the very same canvas that, 200 years ago, Eugene Delacroix sketched and painted this image on."
You can't really say that with a reproduction; while the image is still the same thing, there's just not the quite same sense of majesty one might feel in the presence of the ~original~.

It's kind of silly, I guess, but that doesn't mean we should destroy the original works of the great artists of history just because there's reproductions.[/QUOTE]

there's also the fact that some paintings are painted to be viewed in person at a certain lighting, and reproductions sometimes can't accurately recapture that and photos certainly can't

the kate middleton painting is a recent example