Everyone's a Critic

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Monster Rain**

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/weird/Woman-Scratches-Rubs-Butt-Over-30M-Painting-136726763.html

A Colorado woman dropped her pants at a museum and rubbed her rear end all over a painting valued at $30 million, according to police.

Carmen Tisch, 36, was arrested after scratching, punching and, well, rubbing her butt against Clyfford Still's "1957-J no.2" and causing an estimated $10,000 damage to the artwork at the Clyfford Still Museum in Denver. Police believe she was drunk during the late December incident.

"You have to wonder where her friends were," a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office told the Denver Post.

Tisch was charged with felony criminal mischief on Wednesday and has been held on a $20,000 bond since the incident in late December, said Lynn Kimbrough, spokeswoman for the Denver District Attorney's Office.

The oil-on-canvas abstract expressionist painting was spared additional damage when the woman tried to urinate on it but apparently missed.

"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.

Still, who lived from 1904 to 1980, was considered one of the most influential of the American post-World War Two abstract expressionist artists, although he was not as well known as others such as Jackson Pollock. Four of his works were auctioned by Sotheby's last year for $114 million to endow the Denver museum, which opened in November.

Discuss.

**dogma**

Who gets drunk and goes to a museum?

I'm like, the nerdiest person in the world and I would never do that.

**Mr. Burning**

Yeah! How did she go from getting drunk to deciding to go to the museum?

**biccat**

$30 Million? Really?

Spoiler:

Frankly, I don't see how something like this is worth that much.

edit: apparently NBC LA decided to post an unrelated picture to the story...correct one is above

**Chowderhead**

Bitches be crazy, I guess?

**Frazzled**

biccat wrote:$30 Million? Really?

Spoiler:

Frankly, I don't see how something like this is worth that much.

edit: apparently NBC LA decided to post an unrelated picture to the story...correct one is above

That looks like a good camo pattern. Did we link into the Airsoft thread somehow?

**AustonT**

dogma wrote:Who gets drunk and goes to a museum?

I'm like, the nerdiest person in the world and I would never do that.

Denver.

I'm adding more words so as not to be spammy but I feel that one word encompasses the whole answer.

**mattyrm**

Yeah you have to be a party animal to get leathered and then feth off to the museum to wreck art. That's rockstar as feth!

I think that genuine art critics are so dull, anus based critiques could become the latest craze!

**Coolyo294**

The painting sucked. It deserved to have someone's anus rubbed all over it.

**SlaveToDorkness**

biccat wrote:$30 Million? Really?

Spoiler:

Frankly, I don't see how something like this is worth that much.

edit: apparently NBC LA decided to post an unrelated picture to the story...correct one is above

Is that pic before or after the butt smearing?

Damn, none of us will ever party that hard. Except maybe Albatross, he IS a Rockstar.

**Rented Tritium**

biccat wrote:$30 Million? Really?

Spoiler:

Frankly, I don't see how something like this is worth that much.

edit: apparently NBC LA decided to post an unrelated picture to the story...correct one is above

Supply and demand. There's only one and enough/rich enough people would like it that the equilibrium price is 30 million. It's pretty simple.

I mean, I certainly wouldn't buy it, but someone would, so the "worth" is derived from the highest price anyone would pay, since there is only one.

Also, uh, how much do you pay for chunks of plastic?

**notprop**

Possible it was an event or party at the museum.

I have been to quite a few work related events like that at museums for product releases/presentations and project completions (usually where we have finished working on said museums).

They always involve free booze but I dont ever remember rubbing my arse over the Museum of London or the Victoria and Albert museum or their contents, that could just be the booze though?

[damn museum staff and security guards, they always ruin a good drunk prank!]

**biccat**

Rented Tritium wrote:Supply and demand. There's only one and enough/rich enough people would like it that the equilibrium price is 30 million. It's pretty simple.

I understand that. Well, maybe. The artist was reasonably prolific, but almost all of his works are in a museum, artificially inflating the rarity of the works that were sold to private investors.

I just don't see how people can value something like that so highly. I cringe when I buy a $200 piece of art, and most of that is the cost of the frame.

**Rented Tritium**

biccat wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:Supply and demand. There's only one and enough/rich enough people would like it that the equilibrium price is 30 million. It's pretty simple.

I understand that. Well, maybe. The artist was reasonably prolific, but almost all of his works are in a museum, artificially inflating the rarity of the works that were sold to private investors.

I just don't see how people can value something like that so highly. I cringe when I buy a $200 piece of art, and most of that is the cost of the frame.

It's the same as buying a half million dollar car. Once you are sufficiently rich, you can effectively max out all of your personal needs. The leftover spending money after that goes to thinks like this.

If several rich people want something like this, then the price goes up to whatever the richest one is willing to pay, in this case, 30 million.

**biccat**

Rented Tritium wrote:
biccat wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:Supply and demand. There's only one and enough/rich enough people would like it that the equilibrium price is 30 million. It's pretty simple.

I understand that. Well, maybe. The artist was reasonably prolific, but almost all of his works are in a museum, artificially inflating the rarity of the works that were sold to private investors.

I just don't see how people can value something like that so highly. I cringe when I buy a $200 piece of art, and most of that is the cost of the frame.

It's the same as buying a half million dollar car. Once you are sufficiently rich, you can effectively max out all of your personal needs. The leftover spending money after that goes to thinks like this.

If several rich people want something like this, then the price goes up to whatever the richest one is willing to pay, in this case, 30 million.

I think a lot of it is being able to say "I bought a $30 million painting," not artistic merit. There are thousands of aspiring artists who would sell their paintings for a fraction of that price and have (at least arguably) better works of art.

Then again, we have several multi-million dollar works in our office (on loan from a museum), and I don't 'get' those either. One looks like a monkey having sex with a dog. I gak you not.

**AustonT**

biccat wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:Supply and demand. There's only one and enough/rich enough people would like it that the equilibrium price is 30 million. It's pretty simple.

I understand that. Well, maybe. The artist was reasonably prolific, but almost all of his works are in a museum, artificially inflating the rarity of the works that were sold to private investors.

I just don't see how people can value something like that so highly. I cringe when I buy a $200 piece of art, and most of that is the cost of the frame.

This. Salvador Dali who I consider infinitely more talented basically commercialized himself in later years. One of his paintings sold at auction for 21.6 M but most of his later originals are worth from 100,000 to 1M (paintings not lithographs, woodcuts, etc). At least his work is identifiable as Art, and not a drop cloth stretched and framed after a spill.

**Medium of Death**

She is clearly a woman of finer tastes...

**Rented Tritium**

AustonT wrote: At least his work is identifiable as Art, and not a drop cloth stretched and framed after a spill.

Totally subjective

**mattyrm**

Rented Tritium wrote:
AustonT wrote: At least his work is identifiable as Art, and not a drop cloth stretched and framed after a spill.

Totally subjective

Remember this award winning classic?

**Henners91**

I found it interesting that the Political Compass asks you for your thoughts on Abstract Art... As if it plays a part in determining your political attitude

**mattyrm**

Henners91 wrote:I found it interesting that the Political Compass asks you for your thoughts on Abstract Art... As if it plays a part in determining your political attitude

Well it does doesn't it?

Look at this..

If your a trendy, effete, beret wearing, Guardian reading, Greenpeace member, wheat-free cake eating hipster who is very left wing you will probably think a it is "simple at first glance, but in actual fact a wondrous and cerebral celebration of our multi cultural melting pot society"

If your an old bitter cynic who thinks we should throw all the immigrants out, take everyone's dole off them, and bring back flogging and hanging, you will probably think it is "a pile of old tosh that my granddaughter could knock up in ten fething minutes"

See! It works!

**Frazzled**

Or if you're me, you will think it is "not food" and move on...

**biccat**

Or this particularly evocative piece (since Matty's link isn't working, at least for me):

Some might say it's just a blue monochrome, but you would be wrong!

This, in fact, is a $4.7 million work of art:

IKB 79 was one of nearly two hundred blue monochrome paintings Yves Klein made during his short life. He began making monochromes in 1947, considering them to be a way of rejecting the idea of representation in painting and therefore of attaining creative freedom. Although it is difficult to date many of these works precisely, the early ones have an uneven surface, whereas later ones, such as the present work, are finer and more uniform in texture.

I'm not sure why he only made 200 of them. I figure I could crank something like this out in 5-10 minutes, tops.

**Frazzled**

biccat wrote:Or this particularly evocative piece (since Matty's link isn't working, at least for me):

Some might say it's just a blue monochrome, but you would be wrong!

This, in fact, is a $4.7 million work of art:

IKB 79 was one of nearly two hundred blue monochrome paintings Yves Klein made during his short life. He began making monochromes in 1947, considering them to be a way of rejecting the idea of representation in painting and therefore of attaining creative freedom. Although it is difficult to date many of these works precisely, the early ones have an uneven surface, whereas later ones, such as the present work, are finer and more uniform in texture.

So, if I paint my wall blue, do I have to pay royalties or something?

**Easy E**

biccat wrote:
I just don't see how people can value something like that so highly. I cringe when I buy a $200 piece of art, and most of that is the cost of the frame.

It is also a question of priorities. I know some people that take art VERY seriously. They are willing to put a lot more money into Art than I would ever be comfrotable with.

**Da Boss**

I'm left wing and I absolutely fething hate abstract art.

**Avatar 720**

I got to thinking that maybe I should just take a portable toilet to an art convention, consume a bottle of laxatives, take my rightful place on the throne and see how much I get for what comes out.

I call it - "Cash for Gak."

**Rented Tritium**

I'm of the opinion that more things are art rather than less. If someone means to express through it or if someone else views it as an expression, then that's good enough for me.

I don't have to understand or agree for it to be art. Someone likes it, someone values it, that's good enough.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:I got to thinking that maybe I should just take a portable toilet to an art convention, consume a bottle of laxatives, take my rightful place on the throne and see how much I get for what comes out.

I call it - "Cash for Gak."

That's the beauty of it, if you did this just to make fun of expressionists, then it really WOULD be art. You're expressing an idea that expressionism is hilariously meaningless by gaking in a toilet and calling it such. Someone would buy it for millions proving you both wrong and right at the same time.

Brilliant!

**Da Boss**

I didn't say it wasn't art, I said I fething hate it. I'm more into the craft side of things- I am more likely to respect a difficult job done well than raw creativity.

**mattyrm**

Da Boss wrote:I didn't say it wasn't art, I said I fething hate it. I'm more into the craft side of things- I am more likely to respect a difficult job done well than raw creativity.

Well I say it isnt art!

Throwing random gak all over a canvas isnt art. Or wheeling a messy bed into the Tate, what a pile of gak!

I admire a cabinet maker who makes a really well made desk over some fething... pretentious tit making a "sculpture" out of dog gak.