Cleaning woman “cleans” the patina from a $1.1 million piece of art.
Am I really surprised? Maybe not.
I hope they flog the cleaning woman. They were specifically instructed to not get within 8 inches of the piece, let alone clean it.
Philistines.
Boy, did I get into the wrong line of work. I could’ve arted my ass off.
I wish I could remember who told it to me, but some golf nut I know had an 19th century golf club used by a well-regarded player and with dirt on it from, I think, the Old Course at St. Andrews where golf was formalized as a game.
Same thing happened - a cleaning lady took it out of its framed mounting in his study and cleaned it. :eek:
It was modern art, no great loss. I was expecting to hear about someone using Windex on a priceless oil painting.
Cleaning woman? CLEANING WOMAN??!?!?! <goes berserk>
Maybe it will teach them to get some real art next time. What’s next, complaining that she mopped the floor because the muddy footprints were actually valuable art?
That’s my view too. Maybe we can get her to tell the emperor he is naked as well. Art has not only jumped the shark, it’s been eaten by the shark.
Here we go again. The bi-annual “If I don’t like it, it’s not art!” thread.
The fact that some people take aesthetic pleasure out of something you find incomprehesible does not mean that they’re faking it.
Yes it does. The artists are laughing at those fools all the way to the bank.
Aesthetic pleasure does not require comprehension. I believe what you’re referring to is *intellectual *pleasure.
There’s a lot of art I don’t find aesthetically pleasing but I still consider it to be art. I came to grips with modern art a long time ago when I realized I simply didn’t have the proper framework to appreciate it. That said, I have run into pieces of modern art sculptures that simply look like unfinished pieces of construction at one of the Dallas art museums (the one with the sculptures) and would not have realized it was art if it were not in a museum.
Perhaps the artist would have appreciated the mistake.
Many conceptual artists create pieces that are designed to interact with their environment. For example, I came across this installation on a very lonely highway in Texas: http://www.texasescapes.com/TexasArt/Prada-Marfa.htm
The artists hoped that it would be vandalized and eventually disappear.
And the fact that something is incomprehensible does not make it art.
Vincent Gallo:
Always good to meet a fellow “Friend of Carlotta”!
What’d I do with my list?
And where are my pajamas?
Incomprehensible to who? To you?
Not every piece of art works for every person. The elitist idea that there’s some universal standard that all art has to adhere to is profoundly disrespectful to people who have tastes other than yours.
It’s fine to dislike something. There’s lots of art that I dislike. But the fact that you dislike it doesn’t mean that the people who do like it are deluded or foolish. They just have different taste than you do.
Whoa, dude, chill! Aw gee, look at the mess you’ve made!
Someone please call the Reinemachefrau.
Name one. With a cite, please.
Every artist I know – and I’m guessing I know a lot more than you do – takes their work very seriously, but are not really making any serious money at it.
From what little I know of Kippenberger, I don’t think he would have appreciated the cleaning lady’s fastidiousness, because he was a very fastidious artist himself. Very detailed, despite the “messy” look of a lot of his work. (I love stuff like that Prada project, though!)
As for the “is it art?” discussion: I’m always shocked when someone questions the validity of a well-known artist’s modern work. It’s 2011. Stuff similar in tone to the artwork in the OP has been around for almost a hundred years now, if not longer. When you say modern art “is not real art,” you’re not being stubborn and old-fashioned. You’re being perverse and ancient-fashioned.