• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Woman attempted to urinate on $30 million abstract painting.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Corky

Nine out of ten orphans can't tell the difference.
This reminds me of a funny thing that happened, according to a news/radio piece my mate who originally told it to me had read/heard:

This woman, an "artist", had a special kind of performance art. She would travel to different kinds of museums and art galleries sans underpants ( but still had clothes, skirts or w/e ). She then proceeded scrutinizing different pieces of art. When she felt that the time was right she would initiate her own performance art, which was comprised of her slightly separating her legs while upright and simply starting peeing on the floor ( or something she brought with her, maybe plastic or something ).

She was a hit apparently, praised by the art community and whatnot. People gathering around her taking pictures and discussing the cultural significance of her urine. Until one day this brave brave man turned up, who had - understandably - grown tired of shit like this being called art so he took matters in his own hands.

He figured out our artist's "tour dates" and simply went to her installations. While there, he would wait until she started to piss and sneakily gathered it up with a cup he had brought with him. No worse of an artist himself he then proceeded to drink her urine - as an art-installation of his own.

Unfortunately he didn't become the next big thing and people were in uproar because of him "ruining" her art. I don't recall his fate but I've been looking for the article for ages and I won't rest until I've found it. Godspeed my good man, one day your pee-drinking will be worth millions and regarded as the pinnacle of human culture.
 

ymmv

Banned
This reminds me of a funny thing that happened, according to a news/radio piece my mate who originally told it to me had read/heard:

This woman, an "artist", had a special kind of performance art. She would travel to different kinds of museums and art galleries sans underpants ( but still had clothes, skirts or w/e ). She then proceeded scrutinizing different pieces of art. When she felt that the time was right she would initiate her own performance art, which was comprised of her slightly separating her legs while upright and simply starting peeing on the floor ( or something she brought with her, maybe plastic or something ).

What is it with performance artists and public urination?

http://www.artfagcity.com/2010/03/01/how-much-pee-in-pan-will-prompt-museum-intervention/

(Ann Liv Young first masturbates in public and then drenches herself in her own urine. But it's in a museum so it must be art)

http://open.salon.com/blog/wqbelle/2011/07/28/ellen_jong_the_body_as_performance_art

Ellen Jong, American photographer and performance artist, made the book "Pees On Earth", a collection of self-portraits taken while urinating in public.
 

TheMan

Member
to those who defend this piece as art, what exactly do you like about it? at least, what message or feeling does it convey to you?

i don't see any evident technical merit whatsoever, but for those who do, what separates this painting from something i could do with my eyes closed? (and don't say "this guy did it first")
 
to those who defend this piece as art, what exactly do you like about it? at least, what message or feeling does it convey to you?

i don't see any evident technical merit whatsoever, but for those who do, what separates this painting from something i could do with my eyes closed? (and don't say "this guy did it first")
But I ran from the room!
 

Hazanko

Banned
Angry teen?

Haha, I suppose that post did make it seem that I was angry about it. I'm not even mad. I just find it odd when I see something that just doesn't look that great costing so much money. Though I suppose since it has some historical value, I guess I understand the price tag. Since people love buying something with some history behind it. I don't think it's any good though.
 

milanbaros

Member?
Wow, sad to see this is all about the art instead of the story.

$30 million is a lot of money, yes, but Still was really on the forefront of Abstract Expressionist painters. His pieces rarely come up for auction, and thus are valued higher than you'd expect.

Also, you fail to actually see the scale of this piece, it's fucking huge.

See here:

museum_04.jpg

The art in that room is just way too intense. How those 3 people can even stay in there is beyond me. Flee! Flee!
 
Wow, sad to see this is all about the art instead of the story.

$30 million is a lot of money, yes, but Still was really on the forefront of Abstract Expressionist painters. His pieces rarely come up for auction, and thus are valued higher than you'd expect.

Also, you fail to actually see the scale of this piece, it's fucking huge.

See here:

museum_04.jpg


I will buy bigger canvas and throw colours at it.
 
How does a woman go about peeing on a wall painting that is over a foot off the ground?

Isn't possible is it? I guess that's why she missed?
 

lacinius

Member
But why that particular painting in the room... was it the price alone, or didn't the other paintings "speak to her"?!?

*edit... read the story again, and I'm not sure she would have even known the value of the painting.
 
Her actions are shocking now, but soon the rest of the art world will catch on to her style and Ms. diamond-neck-tattoo will be revered worldwide for ushering in the age of abstract piss performance art. That's how this works, right?
 

ymmv

Banned
Let's not all hate on modern art, not all of us are cultural barbarians. Abstract art has its uses. It's great for desktop wallpapers on your PC. Or if you need a painting to complement your living room but you don't want it to draw any attention. Figurative art by itself draws attention, because it invites the viewer to interpret it. Abstract art is safely anonymous wallpaper with an artistic cachet. The vast majority of modern art is as culturally significant as the tile designs for your bathroom.
 

Row

Banned
the abstract wallpapers I use as desktop wallpapers ae infinitely better looking than that garbage
 

Des0lar

will learn eventually
Yeah I also love when people say to others that they just don't understand. I understand it's a piece of shit lol. Plus like you said there was a good reason people back then wouldn't of painted this, because it's shit!

I also love the image about people saying they could do the same thing but didn't. That's true, because they don't want to waste their time painting utter crap! That's why lol. If I knew my crappy painting would get 30 million, that's another story.

You sound like you are 14, seriously.
 

eznark

Banned
Her performance art is far more entertaining that the shitty painting.

Also, misleading thread title is misleading.
 

Xristot

Member
to those who defend this piece as art, what exactly do you like about it? at least, what message or feeling does it convey to you?

i don't see any evident technical merit whatsoever, but for those who do, what separates this painting from something i could do with my eyes closed? (and don't say "this guy did it first")

You can't just look at a jpeg of a painting and gain an appreciation for it. Especially one this big. In person it can feel larger than life.

It's not always about the 'technical' merit. The idea that technique is what defines a good piece of art from a bad one is really outdated.

And really, I've seen pieces that looked random and really they kind of were. Hand and footprints on the canvas, cigarette burns etc. But they still felt pretty wonderful upfront.

Some of you guys need to let go of the concept that an art piece needs to be an immaculate painting of a human or a vista.
 

milanbaros

Member?
You can't just look at a jpeg of a painting and gain an appreciation for it. Especially one this big. In person it can feel larger than life.

It's not always about the 'technical' merit. The idea that technique is what defines a good piece of art from a bad one is really outdated.

And really, I've seen pieces that looked random and really they kind of were. Hand and footprints on the canvas, cigarette burns etc. But they still felt pretty wonderful upfront.

Some of you guys need to let go of the concept that an art piece needs to be an immaculate painting of a human or a vista.

Could you link to some modern art that is popular now and explain why it is? I am not baiting, I am a philistine when it comes to modern art and would appreciate learning about what I should be looking at.
 

whitehawk

Banned
I so hate the "I could paint better than that" crap. No, you can't. You really can't. And if you did manage to make something that looked approximately like that painting, guess what? You're fifty years too late!

It's fine to not like art like this, or any art at all. But it has merit, particularly if you understand what impact it had at the time. I was at a museum once with my father, who was an artist in the sixties, and he pointed out a painting to me. It was interesting, very garish and loud, but nothing that really impressed me. He said, "When we first saw that painting, you couldn't even look directly at it. It was something that nobody had ever done, and people literally fled the room to get away from it, it was so intense."

Why are you laughing? He's telling the truth. Let me give you another example. Ivor Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring'. It is a very unique and obscure piece. Listen to the song here. It was debuted in 1913 at a balet, and guess what happened?

The première involved one of the most famous classical music riots in history. The intensely rhythmic score and primitive scenario and choreography shocked the audience that was accustomed to the elegant conventions of classical ballet.

The evening's program began with another Stravinsky piece entitled “Les Sylphides.” This was followed by, “The Rite of Spring”. The complex music and violent dance steps depicting fertility rites first drew catcalls and whistles from the crowd. At the start, some members of the audience began to boo loudly. There were loud arguments in the audience between supporters and opponents of the work. These were soon followed by shouts and fistfights in the aisles. The unrest in the audience eventually degenerated into a riot. The Paris police arrived by intermission, but they restored only limited order. Chaos reigned for the remainder of the performance.[6] Stravinsky had called for a bassoon to play higher in its range than anyone else had ever done. Fellow composer Camille Saint-Saëns famously stormed out of the première allegedly infuriated over the misuse of the bassoon in the ballet's opening bars (though Stravinsky later said "I do not know who invented the story that he was present at, but soon walked out of, the première." [7]). Stravinsky ran backstage, where Diaghilev was turning the lights on and off in an attempt to try to calm the audience.
Basically, the song was so different from what people were used to and were expecting, they didn't know how to react to it. Can you believe it? A riot broke out at very high class ballet show. People argued, fought, left the show. Similar to how adamsappel's dad talks about the painting in the OP.

I don't agree that it should be worth 30 million dollars, but I understand why such a painting has such significance, and that it can't be recreated.
 

Xristot

Member
Why are you laughing? He's telling the truth. Let me give you another example. Ivor Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring'. It is a very unique and obscure piece. Listen to the song here. It was debuted in 1913 at a balet, and guess what happened?

Basically, the song was so different from what people were used to and were expecting, they didn't know how to react to it. Can you believe it? A riot broke out at very high class ballet show. People argued, fought, left the show. Similar to how adamsappel's dad talks about the painting in the OP.

I don't agree that it should be worth 30 million dollars, but I understand why such a painting has such significance, and that it can't be recreated.

When Ivor was practicing with the Ballet, the main choreographer (my wording is wrong here I know) asked how long Ivor would play this 'horrific' chord on the piano for.

Ivor responded with:
"To the END, my dear!"
 

RevDM

Banned
$30 million for that??

wtf is wrong w/ the world.

I so hate the "I could paint better than that" crap. No, you can't. You really can't. And if you did manage to make something that looked approximately like that painting, guess what? You're fifty years too late!

It's fine to not like art like this, or any art at all. But it has merit, particularly if you understand what impact it had at the time. I was at a museum once with my father, who was an artist in the sixties, and he pointed out a painting to me. It was interesting, very garish and loud, but nothing that really impressed me. He said, "When we first saw that painting, you couldn't even look directly at it. It was something that nobody had ever done, and people literally fled the room to get away from it, it was so intense."

I've seen a dude bent over stretching his gaping asshole. If making people uneasy to the point of having to leave the room is what makes art worth $30 million then I'm going to submit goatse to the Louvre
 

guidop

Member
to those who defend this piece as art, what exactly do you like about it? at least, what message or feeling does it convey to you?

i don't see any evident technical merit whatsoever, but for those who do, what separates this painting from something i could do with my eyes closed? (and don't say "this guy did it first")

Basically no one will be a better painter then Da Vinci or Michelangelo. There were very strict rules that covered art what was right to paint what wasn't. Along comes the camera it captures the world better then an artist ever can, Manet paints The Luncheon on the Grass breaks the rules of perspective and decency. Wheels are set in motion, artists increasingly start to become more experimental, playing, asking questions, breaking down the process, etc. Abstract Expressionism is just a natural flow from that artists experimenting, creating something knew, pushing boundries

Is the world 100% real? does every detail need to be painted? How would you visualise being punched or stabbed or being in a car accident? How would you convey or evoke the feelings and emotions of being in a car accident visually? If I paint the car accident with 100% realism does the person use their imagination? how much involvement do they have in the piece? Do we see things with 100% detail? If you wanted to do a painting of or about genocide how would you go about?

Where is the technical merit in Van Gogh, Picasso? Most people could can gain the same level of skill in a year at art school and could do pretty good knock offs of both artists.
 

JCX

Member
I went to an art museum last week. I was critical at first, but there was some really cool stuff. The descriptions next to the art sounded like a grad school madlib, though.
 
And really, I've seen pieces that looked random and really they kind of were. Hand and footprints on the canvas, cigarette burns etc. But they still felt pretty wonderful upfront.
Did they feel wonderful because of an aesthetic response, a shared message, etc or because of implied/stated historicity and emotional space engineering by the gallery?
 
I so hate the "I could paint better than that" crap. No, you can't. You really can't. And if you did manage to make something that looked approximately like that painting, guess what? You're fifty years too late!

It's fine to not like art like this, or any art at all. But it has merit, particularly if you understand what impact it had at the time. I was at a museum once with my father, who was an artist in the sixties, and he pointed out a painting to me. It was interesting, very garish and loud, but nothing that really impressed me. He said, "When we first saw that painting, you couldn't even look directly at it. It was something that nobody had ever done, and people literally fled the room to get away from it, it was so intense."

Pollock dripped paint on a canvas with no thought nor skill; one can watch videos of him working and confirm this.

I don't give a shit how edgy a particular work of art was back in its day; such is not what art is about, in the long-term. A Doll's House was an edgy work in its time, but it's STILL a great play to this day. The painting in the OP, and most of AbEx more generally, is bad in a rather apparent way.

Edit: And this is about AbEx specifically, not abstract art more generally. Abstract art is fine, if the artist makes a good and interesting work. The "WELL IF IT'S SO EASY WHY DON'T YOU GO AND DO IT" crowd annoy me; the entire point of people speaking out against these types of works is that they're mediocrities that became popular due to dart-tossing and guesswork, not on the basis of any particular skill on the part of the artist. A person might find fame doing such, but the VAST majority will languish in obscurity, despite their works being qualitatively on par with the so-called "greats." I respect that certain AbEx works - say, Kandinsky - required technical skill to create, but there's nothing in them to keep a viewer coming back. If your work has basically infinite multiplicity, then it's basically meaningless, as well.

Double Edit: Comparing AbEx to the Rite of Spring is dumb. The Rite of Spring is rightly recognized as a great composition today, whereas 50 years later, AbEx is still a widely-ridiculed art form. And it's not because people are a bunch of unwashed philistines; it's because, in this case, the emperor really IS butt-naked.

Triple Edit: And the story itself has little to comment on; I appreciate the symbolism of the act, but barring legitimate political protest, you should never vandalize somebody else's property.
no matter how poor of a product it may be.
 

Levyne

Banned
I don't understand abstract paint.

I am not an artist or even an art lover, but to me I have to look at a painting and see something other than paint.

Unless..it was a painting ..of paint?

Something impressionistic (Monet) or expressionist (Scream painting), at least alter a painting of something.

But I'm not an art guy in the first place.
 
The reason abstract art became so valued is pretty much solely because art dealers convinced art critics, who were looking for ways to seem ground breaking, of the merits of the art so that they could sell the paintings at higher prices. That's the long and short of the history of the valuation of art.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom