20080824

blundie blackout




Posterd via vim ut

8 kommentarer:

Anonym sa...

Frankenthaler bubblegum,
the Bay thwarted
bya wad such sticky,
one point five million
(remove the stain?)
that little red smile
& purply looksa
wickedy witchy,
wash-wash-wash
: important art.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'd fucking kill this punk if I worked at the museum...

"only 12 years old" yeah right, even a 4 year old can understand not to stick gum everywhere, let alone on a painting in a museum!

that?!?
you want to kill a 12 yr old boy for sticking gum on that?
what makes me angry is that this piece of shit costs $1.5mil!!

POUhahAHaah tha a good one, they should keep the mark on it, im sure it make it more "interesting".

He just made it more interesting. Goddamn abstract art that's ridiculously overpriced, it just gives a bad name to the art world.
I would be outraged if it was an old master painting and such, not this though.

When i read the title of it, I was like, I'm sure it was some abstract wannabee piece of craptastic art that got hung in a museum.
And behold, i was right! Of course that would make the news. I wonder if that little 12 year old kid was making a social commentary on overvalued modern art? I think he became my new champion in this society!
Seriously, 1.5 Million dollars for something that looks like a paper where she emptied her non used watercolors on top? Wow. Are we in the wrong business or what?

It's ironic that her stuff looks like the bland filler paintings you might find at cheap home decoration stores.
And also ironic is that the piece which was "defaced" looks like a big wad of gum. :D

we are all missing the point of what this kid was trying to do. He was striking a blow in the name of classical art against this facist practices of the modern art movment. This was no accident my friends.

art is art, but im having trouble with these kinds of works.
they dont appeal to me as an detailed beutyful enviroment in some space world would do. or a nekkid chick.

i just dont understand these paintings, and the buyers of them doesnt seem to be artists themselfs so what am i missing?
these looks like something a kid whould paint if given the instruments.

i apologize strongly before artists that make these kind of work.
but im just missing the whole picture i think.

how do they price these blurs of colors to 1 mill ? is it based on the artist or the description of the art?

i think its a kick in the teeth on many starving artists that struggles with the anatomy and structual design. lights and shadows. when all you have to do is paint some random colors on a canvas and call it art.

its like selling a tin can for a cent, and ppl go wtf?and then sell it for 1 million dollars and ppl go wow now thats art. such dept and romance, it just describes the whole industrial era of human kind or something.

im just dont get stuff like that. but im sure want to.
maybe im just to concept design to understand. need to figure out my artsy roots.

There seems to be a common agreement that the piece is not worth nearly that amount - let alone considered art.

Perhaps I can shed a different light on the situation. While I do agree and respect true technical brilliance I am able to accept art in its entirety in a different matter.

Art on a technical level is one thing.
Art in its true form (in my opinion) is all about intention and the actual manifestation of that intention in whatever medium.

Thats why I can see a blue box in the middle of a black canvas as art. It doesn't matter that anyone can duplicate it. The fact is, the person that sold it for 10s of thousands of dollars thought of it, created it and sold it. In that case you are paying for the intention and action upon that intention of the artist rather than the actual content of the art itself. There is a lot of power in intention followed by action - no matter how its end result is perceived.

Now does that blue box qualify as true art in the context of comparing it to something like a painting by JSSargent?

Thats an entirely different matter but even in that, the credibility of one statement doesn't invalidate the idea of another. Subjective and perceived art can co-exist with technical brilliance and mastery of art theories and techniques.

There are millions of people in this world that live a lifestyle surrounded by boundaries, paradigms, conformity and fear.

Fear to ask a new question and most importantly fear of providing an answer that would otherwise be unaccepted by the masses.

Sure there are thousands of talented people out there but I can guarantee that not every pro athlete was born that way.

It so easy to just wake up each morning, eat well, study the sport and practice it each and every day no matter what. If you did, you have a good chance at turning pro and putting yourself at the level of making millions to play a game.

It so easy to have the body and health of your dreams by just eating well and working out consistently. If you did, you could potentially have washboard abs and be able to run 3 miles in under 20 minutes.

Regardless of how easy something is in the context of comparing who CAN do something, the true beauty and admiration is in the person that DOES do something about it.

The point is - if you splatter orange paint on a blue background, market it, advertise it or just plain get lucky and sell it for tens of thousands of dollars then you deserve it. Is it worth it? Perhaps it is.

The person buying it is buying that intention. The artist intended to splatter paint. The artist thought of it, did something about it and moved on from there. It doesn't matter if the 8yr old next door could also do it. He didn't do it. In that case, the splattered painting is the god of all splatter paintings like it. Creating it on your own just to show how easy it is to duplicate is doing just that...you are copying it.

You are taking an idea that you may have already had OR perhaps figured is a very easy idea to think of and forgetting about the fact that you lacked the intention of doing anything about it because in your eyes - "It wasn't art - so what would be the point."

In my world, brilliance in a persons mind or brilliance that very few get to share in is not worth nearly as much as simplicity and creativity that a 4yr old can duplicate that was intended to be shared with another.

In that case, and in the case of the museum buying the painting - they are sharing in that persons ideas and entire effort and follow through of that idea.

That is power.

Would I pay 1.5 million for it? No, I wouldn't but I still appreciate what was done.

Achieving success or in this case, achieving millions for a persons artwork does take luck of course (right place at the right time) - but achieving success in general is not as difficult as everyone makes it out to seem.

We all believe it takes some magical formula or immense amount of skill. It only takes a thought - the drive to follow through with that thought and the intention to succeed behind it all.

A tall person that throws balls at a hoop all day and jumps around everywhere can make it to the NBA.

There are many tall people. The part of throwing balls at a hoop and jumping around is relatively easy for most people. Why then, isn't every tall person in the NBA..

get my point. Just my 2cents, not right wrong or otherwise - just a different perspective on things.

Gum should be banned. It is everywhere! Under tables, on the streets (an amazing amount too, who spits out all this chewing gum? Is it a part of the street-making process to put a layer of pre-chewed gum on top of it?) and anywhere else you´d like to check. If they find atlantis you can bet your ass that there will be a big white splotch on the front gates and some grafiti like "Haldor waz heer!"

BTW, don't those paintings have some kind of motion-sensing alarm that goes off if you get too close to them? I used to visit the Cleveland Museum of Art and some displays couldn't be approached too closely because of the alarms, and there were guards everywhere to ensure that nobody touched anything they weren't supposed to.

They were pretty anal about it, too--as in the case of some kinetic sculptures in their outdoor garden area, the kind you touch and they move in odd ways. Those had signs on them saying "Do Not Touch"! WTF? They're supposed to be touched! They're kinetic sculptures!

I'd like to become a painter just so i can make an exibit, then walk in right in front of everyone and stick some blue or green gum in my own painting "oh, i forgot to finish it", then just walk away. It'd have to be a painting i'd do just for that though.

dude...they better be lying that the painting is worth 1.5 million, that's just bullshit. A retard could paint that...
this is just rediculous, hilariously rediculous.
damn, i gotta go check this out, ! live 30 minutes away from this museum.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Boy sticks gum on $1.5m painting

The Bay by Helen Frankenthaler.

The Bay has hung in Detroit since 1965. Photo: Detroit Institute of Arts

An abstract painting worth an estimated $1.5m (£850,000) is in need of repair after a 12-year-old boy stuck a piece of chewing gum on the canvas.

The gum left a small stain in a corner of The Bay, a 1963 painting by American artist Helen Frankenthaler.

The boy, who visited the Detroit Institute of Arts with a school group, has now been suspended by teachers.

Curators at the museum said they were researching how to remove the stain, but expected no permanent damage.

Frankenthaler is regarded as one of the most influential second generation US abstract expressionist painters.

The Bay, one of her most celebrated works, is thought to be one of the most valuable paintings in the museum's collection.

Rock, rap and art

The director of the Holly Academy, where the boy goes to school, confirmed that the pupil had been suspended for his actions.

"Even though we give very strict guidelines on proper behaviour and we hold students to high standards, he is only 12," Julie Kildee said.


HELEN FRANKENTHALER
Born 1928
Abstract work concerned with nature
Influenced by Jackson Pollock
Most famous work is Mountains and Sea (1952)
The Bay completed 1963
Bought by Detroit Institute of Arts 1965

"I don't think he understood the ramifications of what he did before it happened, but he certainly understands the severity of it now."

His parents had also taken disciplinary action, Ms Kildee said.

A security guard spotted the gum on the corner of the painting after the group of schoolchildren had left the display room.

Staff moved quickly to remove the gum, which had not stuck firmly to the canvas. It did leave a small stain, which curators expect to remove in the near future.

Becky Hart, assistant curator of contemporary art at the museum, said she had tried to explain to the boy how the museum helped preserve works of art.

"I knew that probably wouldn't make any sense to him, so I asked him what kind of music he liked," Ms Hart told the Detroit Free Press.

"He said he liked rap, so I said: 'Well, you know what rock and roll is,' and he did.

"So I said: 'Can you imagine if somebody had messed up the beat in rock and roll so you didn't have any rhythm in rap.' And he looked at me, and he got it immediately."

The painting will be kept on display while repairs are carried out, but the museum is to review its display policies.

____________________________________________

24 august, 2008 13:54
mike di tomasso sa...

cillowhett

24 august, 2008 14:40
troylloyd sa...

curves, interrupt'd

24 august, 2008 15:28
troylloyd sa...

bubblegummy
expressionist

24 august, 2008 15:29
gary barwin sa...

Lovely piece of blondie blackoutifcation. It remeinds of those pieces of Garfield where --was it Garfield & his comments were removed from the stips, creating these amazing existential koans of modern life. Dagwood and Blondie seem to been under some grim 20ieth cloud of ontological darkness here, but yet foregrounding their relationship, their in-this-togetherness, which, I guess is the deeper point of the strip.

Again, great series of pieces.

24 august, 2008 17:21
troylloyd sa...

thanx for commmenting Gary.

i love the daily b&w
funnypages.

i'm still upset that
the Gilchrist bros.
have destroy'd Nancy
: (

they simply don't
understand where
Bushmiller was
coming from --

just think how
great it'd be if
Mark Newgarden

or Ivan Brunetti

or Kaz

got to draw Nancy?

yes, i'm a nancyboy.

more Nancy =

http://docphlogiston.tripod.com/nancy.html
Nancy Cut-Ups


http://www.teachingcomics.org/syllabi/nancy.pdf
How to read Nancy (pdf)

- - - - - - - - - - -

(to reflect the times,
Dagwood should get
the pinkslip
& become a
sandwich maker
at the subshop)

24 august, 2008 18:30
ArtSparker sa...

911=Dagwood & Blondie lose their innocence.

See Krazy Kat for Komic prescience.

01 september, 2008 13:56
troylloyd sa...

hey hey Susan,

thanx for taking the time to commment.

yeas, Krazy Kat is the alltimes greatest funnypaper strip, i love how Geo. Herriman used language as a major element in the work also, but back then pretty much alltha strips hadda dialect thing goin' on,

my funnypage totem is Happy Hooligan.

i almost call'd this blog
" brix ignatz "

: )

01 september, 2008 19:58

Legg inn en kommentar

Abonner på: Legg inn kommentarer (Atom)