Vandalism in Houston
Photo courtesy of Wikipedia
I was watching the news the other day and they showed a story of a man vandalizing Picasso's 'Woman in a Red Armchair'. The man was caught on camera by another person in the museum using his cellphone. The vandal told the man who recorded the video that he was an "up-and-coming artist, who wanted to honor Picasso." I personally would be furious if someone did this to my artwork, and I would not feel honored at all.
This is a link to the news story, and it includes the video.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/entertainment&id=8706970
Hannah Comeau (Art 5)
11 comments:
The true question is that if it's truly vandalism or is it a tribute. Without question, to me, it is obviously vandalism. It is as if the man defaced history.
But why would he deface that certain photo? There are many other photos in the museum so it could have been anything else.
In other words, he would be honored if someone vandalized his artwork. I'd hate to think he's merely a hypocrite.
I heard about that too. There were many other ways he could have honored Picasso.
You don't deface someone's work to honor them. He could have made a tribute piece instead. He's just an artist trying to get some attention, but there are better ways to get attention then ruining Picasso's work.
I agree. The man clearly defaced the work in order to get attention for his own work and name. In Art 5, we learned of an artist named James Abbott McNeill Whistler, who sued art critic John Ruskin. Ruskin critiqued Whistler's "Nocturne in Black and Gold, The Falling Rocket", and soon after, went to trial. Whistler won the case because Ruskin libeled him. Whistler won more than just money, we won fame. His name was promoted to the public since no artist has ever sued an art critic. This case was pure self-promotion. The vandalism in Houston could very well be another.
I agree, vandalising someone else's art workis not hornoring but the opposite. Vandalising another artist's work is disrespectful, and takes away from what Picasso gave to the world.
-Kory Salvador
Agreed, i dont see how vandalizing someone's artwork can be seen as honoring someone's work. He seems to be a hypocrite.
-Heywood Yee
This guy was extremely stupid by ruining the artwork. How is he going to say that he is honoring him by vandalizing the piece. If he honored his work so much he wouldnt want to change that piece of work. I agree he could have done several other things to honor him. He just did this for publicity most likely.
I am not sure that this is indeed vandalism as he is prety much ruining this art piece. This goes back to the thought that art can be anything that an individual makes of it, but there are exceptions to this idea, you cannot deface someone elses work, epsecially a Picasso and feel your doing it justice, it's actually disrespectful. He could have just did somthing on his on and dedicated it to Picasso as he probably was heavily influenced by Picassos art works.
Regardless of his intentions, he doesn't have the right to touch or do what he wishes with someone else's property.
He doesn't have the right to touch someone's art work because the art work is not his to touch.
Zandra Crowell Art 3
12/2/12
Post a Comment