Modern Art

Why the fuss?
It's just art on top of art. It' more interesting now then it was. Palimpsest of art.

Would Rothko have considered it damage? Would he have cared? It's only 'criminal damage' because its now an object of high financial value, rather than an object of art. I'm more disappointed that it's primary purpose has changed than by the guy's vandalism.

Yes Rothko would have cared - definitely. So do I as it happens. They guy's a self serving bell.

2 years though. Oof.