Modern Art

It is about cultural capital and not financial capital: As part of the original acquisition agreement, the Tate are contractually obliged never to sell the Rothkos anyway.

As for them being "more interesting now", you will find educated / considered opinion stacked heavily in favour of the opposite view... And given the notoriously pedantic instructions given by Rothko at the time of the acquisition, concerning the hang / lighting / wall colour / context, etc, I imagine he would care a great deal. Either way, as Rothko's dead now, it's up to Serota and the Tate trustees to decide if this is worth caring about.

Would you like Mr Umaniec to tattoo something on your forehead whilst you were asleep? Or might you think you're face was fine without it?
Especially if your face also happened to be one of the most highly regarded and popular artworks of the last century. Which it isn't, of course.

Thanks for the reply. There's a decent amount of information in there that I didn't know, so thanks. As you can probably tell, I'm not an art buff, or "educated/considered" concerning modern art in any way.

I'm not fussed about 'educated/considered' opinion so much. Tate is a body publicly funded by DMCS, and it serves principally as a host of art for the public. I would say it's primary purpose is to be publicly accessible. I'd definitely say it's more interesting to the public now, and definitely more interesting as a whole. It's deserved audience isn't just the educated/considered, it's everyone who paid for it. How many lay people like me gave much of an arse about the painting even if it is a Rothko. I'm fairly confident it's garnered a lot more interest now that it's been 'vandalised' than it did beforehand. I'm not saying that the Tate exists purely to get as many people as possible through its doors, but I stand by my point that it is "more interesting now".

Fair point about Rothko's instructions. Didn't know, and it's interesting.

Thought you made some fair points until you mentioned a tattoo on my face. That would be a question of assault leading to bodily harm and not a question of vandalism. Incomparable and silly.