Modern Art

Yup, kind of the anti-Bosch of the animal world.

Not too sure if this will prove fruitful, but can't remember the name of an certain artist, and it's frustrating.

The series I remember was a diptych, which used appropriation of text on one side and photography on the other.
The text was of lonely heart ads placed in newspapers and the photography was of chairs ranging from flashy designer ones to half broken skip finds.

Ring any bells?
I remember seeing it at the Tate, so they've got to be half established.

On a similar note, can anyone remember the name of the turner prize nominated photographer who set up a series of makeshift cameras in washing machines in a laundrette, which resulted in a sequence of photos (seem to remember he let a horse loose in the laundrettes at one point too)?

Found it: Steven Pippin - Laundromat Locomotion

petermiller.info - The Letter

https://vimeo.com/9295501#

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20444436

2 years.

^What an amazing cunt. It is incredible the level of self importance some people can attain, when they have achieved nothing in their life of any worth whatsoever, nor had a single interesting idea.

Speaking about "yellowism", Judge Chapple said it was "wholly and utterly unacceptable to promote it by damaging a work of art" which he called a "gift to the nation".

He said it was "abundantly clear" that Umaniec was "plainly an intelligent man" and told the court he had described Rothko as a "great painter" in a letter he had written to him.

Either Judge Chapple isn't an 'intelligent man' or there is an inherent contradiction in what he says about Mr Umaniec, who, by the way, is of course George Michael.

2 years!!!
That's fucked up. Wonder how much time he'll serve.
Can't be a first offence can it?
Messed up sentencing in the UK.

6 months. Ruling gets over thrown. Vandalism reinstated. Worth more than Bansky.

Nahht.

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.

The guy's a dick and he fucked up an important painting but getting two years for being a bit of an idiot is a joke.
So fucking stupid.

@ Chung

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.

Founder of Yellowism explains concept of Yellowism.

Quoted from here: http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/831942/wtf-is-yellowism-a-guide-to-the-obscure-movement-behind-the

“Yellowism is not art, and Yellowism isn't anti-art, it's an element of contemporary visual culture. It's not an artistic movement. It's not art, it's not reality, it's just Yellowism. The main difference between Yellowism and art is that in art you have got freedom of interpretation, in Yellowism you don't have freedom of interpretation, everything is about Yellowism, that's it.”

I don't get it.

^ yellowist

Ha...Touche.

Still don't get it.

Founder of Yellowism explains concept of Yellowism.

Quoted from here: http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/831942/wtf-is-yellowism-a-guide-to-the-obscure-movement-behind-the

“Yellowism is not art, and Yellowism isn't anti-art, it's an element of contemporary visual culture. It's not an artistic movement. It's not art, it's not reality, it's just Yellowism. The main difference between Yellowism and art is that in art you have got freedom of interpretation, in Yellowism you don't have freedom of interpretation, everything is about Yellowism, that's it.”

I don't get it.

It all boils down to this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MwjX4dG72s"]Coldplay
- Yellow - YouTube[/ame]

Boiled piss, essentially.

^
Now I get it....You're a true artist.

There's nothing to get about it. It doesn't take a psychoanalyst to figure out the destructive steak of defacing other work is aimed entirely at his dissatisfaction with his own head full of zeroes. He can't paint, he wishes he could, so he shouts and stamps his feet about it. He's also deeply in love with Rothko's mother.

That manifesto thing isn't even halfway towards being half-hearted. Pure hot air.

That's what Oliver Schick said.

Really? I never read his posts.

^^^

Agreed btw... fatuous behavior

Is anyone here a painter, btw?

I have a few meters of quality linen to sell.

Chris Ofili, lovely bloke but hardly ever did the washing up. Although he did used to bring back huge bags of broken biscuits from the biscuit factory his Mum worked at up in Manchester whenever he went to go and visit his family and then come back to the flat.

Once helped him build a bike and in fact he crashed one of his bikes (not one that I built) and ended up in hospital for a few days with a smacked up jaw and nose. The front wheel collapsed when he hit a pot hole.

Lovely guy. Wish I was still in touch with him but lost contact after he moved to Trinidad.

Chelsea School of Art those were the days - crazy days.