Yellowism

[easty]

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

Is 2 years harsh for defacing a painting? I'm not arty at all. It seems harsh to me.

"yellowism" seems like a load of ***** though.

[heretoday]

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

Is 2 years harsh for defacing a painting? I'm not arty at all. It seems harsh to me.

"yellowism" seems like a load of ***** though.

He won't serve two years. Has he got a record? Yellowism seems a concept based on selfishness.

[jodjam]

Two years custard'ry seems fair to me

[CropleyWasGod]

Two years custard'ry seems fair to me

:agree: Just desserts.

[Jones28]

Maybe a trifle harsh?

[--------]

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

Is 2 years harsh for defacing a painting? I'm not arty at all. It seems harsh to me.

"yellowism" seems like a load of ***** though.


Defacing? How can anyone deface rubbish like that?

Rothko should be the one in jail.

"Falsely misrepresenting himself to be a artist."

[heretoday]

Defacing? How can anyone deface rubbish like that?

Rothko should be the one in jail.

"Falsely misrepresenting himself to be a artist."

If Rothko were alive he'd probably say No Publicity is Bad Publicity!

[--------]

If Rothko were alive he'd probably say No Publicity is Bad Publicity!


You mean he perpetrated all that garbage, then died so no one could wreak revenge?

I hope they painted him lime green and purple stripes before they buried him.

Just a con man. :cb

[NAE NOOKIE]

Calling vandalism art doesnt stop it being vandalism. But then if some squares on a canvas is art worth millions then perhaps vandalism can be art.

Or perhaps there are a lot of people out there for whome the story of The Kings new clothes is just a story and doesnt have a meaning:greengrin

[heretoday]

You mean he perpetrated all that garbage, then died so no one could wreak revenge?

I hope they painted him lime green and purple stripes before they buried him.

Just a con man. :cb

You really don't like Rothko at all, do you?

[--------]

You really don't like Rothko at all, do you?


Rembrandt was an artist. Monet was an artist. Caravaggio was an artist. Turner was an artist. Goya was an artist. Vermeer and Van Eyck were artists.

But someone who makes a career out of painting irregularly-sized squares and oblongs in various shades of YUK! on canvas, and whose work is then 'vandalised' by someone who justifies his 'vandalism' as 'art' by spouting some tripe about a 'pilosophy' of 'art' called 'Yellowism' (duh?) is a con-man.

And so is the guy who allegedly 'damaged' the original alleged 'works of art'.

http://theremainsoftheweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_lrm6brKauy1qb9cz3o1_1280.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mehxlhuCaJ1rl71fao4_1280.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_80M1foVDujM/TJLWflLiCsI/AAAAAAAACQA/gWgnxYR0jfY/s1600/rothko+untitled+1969.jpg

I rest my case. I wouldn't pay him to paint my kitchen. :cb

[lyonhibs]

Rembrandt was an artist. Monet was an artist. Caravaggio was an artist. Turner was an artist. Goya was an artist. Vermeer and Van Eyck were artists.

But someone who makes a career out of painting irregularly-sized squares and oblongs in various shades of YUK! on canvas, and whose work is then 'vandalised' by someone who justifies his 'vandalism' as 'art' by spouting some tripe about a 'pilosophy' of 'art' called 'Yellowism' (duh?) is a con-man.

And so is the guy who allegedly 'damaged' the original alleged 'works of art'.

http://theremainsoftheweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_lrm6brKauy1qb9cz3o1_1280.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mehxlhuCaJ1rl71fao4_1280.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_80M1foVDujM/TJLWflLiCsI/AAAAAAAACQA/gWgnxYR0jfY/s1600/rothko+untitled+1969.jpg

I rest my case. I wouldn't pay him to paint my kitchen. :cb

My key criteria for a painting, sculpture (or anything with "artistic" pretences) is to look at it and say "could I have done that".

If the answer is "no", as it most assuredly is with all the actual artists you mention, then that is art. If it's some ****y effort that looks like a scaled-up nursery school effort that inexplicably sells for millions as some absolute eejit is roped into believing it "truly reflects the futility of life" or "accurately represents the artists inner torment" or some other wishy washy pish, then it is not art.

[--------]

My key criteria for a painting, sculpture (or anything with "artistic" pretences) is to look at it and say "could I have done that".

If the answer is "no", as it most assuredly is with all the actual artists you mention, then that is art. If it's some ****y effort that looks like a scaled-up nursery school effort that inexplicably sells for millions as some absolute eejit is roped into believing it "truly reflects the futility of life" or "accurately represents the artists inner torment" or some other wishy washy pish, then it is not art.


:agree: There was an exhibition of Rembrandt's portraits of women in the Scottish National Gallery a few years ago. I had seen quite a few of the paintings second-hand - as prints, or in TV documentaries, and so on, but I just wasn't prepared for the impact of the actual paintings and drawings in that exhibition.

Those portraits were beyond words or even thought. There was nothing to say - but then if words could do the job, Rembrandt wouldn't have needed a paintbrush.

Confronted with a Rothko, words also fail me, but for the opposite reason. How DID he get away with it?

It's like "Finnegan's Wake" - literary critics discuss the "hidden meaning" of that "novel", but I personally think Joyce may well have been having a laugh, and getting his own back on all the critics who had bad-mouthed his writing over and over all through his life. Or Cage's "4 Minutes 33 Seconds" of silence. Or Beckett's "Breath", in which the curtain opens, no one appears on stage, nothing is said, and then 35 seconds later the curtains close - The End.

But whether there IS a deep meaning in those works in the context of the rest of the artist's life-work - which may be the case - or whether they're just having a bit of fun at he expense of the audience and critics, Joyce and Cage and Beckett had already proved that they could produce art (though I'm a bit doubtful about Cage, TBH). "Ulysses" and "Godot" and "Malone" fit the bill as art, IMHO.

Rothko doesn't seem to have been able to anything but produce boring squares and rectangles.

This maybe isn't "art" as the Rothko's of this world might recognise it, but there's a truth there .... :greengrin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPC8eGh5a8o

[wpj]

I have to admit to liking Rothko, a lot. I even have a poster up from a recent exhibition. As a frequent visitor to Tale Modern & Britain I can totally understand the love/hate reactions to art, I guess that is what the artist wants? There is a room in Tate (where the damaged painting was) that has a huge Rothko on each wall, the lighting is very subdued and I find it a very relaxing place to sit. The pieces were originally painted for a restaurant but ended up being donated by Rothko to Tate personally.
There is also http://www.rothkochapel.org/ which I would like to visit one day.

[--------]

I have to admit to liking Rothko, a lot. I even have a poster up from a recent exhibition. As a frequent visitor to Tale Modern & Britain I can totally understand the love/hate reactions to art, I guess that is what the artist wants? There is a room in Tate (where the damaged painting was) that has a huge Rothko on each wall, the lighting is very subdued and I find it a very relaxing place to sit. The pieces were originally painted for a restaurant but ended up being donated by Rothko to Tate personally.
There is also http://www.rothkochapel.org/ which I would like to visit one day.


You mean they look much better in the dark? :devil:


:wink:

[wpj]

You mean they look much better in the dark? :devil:


:wink:

Not unlike a few of us i'd wager :agree:

[--------]

Not unlike a few of us i'd wager :agree:


Ah well, ain't that the truth.