Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Mistaking modern art for what it truly is

Discussion in 'Jokes and Humour' started by Ljiljan, Nov 17, 2011.

  1. http://news.sky.com/home/strange-news/article/16103163


    A German museum is counting the cost after a cleaning woman mistook a valuable sculpture for an unsightly mess - and damaged it beyond repair.

    The Martin Kippenberger installation entitled When It Starts Dripping From the Ceiling was on display at the Ostwall Museum in Dortmund.

    The late modern master had created a tower of wooden slats under which a rubber trough was placed with a thin beige layer of paint representing dried rain water.

    Taking it for a stain, the cleaner scrubbed the surface until it gleamed.

    "It is now impossible to return it to its original state," a city spokesman said.

    She said the work, valued by insurers at 800,000 euros (£690,000), had been loaned to the museum by a private collector.

    Cleaning crews had orders to keep 20cm (8ins) away from artworks but it was unclear if the woman had been informed of this by the contractor that employed her.

    It is not the first time works of art have suffered at the hands of over-zealous cleaners.

    In 1986, a 'grease stain' by Joseph Beuys valued at around £346,000 was mopped away at the Academy of Fine Arts in Dusseldorf, western Germany.
  2. [shrug] Oh well, life wins again ...
  3. I'm fairly certain I could build the same thing for much less than £690,000
  4. Collect crap.



    1 x art please.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. My shed has gotta be worth billions.
  6. Last time I went to the Museum of Modern Art there was a chair with pubic hair on it. Apparently, it was considered a statement of our times. I considered it an issue that would have been fixed with pants!
    • Like Like x 1
  7. My girlfriend's best friend and room mate were in the same class together at cofa and had an assessment at bondi beach in first year. The room mate is no slouch and works hard but the best friend is just a natural. The task was to make a piece using whatever props they brought and the sand. The room mate spent hours slaving away on this work she was doing and earned a hideous sunburn. The best friend spent an hour the day before collecting some powerade/gatorade, mount franklin and pump bottles. Spent ten minutes arranging them on her patch of sand and called it blue bottles, let the markers fantasise about their own wishful philosophy. Was all just imagination. She came first in that task. Since then she's switched to psych and more than likely going to pick up the university medal for that. She's just that kind of person.
  8. I sent this link to my partner who is a curator in a Sydney Gallery.

    She told me at her current gallery (before she worked there) they were sent a Christo work for an exhibition. For those that don't' know Christo, he is famous for wrapping up big stuff, like Islands:


    Anyway he's done smaller works as well

    When this particular work got to the gallery apparently one of the technicians, thinking they were doing the right thing, unwrapped it.
  9. How dumb would the cleaner have to be to think that there would be a spill in the bottom of something that's in a sealed room, and then persist to rub off the paint?!
  10. This one is interesting, and in some ways explains the problem. Beuys based a lot of his work (some of it more understandable) on his experiences during WW2. It only takes a little bit of imagination to get the link between a grease puddle and that era, but without that information it would be meaningless to the viewer.
    The viewer is expected to do some research with a lot of this stuff. You can consider it arrogance, or you can take it as a challenge to learn more.

    Of course, some of it is simply without value. And some of it isn't intended to survive for long.
  11. #12 ad91on, Nov 18, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    Art for arts sake...

    I love art, but i often mock stupid things (for example, a puddle on a workbench) by calling them "art". Such is the often farcical nature of art these days[URL="] (youtube - interior semiotics)[/URL]

    In the interests of good taste, i won't embed the video...
  12. #13 devochka, Nov 18, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    My friend did art at Sydney Uni and I went to their uni showcase day.... There was a cat poo covered in gold glitter. No joke.
  13. G'day everyone,...

    What can pass as art these days can be insulting to one intelligence.

    Dr Who?
  14. I once spraypainted a piece of dog shi*t in the backyard.

    If only I had known it'd be worth a few euros
  15. In every age the art of the era is swamped with rubbish. Look back at it in a decent number of years and you see only the good and great stuff - teh rest has been binned - and you come to see the creativity of the time as valuable; but stand in the middle of any era and you're awash in mediocre imitatory rubbish. It's true of high art, pop music, pretty much anything.

    Of course the point of really good art is that it speaks to its people in their own time, and there's plenty of good modern / contemporary / abstract art that does that. But speaking to people does not mean, as many people assume today (about art, philosophy, etc, with some badly thought-out fallacy that cries "pretension!"), that it can be understood by just any lazy slob who happens to wander past. Titus is on the money, and his point holds true of most art, actually. The pretty Renaissance art that every tourist goes to see requires a lot of knowledge to really 'read' it, and perhaps more than that if it's expressing something profoundly human or religious.

    Still, what are the boundaries of Kippenberger's piece? With regard to time, and agency? Are such assumptions of individual and authorial unity now interrogated? Who is now the author of this piece? And how do we interpret the cleaner's act, which is to say what is now the statement of the piece (and how can we assert the finality of that statement, and so even define it - is hers the final act)? What is dripping from the ceiling? Does she represent modern sanitising ignorance? The nanny state that we all bleat about, washing out the stain of life? But the stain was "beige".... Was hers the act of ignorant vitality in a world dripping with abstract alienation from everyday vulnerability? Give me money bitches.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. scrap nailed together, you just need the right buyer and a con-artist as an agent..
  17. Maybe the cat's name was Gary.
  18. Nah, I've taken a glance while buckling the belt, and I've noticed that that's what happens to shit when the sun shines out of your arse.
  19. Ooh, ohh, so art (and philosophy etc) are beyond the ken of the poor ignorant proles? And only those who possess the knowledge necessary for the 'correct' interpretation can witness the transformation of said pile of rubbish into art? And the ignorant are the pretentious ones?

    While a lot of knowledge is required to recognise the references in renaissance art, even without these you can still recognise the skill in execution and the beauty of the work.

    Taking another tact, the Venus of Willendorf dates to about 24000BCE. We have no knowledge of its purpose or significance. So without any context, is it just a lump of carved stone?