Leave a comment

Comments 3

doctor_xaos March 3 2006, 23:49:08 UTC
Apparently he didn't get it. Now the question is - how come this painting costs 1.5 million? I'm going to wikipedia now to check if there's anything there, but I'm not through with this.

Reply


doctor_xaos March 4 2006, 00:00:22 UTC
Better than I thought, there's a picture in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4767888.stm
Still, I deeply disagree with pricing of modern art.

By the way the bbc article has some intersting details, highlighting the idiocy of the whole thing, like:

Becky Hart, assistant curator of contemporary art at the museum, said she had tried to explain to the boy how the museum helped preserve works of art.
"I knew that probably wouldn't make any sense to him, so I asked him what kind of music he liked," Ms Hart told the Detroit Free Press.
"He said he liked rap, so I said: 'Well, you know what rock and roll is,' and he did.
"So I said: 'Can you imagine if somebody had messed up the beat in rock and roll so you didn't have any rhythm in rap.' And he looked at me, and he got it immediately."

Reply

ksenija March 4 2006, 05:11:12 UTC
Yahoo article is more tasteful: I think they view the act itself as a continuation of the painters artistic statement: notice how they specified the brand of the gum "Wrigley's Extra Polar Ice gum"- it's like "Acrylic on Canvas, 94 x 53 cm", same style...

The other interesting point is how the Curator, Becky Hart is becoming famous. It made me think of Masha Chlenova naturally.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up