![]() |
'The Scream' Stolen At Gunpoint
"The Scream was stolen today"
Quote:
|
I agree, especially since this is the 2nd time the Scream has been stolen
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hope it ends up with a happy ending... |
*alert* Backwards country *alert*
|
^ I don't know how you jump to that conclusion...
Anyways..I hope it shows up, I've always liked this painting. |
Quote:
Kingdom of Norway infant mortality rate: 3.7/1000; life expectancy: 79.3; density per sq mi: 37 Literacy rate: 100% (2003 est.) Unemployment: 4.5%. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108121.html The United States of America infant mortality rate: 6.7/ 1000 life expectancy: 77.4 density per sq mi: 79.6 Literacy rate: 97% (1979 est.) Unemployment: 6.2% feel like backing up your claim? |
That's pretty wild.
I'm of the opinion that so-called "masterpieces" should be destroyed. They do nothing but oppress us and blind us to the significance of the rest of our experience. The problem is how we enshrine and blindly worship them because a cabal of "art historians" has deemed them "masterpieces." |
ARTelevision,
I agree. They should be burned and the ashes dumped in the ocean. But you'll always have these yuppie sons of bitches who want to preserve the past/ |
If they never find it I'll paint another one.
|
speaking as someone who knows sweet fa about art, i didn't like The Scream so i don't care :)
i'm sure they'll get it back though |
They can always go to Art.com and get a replacement for the low low price of 20.99 -- there's a sale going on too...
The Scream |
I think a good point was raised that people want to enjoy a museum, not feel like they're in a military compound. Also, using stronger securing mechanisms would likely result in the artwork being damaged. Given that the pieces are too notorious to sell on the market, and that the past has demonstrated the artwork will be returned after a ransom is demanded, the security level seems appropriate.
|
That just chaps my ass!
|
Maybe they should attach homing devices on all their paintings so they can track them down when they get stolen. But, robbing paintings at gun point... that's just odd.
|
Quote:
What next? Start burning books? I'm not trying to start an argument, but I'm stunned that you should say such a thing. Mr Mephisto |
Yes. That's my opinion.
I understand that it is iconoclastic. Our experience and how we recreate it in the present is what is of value to me. The existence of masterpieces or "great art" is a conspiracy of art historians. The canonization of so-called "masterpieces" is a lie that is foisted upon us. I am conversant with the notions that stand in opposition to my position. They are the predominant ideas of culture. I understand that my opinion is not the be all and end all of experience. You will not have to worry about anything changing because of my opinion. I simply refuse to salute along with the rest of the promulgators, creators, and sustainers of high culture. In my opinion, the emperor of art has no clothes. |
Oh, I forgot to comment on the "burning books" idea.
No. I do not advocate anyone destroy masterpieces except the artists who are responsible for them. I would require that my art be destroyed after my death, as it has no further value. I would suggest other artists require the same. I would encourage the demystification of particular artists and works of art and the destruction of the idolatry associated with "greatness" as there is no such thing and the idea that there is is elitist nonsense. This destruction of masterpieces I advocate is conceptual - except for their actual destruction by the artists responsible for them as I described above. The rest of us should engage in the destruction of the ideas associated with propping up the baggage of cultural elitism as epitomized in the "masterpiece". |
GUNPOINT! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIEEEEEEEE!!
i can't believe nobody said that yet. |
Quote:
|
verminous--you said something about norway being a backwards country. i guess he was just trying to set you straight on the matter. i hope that clears things up for you.
|
in defense of verminous--it appears verminous is from england, not the USA, and probably thinks the US is a backwards country too. who knows, maybe he thinks england is a backwards country for that matter. hard to say if he doesn't say anything though.
|
Gah! While I'm not of ART's opinion, as I think previous artworks are capable of guiding and inspiring future masterpieces, there is a precedent set in sandpainting.
|
I am completely appalled by Art's statements but I don't want to get into a flame-war. All I'm going to say is that art is something that has value and mantains it's value forever. How can you say that when an artist is dead, the art retains no value? No, I have not been brainwashed. But I am in awe when I go to the Metropolitan museum of art or some other musuem. I love art. It is appealing to the eye, it can be expressive and deep and tell a story and believe it or not, there is a ton of skill and knowledge that goes into a great painting/sculpture. Additionally, in many ways, the values of a culture find their way into art, making them valuable for future generations to read into and learn from them.
Please don't stand there and tell me that someone like Leonardo Da Vinci should have all his work destroyed. Don't tell me that the only value to his work is a conspiracy. I don't know what to say but I doubt it's any use trying to argue or rationalize with you about this...so I'm just going to say that I disagree. ...As for the topic at hand. It's the museum's fault. What kind of idiot puts priceless artwork into a museum with absolutely no security and expects everything to remain fine and dandy? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
the two versions of The Scream
http://205.126.22.50/art/terms/largeprints/scream.jpg http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~erickyo/scream.jpg |
This is gonna add a couple of million to its market value i reckon. Makes me wonder a couple of things:
1. Do they get any kind of insurance payout from theft/damage caused while in the state of being thieved? 2. Is it gonna turn up on ebay? |
lol
apparently one of the last guys who stole a "the scream" put an ad in the paper about his new baby boy coming into the world "with a scream" ... they caught them after 3 months or so BBC radio said there were 4 versions of The Scream in total mind |
Trisk, I understand your position. It is the dominant cultural belief. It seems to me that considering positions other than one's own - especially if one's own is the most commonly held one - has some value.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I can see where Art is coming from on this but don't completely agree with him... I have always been bothered by the reification and commodification of certain art and artists. Why one work is cannonized above another, why we focus on the purchase price rather than the historical context and inherent beauty of a piece... Our experience of art is typically one of worship, where we substitute holy pilgrimage for a tour book and pre-recorded museum walk through.
A few years back I may have called for the destruction of all art that isn't in the now but upon sober reflection, art serves as a reflection of a time gone by... of one artist's impression of what was once immediate and is now the past... it can speak to universal conditions (love, fear, triumph, sickness, etc.). As a piece of film, music or literature can entertain, elevate and transport us, so too can other forms of art. The difference is in the unique form in which paintings and sculpture take (hell look at what having two versions of the scream has done to assayers). If anything the mass printing of famous works, while further cementing the comodification of art has a least done some levelling. Now anyone can have a Da Vinci or a Van Gogh on their wall. To me the key is cracking the cabal of art historians and collectors that Art speaks of... to find and preserve the art that is lost because it wasn't deemed a "masterpiece". The next time you visit a gallery... do yourself a favour and skip the guidebook... don't read the curator's comments on the wall... just look at the art and find something for yourself... the way an artist has captured an expression or the odd inclusion of a vase of flowers in the background... |
I had the opportunity to become friends with Tony Shafrazi because he became the dealer for my friend Keith Haring. He was involved in an action with Picasso's Guernica. See the text below. It has information relevant to the theme of 'destroy all masterpieces.'
"'For me, an image is the sum of destructions' pablo picasso An enraged man sprayed the words 'Kill Lies All' on Picasso's painting Guernica in the Museum of Modern Art yesterday. He was seized immediately and the red-paint lettering was removed from the masterpiece, leaving no damage. The vandal, who shouted that he was an artist, was identified as Tony Shafrazi. As stunned visitors looked on helplessly in the third-ßoor gallery where the huge antiwar painting hangs, the man drew a can of spray paint from his pocket and scrawled the three words in foot-high letters across the gray, black and white masterwork. 'We couldn't move; we were all stunned,' said Gregory Losapio, 16 years old, who was in the museum with his Scarsdale High School class. 'A man started to move toward the guy when he turned around, cursed and said: I'm an artist,' the student said. Mr. Shafrazi was taken to the West 54th Street station house and was charged with criminal mischief. 'I'm an artist and I wanted to tell the truth,' he said. Originally the museum hoped to keep the vandalism secret, because, according to Elisabeth Shaw, the museum's press spokesman: 'Museums are always afraid that this kind of publicity may encourage other acts of vandalism.' Source: The New York Times, March 1, 1974 Tony Shafrazi is now a well-known art dealer in New York. In December 1980, he said in an interview in Art in America: 'I wanted to bring the art absolutely up to date, to retrieve it from art history and give it life. Maybe that's why the Guernica action remains so difficult to deal with. I tried to trespass beyond that invisible barrier that no one is allowed to cross; I wanted to dwell within the act of the painting's creation, get involved with the making of the work, put my hand within it and by that act encourage the individual viewer to challenge it, deal with it and thus see it in its dynamic raw state as it was being made, not as a piece of history.' In an art historical context, Shafrazi's conduct is regarded as vandalism. But how would Picasso have viewed the matterhe who himself painted over a Modigliani? Picasso's remarks are more in tune with Shafrazi's ideas than with what museums stand for: 'Ultimately, what is important about a picture is the legend it has created, not whether it is preserved or not,' and 'Everything I have done has been for thepresent, in the hope that it will forever remain in the present.' By turning Picasso's Guernica into a masterpiece, the museum helps to make the picture historic, thereby rendering it invisible in the present. http://www.art.a.se/artvandals/03.html There is an iconoclastic aspect to some art - perhaps much art, perhaps all art. There is a counter-tradition to the dominant mode of embalming the work of a tiny minority of artists in museological settings. For further reading on this subject, see Antonin Artaud's "No More Masterpieces" from "The Theater and it's Double" A Google search of "no more masterpieces" is also worthwile. |
Unfortunately, this loss of context is prevalent in most forms of art... To me it is often a problem of time... We in 2004 are not in the same headspace as Picasso was when he painted Guernica... those who don't know their history cannot understand the horror of Guernica as portrayed in the painting... it is too abstract. This is not helped by the fact that mainstreams galleries tend to down play the politics in most art.
It reminds me of a few years ago when I was dragged to see Les Miserables... At about the half way point in the musical it suddenly came crashing home that I was watching a Victor Hugo novel... a story about the Paris commune and its radical attempt to rethink the politics of the day... All around me were scores of middle and upper middle class people in their suits and ties and various fineries... all of them thoroughly wrapped up in a song urging everyone to "join our crusade". Cheering on Jean Valjean and company in their revolt... a revolt that would be against everything that the vast majority of those in the audience would find, well, revolting. The irony rung in my head like a giant bell. |
<Threadjack>If guns are banned, then only art thieves will have guns!</Threadjack>
I have to disagree with ART. We would lose a significant connection with our past if paintings were destroyed upon the death of the artist, or modern painters were allowed to "update" older works with spray paint. Although the art world in general confounds me (it seems like nearly anything can be declared significant or artistic), I believe it has value. To allow temporary modern ideas to permanentaly scar or destroy a masterpiece that has stood the test of time reduces that value significantly. Mr. Shafrazi is well within his right to see the painting in some kind of "dynamic raw state," but much of the populace would prefer the original work not be modified to suit the whims of an individual. Masterpieces are property of humanity as a whole, and should be preserved as such. |
Quote:
Art should be a flow between the audience, the text, and to some extent the artist. To me, art ceases to be the artist's when he or she releases it into the world... at that point, the meaning of the work is strictly in the eye (and more importantly experience) of the beholder. |
not so long ago, visual arts were unreproducible, and therefore the products of artists were unique one-of-a-kind objects. art curators were perfectly justified in ensuring that original copies of were were perfectly maintaned and highly valued. nowdays, it's much easier to get a print or reproduction (of paint on canvas, not necessarily of sculpture) and we can study art books and enjoy thousands of paintings from our living room couches. i see no reason to destroy art any more than i see any reason to not play a bach fugue. old art can still be appreciated and enjoyed by new eyes. a worship cult growing from an influential artist is not a bad thing--i would not be able to play jazz piano right now if i didn't have all my CDs of masters. the unduly strong emphasis placed in visual arts on originals vs. reproductions is, i think, an historical artifact that will diminish as reproductions, both on print and on canvas, become better and better. nothing to worry about--as is normal, it takes a little while for technology to become entrenched.
|
one more point--the originals in visual arts are more important than in other arts. Let's say you have a new bach fugue, hot off the press. every couple of decades, as the paper got old, you rewrote the fugue on new paper and destroyed the old copy. if you were careful, the boston philharmonic would still be able to play the piece exactly as written by bach.
if you were to take the mona lisa, hire an artist to reproduce it exactly every couple of decades, and then destroy the old copy, where would you be? that's why originals in the visual arts are more esteemed than originals in other media. |
While I understand (and disagree with) Art's stance about masterpieces being dictated by art historians, and overshadowing other kinds of beauty and expression, I think the suggested solution of destroying art is dangerously nihilistic.
Putting all the aesthetic value aside, art, just like literature, preserves knowledge. You might not agree that this is a knowledge worth preserving, but destroying knowledge is a horrendous practice. Don't you agree? Having your creations destroyed after death does not agree with human evolution as I see it, either. If not for the benefit of humanity in general, is it not my purpose, as a parent, to become the next stepping stone for my children to walk on, on the way to advancement? By destroying my creations, I would deprive them of the inherent knowledge it contained. As for "The Scream" being stolen, I am sure it will get recovered. There's alot of money to toss around in the effort. I just hope the thieves don't do anything stupid, like burning it. |
Quote:
Consider ART's approach though. If the work in question is destroyed or defaced, the audience will never be able to achieve that flow or connection. |
on a related note--it seems to me that Art is talking about the experience of creating art, and how the creative force gets muddled if you're influenced by old artists, rather than life itself. one could also say that scientists shouldn't bother studying the works of older scientists, because it would hamper their ability to come up with creative ideas. art is more than creative ideas--there's technical knowledge associated with all arts that allow people to express themselves better. the destruction of old art also means the loss of techique knowledge.
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project