:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x355:751x357):format(webp)/grey-orange-on-maroon-no-8-mark-rothko-042825-1-13efa1cd6d344771a7b11b1eba85903f.jpg)
Posted on 04/28/2025 8:40:32 AM PDT by Red Badger
A kid in The Netherlands could be in time out for a while.
The unnamed child is responsible for damaging a 1960 Mark Rothko painting reportedly worth €50 (about $56 million) inside the Boijmans Van Beuningen museum in Rotterdam.
“The painting Grey, Orange on Maroon, No. 8 by Mark Rothko has sustained superficial damage after a child touched the painting when it was on display," the museum shared in a statement to PEOPLE. "As a result, small scratches are visible in the unvarnished paint layer in the lower part of the painting."
The museum added, Conservation expertise has been sought in the Netherlands and abroad. We are currently researching the next steps for the treatment of the painting. We expect that the work will be able to be shown again in the future."
(Excerpt) Read more at people.com ...
OMG, that painter needs to go study real talent, like Tunwa and Suda the elephants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XOl48ssdyo
It looks like a pile of parts, to me.
At least the Hirshhorn looks like a donut...
No problem as the child could probably reproduce this “art.”
Pollocks paintings were literal experiments with how new and different paint materials behaved under different circumstances.
For example he wanted to see what happened when latex (then newish) behaved while applied or dried flat on the ground or when applied with a stick or a flick or on top of different paints (say, an oil on top of latex).
It was a serious investigation akin to blood splatter experts look at how blood splatters from a knife or a gun or a hit.
He was literally trying different things to get different effects, not actually painting as painting.
No one was more surprised than Pollock when people liked his studies of paint qualities as art than him.
There’s a YouTube by him on it.
It ironically made me understand his works better. Like one he was trying to express anger or action by violent hits. And it does, just like blood splatter.
But they were meant to teach techniques, not be “art”.
I just found my life’s calling at 70!................where’s my paint roller?...............
No, that is the painting valued at $56 million.
You can pick up something phenomenally BETTER than that at any kindergarten.
😁
I think we found the crime. Fraud. or, at least misrepresentation of the quality or origin of goods in violation of consumer protection statutes.
Art?
Fine, I drop “art” into the toilet every morning.
Is that from one of those Art by the Pound outfits?
EXACTLY
TAPED-—DUCT TAPE
(Mona Lisa) Pretty young lady. Maybe she should smile more.
(Jackson Pollock painting) OK, who left his dropcloth here? Well, I'm tossing it.
(Marcel Duchamp's Fountain ) Which, $_&#@* idiot plumber can't read a blueprint and hanged the urinal in the gallery? The restroom is on the other side of the wall. And he even mounted it wrong.
I saw an exhibit of restored Rothko paintings at the Harvard art museum back when I was a graduate student.
https://harvardartmuseums.org/exhibitions/4768/mark-rothkos-harvard-murals
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!”
The kid is a modern performance artist. The painting is now worth double.
De gustibus non disputandum ... or to put it another way, one man's kitsch is another man's living room.
If you stare at it and unfocus your eyes, you can read “Be sure to drink your Ovaltine”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.