Author Topic: Valuable art work stolen (Read 4862 times)

pcolbeck · « **on:** 11 December, 2009, 11:03:15 am »

A brick that is art has been stolen from a pile of identical bricks that visitors were supposed to take. Now the only difference is that this particular brick is signed so is "a valuable art work".
Why can't they get him to sign another brick and thus problem solved and no harm done. Raises all sorts of questions about the value of "art" and the whole Emperors New Cloths argument.

Moloko · « **Reply #1 on:** 11 December, 2009, 11:07:47 am »

Father Jack Hackett: "

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lLKvponqV4Q&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/lLKvponqV4Q&rel=1</a>"

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #2 on:** 11 December, 2009, 11:08:53 am »

It also raises the question of whether a forgery is necessarily worth less than the original.

Quote

The replacement brick had "thank you, have a nice day, next" boldly printed on it, and was from the pile for visitors to take for free if they wished.

Couldn't they just find whoever wrote that and acknowledge him as an artist? IMO it's more inventive than simply signing one brick among eight.

Mr Larrington · « **Reply #3 on:** 11 December, 2009, 11:13:46 am »

Gavin Turk? Gavin Berk, more like. Besides, if he signed another brick it would, like, devalue the whole concept, ya.

I think I'm going to start skipweaselling junk, autographing it and selling it to credulous poshos. Does anyone want to buy a signed Belgian signpost? No reasonable offer refused; will exchange for low-mileage Bentley.

Jaded · « **Reply #4 on:** 11 December, 2009, 11:35:21 am »

Given that this year's Turner Prize has gone to art that is often destroyed soon after being exhibited, I have decided to enter next years competition with my art. Art that I will not even make in the first place!

Zoidburg · « **Reply #5 on:** 11 December, 2009, 05:04:52 pm »

I wouldn't have nicked the brick.

I would have added more bricks with forged signatures just to mess with them.

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6 on:** 13 December, 2009, 09:28:38 am »

Zoiders, you are an evil genius!

woollypigs · « **Reply #7 on:** 13 December, 2009, 05:52:26 pm »

That reminds me of a "work" that Damien Hirst did at a gallery opening some years ago. The cleaner binned it in the morning before the staff came in and valued it. He had used the plastic cutlery and other bits that was in the bin already.

Cunobelin · « **Reply #8 on:** 13 December, 2009, 10:05:54 pm »

... or the ones that "tidied" Tracy Emin's bed and claimed it was legitimate "performance art"

I think though that I am a total Philistine... I don't see this as art at all.

Give me something that is funny, thought provoking, emotional or shows some level of skill and I might like it, but a pile of bricks?

Euan Uzami · « **Reply #9 on:** 13 December, 2009, 10:14:40 pm »

If he wants to CALL it art, fine, but the crucial question as to whether it stands a chance of being any good or not, for me, is: did it take a significant amount of skill - not just to conceive of but also to create? (You could argue that it didn't even take skill to conceive of, either.)

LEE · « **Reply #10 on:** 14 December, 2009, 09:20:38 am »

I spent saturday morning looking at some of the fabulous art installations at the Jewson's Gallery in Andover.

The ones insde were thoughtful and emotive, for example, the display of shovels reminded me very much of the aggressive former soviet union. However, it was the exterior displays that, for sheer scale simply took my breath away.

Honestly, if you like piles of bricks then you should visit. The artist had simply signed the works "Ask at desk for prices", very subtle and a clever nod to Picasso's later works me thinks.

For a moment I thought I saw Tracey Emin studying the work "Sheets of Ply 8x4" but, on closer inspection, it turned out to be a rough looking builder fella who hadn't shaved for a few days.

Si · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 December, 2009, 10:16:04 am »

Quote

Give me something that is funny, thought provoking, emotional or shows some level of skill and I might like it, but a pile of bricks?

Well, it seems to have provoked both thought (this thread) and emotion (humour therein) so it winds on two counts

Although it's a bit of a cheap and tired explanation: "it must be art as it's provoked an emotional reaction among those who decry it".

But, I think that everything created by humans contains art, just as everyone on the X-factor can sing - it's just that not everyone on it can sing well; and of those who can, none appeal to all listeners.

Zoidburg · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 December, 2009, 08:30:30 pm »

Quote from: Bodger on 14 December, 2009, 10:16:04 am

Quote
Give me something that is funny, thought provoking, emotional or shows some level of skill and I might like it, but a pile of bricks?

Well, it seems to have provoked both thought (this thread) and emotion (humour therein) so it winds on two counts

Although it's a bit of a cheap and tired explanation: "it must be art as it's provoked an emotional reaction among those who decry it".

But, I think that everything created by humans contains art, just as everyone on the X-factor can sing - it's just that not everyone on it can sing well; and of those who can, none appeal to all listeners.

A pile of shoes in Auschwitz is thought provoking, but it is not art.

A pile of bricks from a bad artist is just a pile of bricks, it is also still not art.

LEE · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 December, 2009, 11:42:12 pm »

Quote from: Zoidburg on 15 December, 2009, 08:30:30 pm

Quote from: Bodger on 14 December, 2009, 10:16:04 am
Quote
Give me something that is funny, thought provoking, emotional or shows some level of skill and I might like it, but a pile of bricks?

Well, it seems to have provoked both thought (this thread) and emotion (humour therein) so it winds on two counts

Although it's a bit of a cheap and tired explanation: "it must be art as it's provoked an emotional reaction among those who decry it".

But, I think that everything created by humans contains art, just as everyone on the X-factor can sing - it's just that not everyone on it can sing well; and of those who can, none appeal to all listeners.
A pile of shoes in Auschwitz is thought provoking, but it is not art.

A pile of bricks from a bad artist is just a pile of bricks, it is also still not art.

A pile of bricks from a good artist is better than a pile of bricks from a bad artist (or Jewsons)?

Si · « **Reply #14 on:** 16 December, 2009, 11:11:03 am »

Quote

A pile of bricks from a bad artist is just a pile of bricks, it is also still not art.

Why is it not art? It expresses meaning even if it does so in a convoluted/pretentious/untalented/etc way.

I'm of the view that most (if not all) material culture expresses meaning above its purely practical function, the incorporation of that expression into the object is the performance of art. It might not be the formalised art that you see in arty-farty galleries, but it is an expression of the person creating it. Of course, whether it is from individual or social agency is another matter entirely.

Quote

A pile of shoes in Auschwitz is thought provoking, but it is not art.

But it wasn't intended to be - the shoes were not piled there to convey a message or to provoke thought. But if a photographer takes a picture, or an artist paints a picture, of the pile and then displays in in a show about the holocaust is it art then? Wherein lies the art?

Did the girl that won the School of Art competition have any talent whatsoever? The piece was certainly the most interesting and striking of the finalists but all she did was get the council to move it to the gallery.

I think that the problem is that none of us can supply a universal definition of what art is, so one man's masterpiece is always going to be another's crappy unmade bed, pile of bricks, log on a fence, etc. Back to John Humphreys and his cow.

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #15 on:** 16 December, 2009, 11:17:07 am »

Quote from: Bodger on 16 December, 2009, 11:11:03 am

Quote
A pile of shoes in Auschwitz is thought provoking, but it is not art.

But it wasn't intended to be - the shoes were not piled there to convey a message or to provoke thought.

Surely it was intended to provoke thought - unless the shoes have really been left in the same place untouched since 1944, which I very much doubt. But that doesn't make it art IMO.

Ian H · « **Reply #16 on:** 16 December, 2009, 11:37:34 am »

Quote from: Cudzoziemiec on 16 December, 2009, 11:17:07 am

...But that doesn't make it art IMO.

'Art' is one of those wonderfully nebulous words that changes its meaning as soon as you try to define it. One thing that does cause people to fry their brains is thinking about the supposed link between monetary value and artistic value, particularly in relation to works that are ephemeral, or of no intrinsic physical value. And, even today, some art is a navel-gazing exercise about what art is. The bottom line is that monetary value is not relevant to artistic merit, but the artist would still like to get paid for his or her work.

Mr Larrington · « **Reply #17 on:** 16 December, 2009, 03:34:10 pm »

Modern art is what happened when painters stopped looking at girls...

Moloko · « **Reply #18 on:** 16 December, 2009, 03:50:32 pm »

A three grand door stop. Yes, I'm such a philishave.

Ian H · « **Reply #19 on:** 16 December, 2009, 05:28:33 pm »

Quote from: Mr Larrington on 16 December, 2009, 03:34:10 pm

Modern art is what happened when painters stopped looking at girls...

What, like Constable, you mean?

Jaded · « **Reply #20 on:** 16 December, 2009, 08:00:47 pm »

What did he do when he stopped looking at them, arrest them?

hellymedic · « **Reply #21 on:** 16 December, 2009, 08:45:36 pm »

I think I prefer the Turnip Prize to the Turner Prize...

Cyclops · « **Reply #22 on:** 17 December, 2009, 08:04:09 pm »

Edinburgh Sheriff Court didn't think much of this particular art work.

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #23 on:** 01 May, 2023, 12:57:27 pm »

Quote

A South Korean art student ate a banana that was part of an installation by artist Maurizio Cattelan, saying he was "hungry" after skipping breakfast.

The artwork called "Comedian", part of Cattelan's's exhibition "WE", consisted of a ripe banana duct-taped to a wall at Seoul's Leeum Musuem of Art.

After eating the banana, the student, Noh Huyn-soo, taped the peel to the wall.

The museum later placed a new banana at the same spot, reported local media.

The incident, which lasted more than a minute, was recorded by Mr Noh's friend.

The Leeum Musuem of Art did not respond to an email inquiry by the BBC. However, it told media that it will not claim damages against the student.

The banana on display is reportedly replaced every two or three days.

In videos posted online, shouts of "excuse me" can be heard as Mr Noh takes the banana off the wall. He does not respond and starts eating as the room goes quiet.

He then tapes the peel to the wall and poses for a moment before walking off.

Mr Noh later told local media that he saw Cattelan's work as a rebellion against a certain authority. "There could be another rebellion against the rebellion," the Seoul National University student told KBS.

"Damaging an artwork could also be seen as an artwork, I thought that would be interesting... Isn't it taped there to be eaten?"

When told about the incident, Mr Cattelan said, "No problem at all".

This is not the first time bananas used for Mr Cattelan's work have been eaten by a visitor.

In 2019, performance artist David Datuna pulled the banana from the wall after the artwork was sold for $120,000 (£91,000) at Art Basel in Miami.

The banana was swiftly replaced and no further action was taken.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-65446331

hubner · « **Reply #24 on:** 07 May, 2023, 06:22:53 pm »

Perhaps "expensive" is the correct word, just because someone with too much money paid a lot of money it doesn't make something "valuable".

Author Topic: Valuable art work stolen (Read 4862 times)

Zoidburg

Euan Uzami

LEE

Zoidburg

LEE