Posted on 10/09/2007 5:48:51 AM PDT by Schnucki
Vandals have broken into the Musée d'Orsay and punched a hole in Claude Monet's "Le Pont d'Argenteuil", in the latest in a series of attacks on artwork in France.
A surveillance camera caught a group of four to five apparently drunk people entering the Paris museum early yesterday morning.
An alarm sounded and the group fled, but not before putting a four-inch tear in the painting, Christine Albanel, the French culture minister, said. No arrests have been made so far.
After attempting to force open other doors, the intruders managed to get in through a back door, "even though it had big bolts," Ms Albanel said. The painting was hanging on the ground floor with other Impressionist masterpieces.
The painting has been left with a horizontal tear that exposes threads of canvas. It was visibly punched in, perhaps with a fist. The minister said the painting can be restored, but said she deplored the damage.
"It's always a heartbreak when an art object that is our memory, our heritage, that we love and that we are proud of, is victim of a purely criminal act," she said.
"We know there were four or five people, likely four boys and a girl, who entered around midnight to am, broke a door that was, perhaps, fragile."
Alarms went off, museum officials arrived and the group fled, the minister said.
"Le Pont d'Argenteuil" shows a view of the Seine at a rural bend, featuring a bridge and boats.
The break-in occurred as Paris held White Night, an annual all-night festival, which draws thousands into the streets for music, exhibitions and revelry.
The festive mood was particularly high on Saturday night after France advanced to the semi-finals of the Rugby World Cup after beating New Zealand.
The attack was the latest in a series of acts of art vandalism.
This week Sam Rindy goes on trial for damaging a work of art after kissing an immaculate white painting by American artist Cy Twombly while wearing glossy red lipstick. The work had been on display in the Museum of Contemporary Art in Avignon.
In September thieves stole plates and chalices from a cathedral in the southern French city of Perpignan.
In August Monet's "Cliffs near Dieppe" was among four paintings stolen from a fine arts museum in Nice.
In February a court upheld a suspended prison term for a vandal who used a hammer early last year to attack Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" - a urinal - at the Pompidou Centre in Paris.
The last time Europe entered into a Dark Age, they also had problems with Vandals.
A surveillance camera caught a group of four to five apparently drunk people entering the Paris museum early yesterday morning.
You’d think they would have security to keep drunks out.
Is that Ted Kennedys oldsmobile with the gal he killed in it?
Art critics. I don’t like Monet, either........
I had the honor of viewing many of his works in Chicago and his mastery took my breath away. Compared to the crap that often passes for art these days, Monet is pure genius.
Impressionism A theory or style of painting originating and developed in France during the 1870s, characterized by concentration on the immediate visual impression produced by a scene and by the use of unmixed primary colors and small strokes to simulate actual reflected light.Curious theory. Pleasant blurry painting of sailboats. No great loss, in the grand scheme of things. When did painting become a weird religion?
Imagine getting a quarter mil for this piece of art by Cy Twombly.
Friggin idiots, my kid will do it for $24.99 plus postage and handling...
When the Impressionists took over, art went downhill from there................
It’s a painting cherished by millions.
That it isn’t explicitly religious or that some cherish it as something of what you interpret as false divine inspiration, it is all right to destroy?
Do you not believe in an artistic mandate, of divine inspiration in arts that may even be secular?
Curious line from someone whose posts I usually respect.
Where’s the link to order your kid’s art??? ;)
Yeah, except this time the Vandals are part of the local population.
The Vandals were a Germanic tribe that eventually settled in Southern Spain and North Africa. They were not as barbaric as frequently painted in history.
It’s a painting cherished by millions.
So are Big Macs. OK, the painting is better, but...
That it isn’t explicitly religious or that some cherish it as something of what you interpret as false divine inspiration, it is all right to destroy?
No. My point is that the painting is greatly over-rated because it's part of a greatly over-rated movement. If the painting wasn't Impressionist, but Realist, it would be rightly regarded as mundane.
Do you not believe in an artistic mandate, of divine inspiration in arts that may even be secular?
Yes, but I don't believe that this is one of them.
I'm an illustrator by trade, and the subject matter of most of my paintings is also largely mundane, but I don't claim that it's more than what it is.
That’s a beautiful painting. They should have taken out some crap by Dali instead.
Just... don't. I can't take it.
My wife says, "why don't you do stuff that sells like that?" I try to explain to her that no one really likes this crap. The prices are driven up by investors who want to make a killing buying and selling... paint on paper. I can't bring myself to call it art.
Anyway, my explanation has never worked.
Museum investigator Lt. Bookman warned that, after the attack on the Monet, the perps may attempt to vandalize the Manet and the Tippy Tippy Day Day.
(Seinfeld ping, yada)
They were just doing the jobs that the Romans didn't want to do.
I had a professor once who was describing Dadaism. He said pretty much what you did. "It's really just a collection of stuff. Unless you can get somebody to pay for it .... and once somebody pays for it .... ahhhh .... then, it's Art!"
Just freepmail me, we have a special running now, buy one get one free! Deal of a lifetime!
Refreshing finally to see someone debunking the mania for chocolate-box impressionism. Bravo.
Art ping to you.
I don’t think I will ever understand why some people think it’s ok to destroy other people’s property.
LOL! SOOOOO right!!
I mean, look at it. After the Impressionists came the Modernists, Cubists, Chagall and Picasso then every type of paint splatter on a canvas rag was deemed art. From ancient Greece to the late 1800’s art was universally recognizable as, well, ART! Any person, regardless of age or educational level could immediately say of a sculpture or painting that it was in fact art. But then came all this stuff that to a thinking rational person was either a pile of rusty metal or a cleaning rag in a frame and the critics called it art. You may think me a boor and a uneducated lout, but art should try as man’s best attempt to do so, capture in paint or solid form, the beauty of what is God’s creation, and not a reasonable facsimile of a universe through the distorted end of a wine glass................
A match and a can of gasoline WOULD do justice to them.............
I agree with you. I’ve been fortunate to see a fair number of Impressionist paintings in several museums and the way they capture light amazes me. If I could capture light like that in my paintings, I would be happy indeed.
“You may think me a boor or an uneducated lout ...”
The Impressionists paintings I have seen *in person* capture quite well “ ... the beauty of what is God’s creation.” The colors and light change in a subtle way with the angle from which the paintings are viewed, as in “real life.” Perhaps you are confusing Monet with some of the less distinguished Post-Impressionists or, worse, Modernists.
“I’m an illustrator by trade, and the subject matter of most of my paintings is also largely mundane, but I don’t claim that it’s more than what it is.”
I’m an illustrator too, I’ve been working as a professional for 20 years. I feel sorry for you, that you see your work as a “trade”, and “mudane” - sounds to me like it’s not the right career for you, there are plenty of illustrators who would love to take your place and would have a little more respect for their “trade”, and work. In today’s modern world the Illustrator is losing ground every year to digital work, and anyone still working and surviving in the field really should be more grateful that they can - or move aside for those who love it and have a passion for it.
“No. My point is that the painting is greatly over-rated because it’s part of a greatly over-rated movement. If the painting wasn’t Impressionist, but Realist, it would be rightly regarded as mundane.”
This reveals your ignorance, and your utter failure at understanding what impressionism was about - and it’s just as offensive as the “if it’s not abstract it’s not art” bs that you find in art schools these days.
If impressionism followed the tenets and spirit of realism, of course it would fail - it’s a completely different way of looking at the world, a completely different focus, and a completely different technique. You are judging an orange as “bad” because it’s not an apple.
I’m not a particularly big fan of Van Gogh, though I understand and appreciate why he’s revered, for his work and his influence in the world of art. I would be saddened by an attack on his work, even though I’m not much of a fan. The painting of Monet’s that was attacked was not his best, in my opinion, but it’s a major work by a very influential artist, and that alone makes this a bad thing.
Your indifference and snarky comments on the school he started and it’s influence in art speaks volumes about you as an artist.
Your comment about burning art speaks volumes about you as a human being.
Agreed. Monet, Turner - absolutely awesome.
There can be no comparison in talent or intent between those men of genius (and their forebears) and the painful Modernist dweebs of today, who exercise their feeble, dingy and platitudinous vision in urine, dried excrement, dead bodies and fragments torn from pornographic magazines.
“The Modernists are the worst of the bunch,”
And irrelevant to the topic at hand. You obviously have an axe to grind here, so I’m bailing on this as it’s probably a waste of time, as you’re more intent on bludgeoning people with your opinion.
Your attitude is exactly the same as the nitwits who run the galleries and art schools, that if it’s not abstract, it’s crap. It’s repugnant. I don’t particularly like the abstract movement or what followed, but it doesnt give me the right to censor it.
And, in fact, if you educated yourself, you’d know that the post-modern work is dying out, and there’s a rise of realist-themed work showing up. The art world, like most else, evolves, and it too will move on from it’s dalliance in the abstract.
I never had much luck putting it together. Maybe that's one reason I never developed a taste for such stuff.
It is possible for entire school of thought to be entirely without merit. This is as true in art as it is in psychology, philosophy, political theory, or any other field. Take Freudianism and Marxism as examples. Both are simply products of their authors' imaginations, and entirely without merit.
Impressionism as a theory is largely without merit, although some of its products are pleasant enough, such as this painting by Monet. But I will laugh at you if you try to portray Monet's haystack paintings as profound works of art. Reality and art school/theory have little in common these days. One of the many reasons why I skipped art school was that I couldn't bear the idea of anyone telling me that modern art has any merit, and then downgrading me for believing anything otherwise. At least I can express my opinion freely in this forum.
When I was a summer camp counselor, my campers called arts and crafts period "farts and craps." I had to laugh, because they were right. Looking back, I hope they held onto their God-given common sense.
One of my recurring fantasies is going into a modern art "installation," attacking it with a sledgehammer, and calling my act "performance art." How could I be wrong?
“When the Impressionists took over, art went downhill from there................”
I think that the Impressionists and others after them reflect all the changes occurring in society. “On a summer day in 1827, it took eight hours for Joseph Nicephore Niepce to obtain the first fixed (photographic) image.” The incentive to paint photographically was greatly reduced once photography came into vogue. Artists wanted to explore what art could uniquely do rather than slowly do what a machine could do much faster. The industrial revolution also began some 160 years ago, so some artists painted people more as machines or people caught up in machines (Cubism?). Basically, the onrush of technology and science have increasingly brought into question old standards and mores.
Look at free verse poetry, modern dance, atonal music. All of them have moved away from traditional forms. That’s my take on it, anyway.
When I went to art school, my instructor said that after World War II, many artists preferred to involve themselves in pure color and form rather than depicting the horrors of war. The idea was that a more pure world could be found in this manner. Thus, we have abstraction. Unfortunately, abstract painting is easy to do but not easy to do well.
Still, I understand why people respect old fashioned craftsmanship and don’t “get” modern and post-modern art.
There is a split between the world that (non-commercial) artists inhabit and the general public. Certainly, there is arrogance in the art world. That split between artists and the general public did not existed at other times and places. Medieval artists decorated cathedrals. African artists made art for the tribe. Art was an integral part of society because machinery had not taken over the traditional function of the artist.
Well said. That's my objective.
No, just expressing it.
, but it doesn't give me the right to censor it.
Nobody's censuring anything or anybody. If you can make a buck off of it, more power to you. You can sell whatever you create to whomever will give you a dime for it, just don't ask me to help pay for your creation.
Your attitude is exactly the same as the nitwits who run the galleries and art schools, that if it’s not abstract, it’s crap
We agree. They are nit-wits.
you’d know that the post-modern work is dying out
It won't completely ever die out, there will always be a Renaissance.... there’s a rise of realist-themed work showing up
HALLELUJAH!....
The art world, like most else, evolves, and it too will move on from it’s dalliance in the abstract.
The art world, as it always has, depends on the money from suckers, er, I mean patrons.........
Death penalty for this. Should be considered an act of terrorism against France.
Baroque, when you are out of Monet.
“you’re more intent on bludgeoning people with your opinion.
No, just expressing it.”
Then understand that expressing the idea of burning art, any art, is repugnant and offensive as any idea can be, and puts you firmly in the ilk of Hillary and Hitler and the rest of the censors.
Rindy should be given a reward for that. Twombly is a talentless fraud.
LOL
Oh, give me a break. Who said his haystacks were “profound” works of art? Please, enough with the word games and strawmen - if you knew anything about Monet, you’d know the haystacks were exploratory studies and not meant to stand as a work, like the Lilies.
As for the without merit idea, maybe in your mind, but i try not to think so shackled by agenda and bias, and I try to rise above perochial thinking. I may not like a lot of the early Greek work, but that doesnt diminish their value or place in history.
I laugh at your “speak freely” comment, as I’m seeing more and more attacks on people here who try to speak freely. I used to be an ardent supporter of this site and it’s supporters, but i see just as much knee-jerk reaction and intolerant attitudes here as aI do in more liberal forums.
There’s no freedom of speech when you go out of your way to insult, denigrate and disrespect those who do not see exactly as you do and shut them up, even if it’s in a thread about art. It’s as offensive and shallow as the same people you talk about in the art schools - i attended art school, and waged war with them, and continued to work in the way *I* want, because I have a spine and am not swayed by cliques or fad or groupthink. If anything, I continued just to spite and infuriate those who sought to mold me to their ideals. That same stink of “Thou shalt think like us, or else” is starting to rise in this thread, and it’s disapointing to see, on a site that is supposed to champion “free speech”.
Letting comments about burning art, any art, go without comment is disturbing, to say the least.
I don’t force anyone to like what I do, and I don’t attack the work or the artist - they have as much right to exist and work as I do, which is more about freedom than the ideas I see being expressed here. “Without merit” is a personal opinion, and NOT one backed up by the majority of artists since Monet was alive - and not all of them were Modernists or Post-Modernists.
And with that, I’m truly done, as I think any further discussion is pointless, seeing the general mindset in this thread by a few particular posters. It’s a waste of time and energy.
LOLLL!!!....Very good!...The art world is Baroque, and needs to be fixed asap.......
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.