PDA

View Full Version : New York woman falls, rips Picasso painting


mscriv
Jan 25, 2010, 11:52 AM
NEW YORK (AFP) – A significant Pablo Picasso painting was damaged after a woman attending art class lost her balance, fell into "The Actor" and tore it, The Metropolitan Museum of Art said.

The unusually large canvas, measuring 77.25 by 45.38 inches (196 by 115 centimeters), sustained a vertical tear of about six inches (15 centimeters) in the lower right-hand corner in the accident on Friday.

The museum, located on the eastern edge of New York's Central Park, did not elaborate on why the woman fell.

But The Met said the damage did not impact the "focal point of the composition" and that it should be repaired in the coming weeks ahead of a major Picasso retrospective featuring some 250 works at the museum opening on April 27.

Repair work should be "unobtrusive," it added.

Full Story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100125/ts_alt_afp/usartaccidentpicasso)

"Whoops!, my bad, I'm so clumsy at times."

This has got to be your worst nightmare. I mean how embarrasing. :o

SilentPanda
Jan 25, 2010, 11:58 AM
This has got to be your worst nightmare. I mean how embarrasing. :o

I can safely say I have never worried about falling into/onto a Picasso painting.

MrCheeto
Jan 25, 2010, 12:05 PM
*Applause*

Now please, demolish the rest of these travesties of man.

rdowns
Jan 25, 2010, 12:09 PM
*Applause*

Now please, demolish the rest of these travesties of man.


Congrats, dude. This is your biggest WTF moment yet.

MrCheeto
Jan 25, 2010, 12:11 PM
And you would know because...

iShater
Jan 25, 2010, 12:20 PM
There was no glass in front of the thing?

The dude in the picture looks like a Vulcan.

I will never understand this type of art, this doesn't strike me as a special painting, but what do I know. :o

Sdashiki
Jan 25, 2010, 12:20 PM
*Applause*

Now please, demolish the rest of these travesties of man.

Picasso, like Dali, later in his career was much more about commercialization than art for arts sake.

Though, like anything in the "Art World", its subjective.

IMO, most of his stuff sucked hard, especially the later stuff.

Now, someone falling into Guernica at the Madrid museum would be a travesty...especially when its like 20 feet wide...and that painting kicks ass (though only in person).

Don't panic
Jan 25, 2010, 12:27 PM
Picasso, like Dali, later in his career was much more about commercialization than art for arts sake.

Though, like anything in the "Art World", its subjective.

IMO, most of his stuff sucked hard, especially the later stuff.

Now, someone falling into Guernica at the Madrid museum would be a travesty...especially when its like 20 feet wide...and that painting kicks ass (though only in person).

This is most certainly not a 'late' piece. quite the opposite.

MrCheeto
Jan 25, 2010, 12:33 PM
will never understand this type of art, this doesn't strike me as a special painting, but what do I know. :o

I don't think we're meant to understand it, I think that "artistés" and wine-makers laugh their pompous asses off while toupé-wearing cigar collectors throw their entire life away pretending there really are superior wines and vases.

BornAgainMac
Jan 25, 2010, 01:02 PM
The dude in the picture looks like a Vulcan.


You are right. He does look Vulcan.

hikeNM
Jan 25, 2010, 02:01 PM
There was no glass in front of the thing?


I've never understood this either, and I wish someone who is more "artsy" than I am, and it wouldn't take a lot to be, would tell me why there isn't any protection over most paintings?

TuffLuffJimmy
Jan 25, 2010, 02:05 PM
I don't think we're meant to understand it, I think that "artistés" and wine-makers laugh their pompous asses off while toupé-wearing cigar collectors throw their entire life away pretending there really are superior wines and vases.

Are you really suggesting anything with an accent mark is pretentious. Dude, you need to get out of the US.

Sdashiki
Jan 25, 2010, 02:06 PM
This is most certainly not a 'late' piece. quite the opposite.

I didnt say this one was, I just speaking about the typical "OOOOOOOOOOOOOH PICASSO ROXORZ" mentality found lately.

ucfgrad93
Jan 25, 2010, 02:07 PM
Full Story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100125/ts_alt_afp/usartaccidentpicasso)

"Whoops!, my bad, I'm so clumsy at times."

This has got to be your worst nightmare. I mean how embarrasing. :o

Unidentified man next to her was heard to say "See, this is why we can't have nice things!"

Hopefully this will cause the museum to rethink how close it lets visitors get to the paintings.

Peace
Jan 25, 2010, 02:08 PM
Any Picasso painting is worth millions.

Now there's one worth a little less.:eek:

Surely
Jan 25, 2010, 02:11 PM
Congrats, dude. This is your biggest WTF moment yet.

Ha!

I didnt say this one was, I just speaking about the typical "OOOOOOOOOOOOOH PICASSO ROXORZ" mentality found lately.

Yeah, I hear all the kids are texting that to each other these days.

Really?:confused:

TuffLuffJimmy
Jan 25, 2010, 02:11 PM
Any Picasso painting is worth millions.

Now there's one worth a little less.:eek:

Well if this woman becomes famous for something else later in life the painting will be priceless. "A Picasso torn by ________, starting bid at $4,000,000."

rdowns
Jan 25, 2010, 02:12 PM
Gotta love MacRumors. Where else could you get an art critic to join and post on how hackneyed Picasso and Dali were?

Lord Blackadder
Jan 25, 2010, 02:15 PM
This is the kind of thing I worry about at art museums. Fortunately I haven't ripped any paintings yet. :D

Any Picasso painting is worth millions.

Now there's one worth a little less.:eek:

Actually, since works by masters are generally unique, they are all generally considered priceless. But anything by Picasso surely commands a healthy 7-figure sum at auction.

Picasso, like Dali, later in his career was much more about commercialization than art for arts sake.

Many famous artists made a living off their art; just because Rembrandt painted Night Watch on commission (and was well-paid) doesn't make it any less of a masterpiece...though Picasso was certainly a big self-promoter and enjoyed his fame immensely. And I don;t like most of his Cubist art, though I am fond of some of his Blue Period stuff.

joepunk
Jan 25, 2010, 03:42 PM
What the heck was she holding in her hand that caused a massive rip like that?

And how do you trip in a museum? Was she wearing improvident footwear?

Surely
Jan 25, 2010, 04:38 PM
What the heck was she holding in her hand that caused a massive rip like that?

And how do you trip in a museum? Was she wearing improvident footwear?

Sh** happens:

Steve Wynn accidentally put his elbow through a Picasso (Le Rêve) that he owned.

He bought it for $48.4 million, and had a deal completed to sell it for $139 million. He had some people over for dinner and was showing the painting to them prior to the exchange, when he accidentally put his elbow through it, causing a 2 inch gash. Wynn suffers from an eye disease, retinitis pigmentosa, which affects his peripheral vision and therefore, occasionally, his interaction with proximate objects. He called the buyer and told him that the deal was off, and he ended up restoring and keeping the painting.

See? Sh** happens.

Abstract
Jan 25, 2010, 08:15 PM
Picasso, like Dali, later in his career was much more about commercialization than art for arts sake.

Though, like anything in the "Art World", its subjective.

IMO, most of his stuff sucked hard, especially the later stuff.

Now, someone falling into Guernica at the Madrid museum would be a travesty...especially when its like 20 feet wide...and that painting kicks ass (though only in person).

You gave his post a serious response? Most of his posts are made in order to get a rise out of people like you.

Ignore him. ;)

Heilage
Jan 26, 2010, 01:43 AM
There was no glass in front of the thing?

You don't put glass in front of oil on canvas paintings, it ruins the texture and depth of it. :)

FrankieTDouglas
Jan 26, 2010, 07:21 AM
Now, someone falling into Guernica at the Madrid museum would be a travesty...especially when its like 20 feet wide...and that painting kicks ass (though only in person).

That'd probably be impossible, considering it's roped off to the public, a good 10 feet away. I had a security guard yell at me because I leaned ever so slightly over the rope (but then again, that museum was full of very sensitive security guards... overall, not in my list of favorite museums).

To the contrast, the Picasso museum in Paris was free of roped off areas and uptight security, and it was jam packed with his work.

Sdashiki
Jan 26, 2010, 08:03 AM
You gave his post a serious response? Most of his posts are made in order to get a rise out of people like you.

Ignore him. ;)

Honestly. :rolleyes:

Mousse
Jan 26, 2010, 10:26 AM
I will never understand this type of art, this doesn't strike me as a special painting, but what do I know. :o

I'm in the same I don't know much about art, but I know what I like camp. The painting had me scratching my noggin and saying, "This is art?":confused: I see it kind of like people saying how caviar is an acquired taste.:rolleyes: In my book, if something is good, it's good at first blush and deeper examination.

Heilage
Jan 26, 2010, 11:20 AM
Art is whatever one think is beautiful, so very individual. :)

localoid
Jan 26, 2010, 03:43 PM
Art is whatever one think is beautiful, so very individual. :)

Even that simple definition isn't universal... For about 100 years, Cubists, Dadaists, Surrealists, Stravinsky, and others have disagreed with the contention that all art must be beautiful.

TuffLuffJimmy
Jan 26, 2010, 03:46 PM
Art is whatever one think is beautiful, so very individual. :)

The issue with this is art isn't necessarily beautiful. Art can be eerie, disturbing, mind bending and even 'meh'.

Heilage
Jan 26, 2010, 04:13 PM
Even that simple definition isn't universal... For about 100 years, Cubists, Dadaists, Surrealists, Stravinsky, and others have disagreed with the contention that all art must be beautiful.

Well, to me, art is beautiful. When I buy a painting, it has to be beautiful. But again, things can be beautiful in different ways.

localoid
Jan 26, 2010, 05:47 PM
Well, to me, art is beautiful. When I buy a painting, it has to be beautiful. But again, things can be beautiful in different ways.

Everyone has different tastes, and people do tend to buy what they like, however, in regards to "beauty"...

I thoroughly enjoy listening to Stravinsky's Le Sacre de Printemps ("The Rite of Spring") but I find little "beauty" within it. Nor would I consider it to be "beautiful in a different way". But I do consider it as a work of art.

It's not beautiful, it's dissonance and very emotional, primordial, and brutal. And that seems totally appropriate, since the work depicts a pagan ritual in which a young girl dances herself to death, sacrificing herself to the god of Spring in order to gain his benevolence.

The real world isn't 100% beautiful. Why should an artist limit himself/herself to imitating only things of beauty?

TuffLuffJimmy
Jan 26, 2010, 05:48 PM
Everyone has different tastes, and people do tend to buy what they like, however, in regards to "beauty"...

I thoroughly enjoy listening to Stravinsky's Le Sacre de Printemps ("The Rite of Spring") but I find little "beauty" within it. Nor would I consider it to be "beautiful in a different way". But it is art.

It's not beautiful, it's dissonance and very emotional, primordial, and brutal. And that seems totally appropriate, since the work depicts a pagan ritual in which a young girl dances herself to death, sacrificing herself to the god of Spring in order to gain his benevolence.

The real world isn't 100% beautiful. Why should an artist limit himself/herself to imitating only things of beauty?

QFT
That was an elegant way of saying what I was trying to get at.

Ca$hflow
Jan 26, 2010, 08:08 PM
You don't put glass in front of oil on canvas paintings, it ruins the texture and depth of it. :)

And now you know,.... the REST of the STORAY!