A Smooch on a Pure White Canvas: Art or Atrocity?

This is an example of the bourgeois BS surrounding minimalist non-art. Just because she added the word "pure" to the moniker "white canvas" doesn't make it anymore special than a blank canvas. So now, of course, she is miffed that someone actually made something interesting on her "art."

Gah, I can't stand these phonies.

That b*tch has some huge lips!

J'ai fait juste un bisou.

Stupid girl. And the trial is just after somebody punched and tore a Monet painting in Paris. Bad timing.

The expo in the Hotel de Caumont was called "a Scattering of Blossoms and other Things", I guess they didn't have lipstick in mind. Nice expo, with the permanent Yvon Lambert modern art collection.

the 'artist' in question , Cy Twombly, is male, the kisser is female and should be let off the hook.

art world is garbage.

The funny thing is that the piece is now more worthy of being called art than it was previously.

The true insanity is that a piece of white canvas could be valued at valued at €2 million.

Go down to the art supply store, buy new white canvas, problem solved!

Talk about foolish junque... This kind of nonsense actually makes me embrace the Impressionists.

Normally, I would deplor the defacing of a work of art. Not this time. Ironically, the lipstick will probably make the value go up. Who would possibly buy a blank canvas for that much? It's not like you could brag about it. People would either think you just got a canvas at the art store and that you're a liar, or that you're the biggest dupe in the history of art.

More proof, art is dead and we are all motherfuckers fucking her to death.

art being a girl.

Anywho, I can't stand how conceptual art has become. The method is lost to sheer mind numbing simplicity and we call it art. Its the same reason a growing number of people are using segways.

Soon we'll just plug in.

I hate the matrix. (kidding)

Her phrase, "an act of love", reflects a graffiti phrase from one of Cy's paintings: Wilder shores of love.

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/T/twombly/twombly_wilder.jpg.html

I wonder why that detail wasn't reported.

It's a canvas that's been painted with white paint, not a blank canvas. And it's not just an even, flat white. I've seen the painting: you can see the hand of the artist at work in the way the paint is layered. If you're not one to appreciate subtlety, you probably wouldn't like it -- but I probably wouldn't like the dreck you've got hanging over your sofa, either.

c-dub...to everyone its still a blank canvas. i like it with the lipstick.

First - yes, I share Twombly's last name. We are likely remotely related but I've never met the man.

This woman did deface the art. Anyone who has seen a Rauschenberg White Painting knows what I'm talking about. However - Rauschenberg, who Twombly traveled with in Rome in the 50's - erased a Dekoonig to great effect. Duchamp's great work "The Bride Stripped Bare by her
Bachelors" was broken during shipping and Duchamp left it in that state.

Have we heard from Twombly yet?

The picture in her right hand is a blown-up reproduction of the stain, not the actual size of her lips.

Yes, she defaced a white-painted canvas, but come on, you can get lipstick marks off.

I don't care if he painted it white artistically. This "painting" further plunges "art" into the realm of the elitists and elitist wannabes, and out of the average person's interest.

Ditto what Mark ElRayes said, except I don't know any girls named Art.

I think I like it more with the lipstick.

No, Priscilla, it's not a blank canvas "to everyone." It's a blank canvas to you, and people who share your sensibilities about art. But not everyone.

And even if only two people were to care for it -- the artist, and the collector -- it would still be valuable to those people. Why is that a bad thing? You like what you like, and they like what they like. I don't understand the vitriol I'm reading in so many of these posts.

I'm no fan of Twombly, but the woman is clearly an idiot. The act is indefensible, and whether you like the piece or not is irrelevant. Geez, how did I know that there would be people defending her actions? Because stupidity trumps common sense way too often.

So, why didn't they just replace the "art" with another blank canvas. How would they know it's not the real one.

First, Capella, if you had read the thread... just a few posts up from yours you would have had the answer to your question.

Second, this is not about the merit of the art. I think it sounds silly, too. And yes, that a canvas painted white could be worth millions is kind of ridiculous. But, that's not the issue here. The issue here is that she defaced something that wasn't hers.

I'm not exactly a fan of private property, and I'm certainly not against vandalism on principle, so I'm not going to call for her head. But what you need to recognize is that if you're saying she should get off, you're saying vandalism is ok.