Submit your own Neatorama post and vote for others' posts to earn NeatoPoints that you can redeem for T-shirts, hoodies and more over at the NeatoShop!

Man Defaces Rothko Mural, Then Releases Statement: "I Am Not a Vandal"

Some among you may contend that Mark Rothko wasn't "really an artist," and if you want, you guys can duke it out in the comments. But the fact is that Rothko is a celebrated icon from a well-loved period of art history, and his mural Black on Maroon (1958) was defaced by a man in London's Tate Modern yesterday, who scrawled a message and signature on the painting (above) as museum patrons watched in shock. The message reads "A potential piece of Yellowism" and is signed Vladimir Umanets.

During an investigation by Scotland Yard, Umanets claimed full responsibility for the vandalism, though he stressed that he is not, in fact, a vandal:

In defence of his scrawl, Mr Umanets said: 'Some people think I'm crazy or a vandal, but my intention was not to destroy or decrease the value, or to go crazy. I am not a vandal. [...] I don't need to be famous, I don't want money, I don't want fame, I'm not seeking seeking attention. Maybe I would like to point people's attention on what it's all about, what is Yellowism, what is art? [...] I believe that from everything bad there's always a good outcome so I'm prepared for that but obviously I don't want to spend a few months, even a few weeks, in jail. But I do strongly believe in what I am doing, I have dedicated my life to this.'

Perhaps you can use the comments to help us interpret what exactly that means.

Umanets has not yet been charged, but the Tate does confirm that "an incident took place" and that "police are currently investigating the incident." Link | Photo: Tim Wright/Twitter

ok...they asked for it...I used to work in a mall poster shop.....HATEd Rothko. But upon doing research into gestalt psychology and perception, and visiting one of his paintings in a museum, my mind changed. Apparently, every thought is derived, in some form, from your senses. We are constantly exposed to a melee of visual detail (our most engaged perceptual method). This creates a state of consciousness, that is an amalgamation (and more than a sum of it's parts) of all of the information that you are taking in. My theory : When you sit in front of a Rothko, and intensely study it, you are limiting the perceptual input- that your brain can create immediate thought from- to a very specific and small set of wavelengths of light. If one relaxes and lets their eyes just absorb the colors, a subtle or dramatic change in consciousness can occur. I have not seen many in person, but I imagine that each one produces a different effect.

As far as what it's about....seems to me to be just any other lashing out at contemporary art practice by denying the validity of one's own practice.

But really....
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
  2 replies
Rothko? Good stuff. In this case, I can't interpret what the man in the article said about his addition to the art, but I'm assuming an issue of the brain is involved. The funny thing is that he saw something in the work and needed to warn everyone. Most people look at modern art and don't see a thing.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
  3 replies
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 9 comments

Email This Post to a Friend
"Man Defaces Rothko Mural, Then Releases Statement: "I Am Not a Vandal""

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.


Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More