I just don't get it...what I read this morning. I'm just not clever enough to understand. Obviously this person was very proud of his actions which is why he 'made a quick exit' and wasn't interviewed in person on the BBC. His aim, so he said, was to change people's perceptions. Of what I would like to know? After listening to the interview I am none the wiser, like I said I'm just not clever enough...
3 comments:
I must not be very clever too :(((
Good Morning Lisa!... The point? Very simple Lisa! Since art has been created.... and paintings have been made the point... or reason for creating them is to "express ideas"... to promote thought.
All the way along in art history there have been artists who act out against "mainstream" art... some beyond verbally challenging current beliefs and "sacred" views.
Desecration of an actual piece of another's art is unacceptable... unthinkable to most of us.
In the case of this follower Of "yellowism"... small "l" fully intended the action represents a single skewed and deplorable act and really underscores the sense-lessness of the act.
It presents the act act as the purest form of the "yellowist" movement... perhaps a body of one- pure cowardice... truely yellow-ist!
Just a thought!
Good Painting!
Warmest regards,
Bruce
The thing that irritates me about this is the arrogance of someone to intentionally attempt to deface someone else's work. There doesn't seem to be any 'idea' or 'reason' for it, or a logical explanation of the perception that the act was trying to change. To me it seems a nonsense.
Funny that you made that association Bruce as coward was the word that first sprung to my mind too. Instead of running away, why did he not have the courage of his convictions?
Post a Comment