‘Rothko Vandalized at Tate Modern’
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Guardian, and dozens of other media outlets have covered this story regarding the arrest of a man, Vladimir Umanets, who defaced one of Rothko’s paintings at Tate Modern in London with his tag. This certainly does not help my ‘Graffiti as Art’ project, but I was quite intrigued by the comment the tagger made. The New York Times reported: “Mr. Umanets told the BBC that he is responsible for defacing the painting, saying: ‘I am not a vandal. I haven’t done criminal damage.’ Comparing himself with Marcel Duchamp, he added, ‘Art allows us to take what someone’s done and put a new message on it.’’’
A photo posted on Twitter of the defaced corner of Rothko’s Black on Maroon. Source:The Guardian
I have linked the different articles to the newspapers mentioned above. Just hover over and click. What do you all think of this ‘scandal’?
– Salma M.
Posted: October 9th, 2012 under Defiant Art, Uncategorized.
Comment from Ben Chatham
Time October 10, 2012 at 12:21 am
The vandal is, in my opinion, trying to act like he’s smarter and more insightful than everyone else, when in reality he’s making an ass of himself. Duchamp took a copy of the Mona Lisa and drew the moustache on that copy. He didn’t go to a museum and deface the original. Umanets is allowed to take an artist’s work and put a spin on it, however, that does not mean he can take the original and vandalize it so that it can never be the same. Duchamp paid respect to the original by not vandalizing it, he merely took a reprint and altered that. This is much different, and if one thing’s for sure, Umanets is no Duchamp.
Comment from smohamed7
Time October 10, 2012 at 1:15 am
Ben, I think your comment was very well written and I, quite honestly, agree with you. I do not understand Umanets’ point of view on this matter and I feel that it is a lame excuse to simply tag a respected artwork. I am left with the lingering thought, however, that much attention has been brought to this matter simply because a work of Mark Rothko was the victim of this vandalism. Had it been the work of a graffiti artist, let’s say, of one who had spent just as much or more time creating his or her “piece,” the matter would have been entirely ignored by everyone beside the graffiti artist. I believe that this “scandal,” nonetheless, reinforces the notions of art for the elite and is a clear display of what has been categorized as art by the elite/wealthy.
I also wonder about how many people actually believe Umanets’ claim. Very interesting!
Comment from Ben Chatham
Time October 10, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Certainly the name or the prestige that has been attached to the work raises the egregiousness of the crime, in my eyes. We associate a different value with “high art” than we do with, say, graffiti, which most consider “street art.” I think because tagging and community artwork is more prevalent in graffiti than in traditional art, I think most people see it as acceptable. Also, when you’re on the train in Brooklyn and you pass by all of those buildings, you see work after work, and if you don’t pay close attention to it, it may turn into nothing but a big blur for most.
Comment from Andrew De Rosa
Time October 11, 2012 at 12:42 am
I think this is interesting because it draws a line between what is considered to be art and vandalism. If one person’s artwork is plastered on a wall, it defaces the property. If another tagger writes his message on top of that art, he is essentially defacing a defacement of the wall. How many times can I type deface, I don’t know, but I think it’s interesting how it relates back to Salma’s project in the sense there is a rank in graffiti art, and I think this article embraces that notion.
Comment from smohamed7
Time October 11, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Hey Andrew, I appreciate your comment because you framed the idea of vandalism, or defacement, very well (re: a tagger defacing a defacement of the wall). I also liked your connection of my project to the article with respect to the idea of a hierarchy within the art world – including graffiti art. I think Ben also touched a bit on this idea when he mentioned how we “associate a different value with ‘high art’ than we do with graffiti which most consider ‘street art’.” Great comments. It keeps me thinking!
Comment from smohamed7
Time November 8, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Check this out!
http://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/graffitiasart/2012/11/08/accused-picasso-vandal-gets-his-own-art-show/