E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated at 7:36 p.m. ET: LONDON -- A 26-year-old man was arrested Monday for the defacement of a Mark Rothko painting at London's leading contemporary art museum.
The incident took place on Sunday when a visitor to Tate Modern applied "a small area of black paint with a brush to the painting," to a painting titled "Black on Maroon" by the Russian-American artist.
The man arrested signed his name on the painting: Vladimir Umanets. He was placed in custody around 9 p.m. local time.
Photographs of the damage showed the text "VLADIMIR UMANETS '12, A POTENTIAL PIECE OF YELLOWISM'' scrawled on Rothko's 1958 canvas "Black on Maroon.
'Not art or anti-art'
Using a phone number posted on on the so-called "Yellowism" movement's website, a Reuters journalist spoke to a man answering to the name Vladimir Umanets who said he carried out the attack.
"I'm aware they (the police) will come at some point and arrest me,'' he told Reuters. "It was an artistic statement, but it was more about having the opportunity to speak about galleries and art."
A manifesto posted on the website reads: "Yellowism is not art or anti-art. Examples of Yellowism can look like works of art but are not works of art ... Art is forever developing 'diverse whole'. Yellowism is forever expaning 'homogeneous mass'."
Tim Wright who witnessed the incident described it as "surreal." He posted a picture on Twitter and described how "this guy calmly walked up, took out a marker pen and tagged it."
In another tweet, Wright wrote: "Very bizarre, he sat there for a while then just went for it and made a quick exit."
Just saw this Rothko painting being defaced #tatemodern twitter.com/WrightTG/statu…
— Tim Wright (@WrightTG) October 7, 2012
Amy Griffin, an art restorer at London's Simon Gillespie Studio, said she was optimistic that the painting could be repaired.
"The exact material the graffiti was done in will determine how quickly it can be removed," she said. "If it is water soluble this may be done quickly but if it has stained the original paint the conservation may take longer and some retouching might be needed."
Griffin said that while the painting wasn't on the market, the value would only be affected if the new black paint couldn't be removed.
"Removing graffiti or accidental damage to paintings done with pens, paint or even old restoration is a daily part of a conservator's job and the Tate conservation department is one of the best in the world," she said.
The damaged painting is part of Rothko's Seagram series. Originally commissioned for the Four Seasons' restaurant in New York, the artist changed his mind about the project and gave the works to galleries, including Tate Modern.
Much of Rothko's work is characterized by canvases with large rectangular blocks of color.
The last major piece by the artist to be sold was his "Orange, Red, Yellow". It fetched $87 million at an auction in New York earlier this year.
The Tate Modern is no stranger to action by so-called artists. In 2000, two Chinese performance artists tried to relieve themselves in one of the gallery's most famous sculptures: a urinal by Marcel Duchamp.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed to NBC News that they were investigating the incident but said Monday that no arrests had been made.
Reuters contributed to this report.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Debt-choked Greece aims to sell off islands, marinas, more
- Abu Hamza, 4 others tied to al-Qaida arrive in US
- New role for rescued bear cubs
- Americans travel to Pakistan to protest US drone strikes
- Court: Kenyans tortured by colonial regime can sue UK
- Tourists fined as Rome declares 'War on the Sandwich'
- Stay informed: Sign up for our newsletter
Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Sounds like some idiot advertising his website. And NBC bought it hook, line and sinker.
A gibbering liberal at work. A rebel without a clue. His intellect is so far above ours that we obviously don't get the point of his vandalism ... only a pure thinker gets it.
Whether or not you like the painting, I don't, what does he think gives him the right to deface someone else's work. If he's an artist how would he feel if someone defaced one of his paintings.
Red ink would have looked a lot better. Why is this even news?
If you aren't interested in art, why did you even read it?
One man's junk is another man's treasure it has been said, even in the art field. However,simply using famous works of art by others already established, as a stage to launch one's own marks onto in the name of "art", is like standing on the shoulders of giants. Who tower above the viewing crowds in their respective fields for the place they have rightfully attained in the art world. Then seeking not only that same fame, but also addition honor, acceptance and respect above that by implying one has improved beyond the former to even greater heights with no gratitude paid to them. All without the benefit of the test of time, labor, reflection,growth nor and cost. In this instant gratification world we live in, is it any wonder we see people like this? Regardless if one wishes or not to call something "art".
The vandal should make his own art and anti-art, deface that in his own way, and leave other art alone. He's completely self-absorbed when he strives to impart his own idea on someone else's artwork.
He a tagger and a vandal! Nuff said..
Agreed. If he bought the painting, and then defaced it, that would be art.
I have always loved Rothko's work.
IF this low life was going to deface something through graffiti, too bad it wasn't graffiti on the artwork of a graffiti artist like Keith Haring or Banksy.
(Though still horrible, it would be at least a little karma,,,,, and might even have improved the "artwork".)
Dave: I mirror your words. If you have such a strong statement, make your OWN art and then deface it in a public place, like a train station.
He's a wimp and a weeny, knowing full well that NO ONE cares about his tiny thoughts and his only "fame" is through de-faming someone else.
What a nob.
Any addition to the painting would be an improvement.
Agreed. But, if you'll allow me, I'll touch up your statement a little:
Any addition to the "painting" would be an improvement.
What I can't fathom is who's got $87 million to blow on a colored canvas square. I need to find me one of these idiots and sell them something.
And all of you art-types: save your breath trying to convince me that is art. Jeez that world is full of pretentious morons (rich pretentious morons).
PS: Having expressed my disdain for this kind of "art", I have to add that that defacing-pretentious-moron had no business defacing private property.
JM
Trying to explain art to you would be like explaining the Theory of Relativity to a caveman. But thanks for the warning.
Art is Michaelangelo's David, or Picaso's Guernica, or the cave paintings of Lascaux. Art is not slathering a bunch of blue paint on a canvas and overlaying it with a yellow rectangle. If you think it is, I have a painting for you - it won't even cost you $87 million dollars; I'll sell it to you at cost: canvas + half gallon of Sherwin Williams.
But by all means my friend, delude yourself.
PS: the Chinese activists who pissed on Duchamp's urinal knew the true value of his "piece".
DVNYC,
PSS: You make my prevoius point beautifully.
JM...
the fact that you think you have the ability to decide what is and what isn't art shows your own pretentious attitude toward those around you and is really ironic given your voiced dislike of those types...
.
That "idiot" would be found in your bathroom mirror,,, (if someone with your low class had a dollar to spare).
.
And just so you know, you can dislike something while still respecting what it is and what it did for art. Your total disregard of Rothko and how different his work was from the art that came before it shows an ignorance to art history and how visual creativity changes and morphs through time. You don't have to like the art...but to say it "isn't art' or doesn't mean anything simply proves a lack of understanding of how art has gotten where it is, what artists and work got it to that point, and how it grew or changed piece by piece.
There are MANY artists that I don't personally like, but I still realize the importance that their work had in influencing the history of art. you can dislike Rothko, but you can't deny the influence his work has had on a LARGE number of people and artists...
JM
no, you make my point beautifully. sadly, you probably can't see the irony in that art is only what YOU think is art. and though the artists and pieces you mention are truly great works, you become the elitist by dismissing what others think are great works.
By the way, some people think Picasso sucks, so I guess that makes you one of those artistic, snooty types.
And Duchamp would have probably enjoyed watching people urinate on that piece of work, which you would understand if you knew what the Dada movement was about.
Something tells me you all would have been part of the group clamoring for this artist's work:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499240/Toddler-fools-art-world-buying-tomato-ketchup-paintings.html
Art is different things to different people. Jackson Pollock had a large following, but to me it looked like he laid out a large canvas and waited for a gaggle of geese to fly over and dump on it. Sign your name and sell it for tons of cash. One persons lovely art looks like goose sh*t to me.
Someone recently did something similar in Houston to a Picasso (I believe) and the guy shooting the video was in on it. Why don't they question the guy you posted it on Twitter?
I love Rothko and his work is much more complex and beautiful than simple color blocks. The Tate needs to prosecute to the fullest extent they can.
This guy thinks he's Kandinsky or Malevich - Paint your own damn painting you twat.
All kinds of delusional behavior in the world today. A man sprays a slogan on a painting which is not his property and declares, it is not vandalism, it is an artistic statement.
Go figure. Maybe a couple of years in prison will help him refine his artistic technique.
hopefully he gets his face painted white.
This is absolutely pathetic. I am no Rothko fan either. The first time I 'viewed' his work was at the Museum of Modern Art in Paris in 1972. There was a very large exhibition room at the museum (which was fairly empty on a week day pre-industrial tourism) which was rather dark. I looked in the room and saw what I thought were large moving pads covering all the walls and assumed a new installation was being unpacked. Just as I started to walk away a security guard stopped me and did me the 'service' of turning on the lights. What was actually hanging on the walls were these huge (to be polite) crud colored monotone canvasses of various depressing hues. My immediate reaction was to turn to the guard and ask him how anyone could stand working in this exhibit hall all day without becoming morbidly depressed or plain crazy from the effect. He nodded sypathetically and told me that the security guards argued about who would be stuck being stationed there which was the hall was dark. I nodded and sympathized with my lousey French.
I have thought Rothko was just a poseur from the post-war period which brought us a host of male artists producing similiar what I consider to be abstractionist (non)art. Studying the movement has not changed or improved my opinion. HOWEVER no one has the right to deface or mutilate what some -- who also have a right to their opinion -- consider to be priceless works of art. It is really no different from defacing a Van Gogh or Picasso painting in that sense. They should through the book at this publicity seeking wannabe. There is no excuse for this wanton vandalism disguised as self-promoting performance art.
"producing similar what I call abstractionist (non art)" are they similar because Rothko was a pioneer? and by "(non art)" do you mean non-objectivism? to not understand Rothko is to not understand subtlety, Rothko's color plane paintings have tones that are simple on the surface but get deeper the closer you look. The lighting in most Museums these days is not conducive to seeing tonality.
To not understand Rothko is to not understand concentric squares.
What a jacka*ses. If he wanted to make an "expression" then he should have painted his own crap.
Art is no longer about painting, sculpting, etc, it's about talking. Art is about pseudo intellectuals sitting around in universities and art galleries stroking each other and changing the meaning of the word art. Did you know it's considered art to get on a stage in front of an audience and take a crap?
The greatest, or saddest part, is that great art is still alive and well, you just have to look for it...there's far more to art today than the BS that gets the most press...
Art is no longer about painting, sculpting, etc, it's about talking. Art is about pseudo intellectuals sitting around in universities and art galleries stroking each other and changing the meaning of the word art. Did you know it's considered art to get on a stage in front of an audience and take a crap? That's called performance "art".
Regardless of the relative value (depending on viewpoint) of the art, the moron didn't own it, and therefore didn't have the right to deface it. The courts need to take some artistic license of their own... a work in black on gray... called "Umanet's Incarceration"
The majority of the comments on the article are likely from people who never spend so much as a minute in an art museum. Depressing.
I spend a lot of time in art museums throughout the world; never did I even entertain the thought of defacing even the most outrageous artistic expression whether I liked it or not.
I've spent time in just about every major art museum on the planet and many of the minor ones. "Art" like Rothko's, or Hirst, or Koons, just leaves me with a smile on my face at the thought that anyone would pay five bucks for the stuff. It's "art" by people who can't draw, paint, or sculpt. Without it, critics would have nothing new to write about and galleries nothing overpriced to sell. But hey, every cat to its ashcan.
But...defacement is not art. It's vandalism. "Yellowism" indeed. Go be flavescent on your own dime, buddy. My wife does a killer Pollock, and just for the cost of the paint.
Any kind of art, including music and literature, needs at least 200 years of perspective to be honestly evaluated in context anyway. No doubt in 2213 literature students will be studying Harold Robbins and Jacqueline Suzanne, and the joke will be on all us ignorant dead folks.
Arcturus, What does it matter whether or not the comment are even from art lovers? We are discussing an act of vandalism. The scariest part of this story is that if this trend continues, there will be no public art. All of the museums will be forced to shield their art from vandals to protect it from the monsters that are committing these acts. We don't want to go to museums to view art behind bulletproof glass; if we have to do that, we might as well look at pictures of it on the internet. The world must show their outrage and vilify the vandals or public art may disappear. What will that mean to artists the world over? Perhaps museums and galleries will spend so much to protect the art they have, they will not longer be interested in bring forward controversial and visionary artists who will lead to further vandalism attempts. To quash new art and new styles? What are people thinking that would support this monstrous behavior? You have to think of the ultimate consequences before you defend the indefensible.
Maybe someone should go to his house and drop a little art on his carpet and see how he likes cleaning up someone else's @!$%#.
It's hard to attribute this as an 'artistic statement' to someone who obviously has no talent and no intelligence.
In today’s world the highest prices for paintings have habitually gone to things that would have been laughed at two hundred years ago, and you can blame the camera for that. Technology has been a crutch, since the camera can capture the thing better, denying realism allows the hacks to claim that their daubs, splashes, and scrawls mean something. It doesn't matter that a moderately trained monkey could accomplish something similar.
As technology marches on there will continue to be a redefining of what art is because whatever a man can do, a computer given the right kind of input can or will be able to do it better.
Whatever, the guy didn't own the thing so he had no business messing with it. Put him in jail.
Where has the respect for others gone, this is ridiculous!! Trying to take the enjoyment out of a classic by defacing it. I( know most don't enjoy this type of art, but others do.)
The only attention paid this self titled "artist" should be by the police, and the big guy he ends up sharing a jail cell with.
If there is anything in existence that's completely subjective in its analysis, it is art. I have a close friend who thinks Rothko is the biggest charlatan who ever lived. I am quite fond of his work, at least some of the pieces that hang in Rothko Chapel in Houston. His "Broken Obelisk" is there as well. Just to inject a bit of humor into the discussion: Years ago while in Houston, I happened to meet an elderly couple who were tourists from a small town in Alabama. The lady was telling me all about the sights they had seen in the area. I asked if they had been to Rothko Chapel. She said, oh, yes, we went yesterday. I then asked her how they liked the paintings? Here is her priceless reply - "Oh, honey, there weren't no paintin's on them walls." I explained that yes, there is a series of Rothko's work hanging in the chapel. She replied, "Well, they must've taken them paintin's down to clean 'em or somethin', cuz there weren't none of 'em on them walls when we were there!" My friend who hates Rothko had a moment of great gloating when I told her that story - "See??!! I TOLD you so!!"
Vlad, you are a moronic schmuck as well as a criminal. But don't worry, England's justice system will slap your hand and you'll be free to deface more art. You and others of your ilk disgust me.
What a self-serving tool. He needs to have the sh!t kicked out him and dropped at the door of the museum with a sign around his neck that reads "This is what happens when you phuck with something that's not yours".
FIrst my comment to Vlad - I have no slue what you said - but my thought when I read it is "Spiro Agnew was right whne he talked about pseudointellectual snobs". People try to talk big thoughts when their brain capacity is the size of a gnat.
Second - I have seen some of Rothko's work and while I personally dont care for it I do know others do. The fact that there is art in this world for everyone to like is what makes museum and art gallery visits so much fun. What I like or dislike is my business what others like or dislike is thier business, none of us need judge others for their taste.
Rothkos' "ART" is crap.His critic deserves an open hand bitchslap for his 'comment'
Mark Rothko paintings, like much of art as we know it, are complete garbage. Attach whatever contrived metaphors to them you want, they are still something kids can whip up with some markers and construction paper. The value of this particular piece probably went up after this, simply because a few people are actually talking about it now.
inorite?
First of all, I detest Rothko; he was an ego-maniacal jerk and his paintings are an exercise in self-indulgence. That being said, this incident raises two questions. First of all, I agree with whoever questioned the right of someone to deface someone else's artistic production. At the same time, in doing what he did, this guy's keeping the piece relevant and giving it a contemporary dialogue as opposed to having it just sit on its a$$ in a museum all day long. If art is to evolve, it has to change. And while this may not be the best choice, it is a change and it got people talking.
Art raises questions of taste by it's very nature; however, if we allow this destruction because we don't like something, whose to say the entire community won't rise up and deface everything they don't like. If you want to vandalize art, buy it! Public art is purchased as a treasure for the public to view and appreciate or denigrate as we see fit. The penalty for defacing art in museums or galleries should be 20 years without parole and working to pay for it's restoration until it is paid for or replaced (not that it is possible).
Lay person, should you accept graffiti on your house because your neighbors don't like your white paint? Should your house be bombed because somebody doesn't like your architecture? Does the fact that it's gets a conversation going in the neighborhood make that acceptable too?
Let's stay on point, folks...this isn't about the validity of the piece being defaced as 'art'. Society has already settled that discussion. This is about some yahoo (pardon the association, Yahoo!) taking it upon himself to take the lazy route common in today's world... Rather than being unique, innovative, artistic, or (God forbid) genius, we would rather piggy back on someone else's work. Regardless of your opinion on whether Rothko's work should be considered art, it was certainly not this moron's (you're welcome Yahoo!) right to deface it!