Child damages $56M Mark Rothko painting in Dutch museum – IOTW Report

Child damages $56M Mark Rothko painting in Dutch museum

Friday, 2 May 2025, 12:00 MJA Uncategorized 37

Oh nooooo… Where will they ever find another rectangle with a line below it?

Oh wait, here’s one:

37 Comments on Child damages $56M Mark Rothko painting in Dutch museum

  2. Ha ha ha, how can one tell that was or was not damaged? It would require a forensic examination of the piece before and after the damage. And, how could one be sure it had not previously been damaged in some way? I suppose one would have to have done the formal examination just as the product rolled off the line before it had a chance to be damaged.

    I have often said, Picasso saw the ‘art world’ coming, so did Jackson Pollock and at this point most everyone from Rothko, whomever that may be, to Hunter Biden have seen this ‘art world’ coming down the street with money hanging out its pockets and not a thought in its head. Good for them. The fool’s money must be parted from him/her/it/zir/zim/zippy zam zooey ASAP.

    15

  3. The price of an object is simply the amount of money that at one point in time is seen as an improvement in personal wealth for both parties if the money and the object change hands in opposite directions. More simply, the buyer values the money more than the object, and seller values the object more than the money. Both parties, in their individual views, come out ahead and walk away from the exchange richer than they were before.

    When both the buyer and the seller are bat-shit crazy, the price tends to be bad-shit crazy, too. Like for Rothko crap.

    14

  4. C’mon, man!

    If it wuz me, Id tellum I wanna takeit outta tha kid in TRADE!

    Noone gimme kidz to sniffum now, Jill dont even holdem for m3 nw, so let an ol Senator drean,

    5

  5. I highly doubt that the museum paid 56 million for that.
    But someone probably wrote off 56 million on their taxes when they donated it to the museum
    now the museum will write off the ‘damages’ on their taxes
    I could fix that painting for them

    17

  10. honestly, while the post is slightly humorous, the mockery here shows complete complete illteracy and ignorance towards what is Art, which is idea, concept and with Rothko the resonance and meaning of color and form on our human eyes, brains and hearts. The poster and commentator mockers have failed. I am not a leftist but a free-thinking American, artist, musician and human. I am not a dumba$$ who thinks great Art are Roman statues and sculture, or simple landscapes or Renaissance portraits paid with “millions” for no meaning, point or idea by rich, elite patrons to immortalize themselves (like Hillary, Gates or Kamala Biden Obama Musk or Bezos). You sad commentors mock only yourself in your total clueless uneducated middle school mindset! THE TRUTH. And you make non-leftist looks bad, shame on your stupidity.

    1

  13. Art appreciation is basically an opinion; if one finds pleasure, enjoyment or some satisfaction with a piece, it is good art to them. If not, it’s basically worthless.

    This Rothko is worth $49.95 to me.

    6

  18. I have a poster of an orange and yellow Rothko. I can’t explain why, but it’s one of my favorites. I guess it’s like looking at a sunny day no matter what the weather is actually doing.
    https://www.bing.com/search?qs=UT&pq=rothko+orange+and+ye&sk=CSYN1&sc=6-20&pglt=299&q=rothko+orange+and+yellow&cvid=231e385a4b8b4d569924d1850f560e7b&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIARAAGEAyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEDSAQkxMTcyNGowajGoAgCwAgA&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=ACTS

    That and Gino Severini “Mare’= Ballerina” is another favorite. I can’t explain why but I love the color the shapes and the extremes in movement. I guess there’s a ballerina in there somewhere, but I never really tried figuring it out. I just enjoyed the composition and kept those two posters next to each other in my office(s). Both could give me a real lift.

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=gino%20severini%20mare%20%3D%20ballerina&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=gino%20severini%20mare%20%3D%20ballerin&sc=9-29&cvid=5F51333BB20947519409224E60336900&first=1

    2

  19. @billy truth:

    You sad commentors mock only yourself in your total clueless uneducated middle school mindset! THE TRUTH. And you make non-leftist looks bad, shame on your stupidity.

    I see. I disagree with you therefore I cannot possibly know THE TRUTH. Well, here’s a truth for you. Yours is the attitude more accurately assessed as a “clueless uneducated middle school mindset.”

    I expect a visual artist to be effective at conveying his aesthetic message. Rothko isn’t, unless his message is so unsophisticated as to be simple-minded.

    10

  20. @ billy truth FRIDAY, 2 MAY 2025, 12:50 AT 12:50 PM

    What I particularly object to is when government illegitimatly expropriates money from taxpayers and then spends it on this kind of fucking bullshit and then has the unmitigated gall to mock those same people they have basically stolen from them by insinuating or outright saying that they aren’t sophisticated enough to appreciate the goddamn bullshit.

    In my experience not even 5% of the horse shit government spends on in the name of are is anything other than a mockery of the very concept of art.

    7

  22. @Dr. Tar: there are some abstract pieces I like, and others that do nothing for me. This attitude can even extend to different pieces by the same artist; for whatever reason I like some of Miro’s work, but other pieces I wouldn’t own or display under any circumstances. It’s like music – I’ve had albums by what may consider to be some of the greatest artists, but which I could never listen to.

    Critics as a rule tend to be snobby; you need to like this or you aren’t cultured. My wife taught art for many years, and she could explain art concepts like movement, texture, etc. – but I still didn’t like many of those pieces she liked. But that’s o.k. – the world would be a more boring place otherwise.

    5

  23. I have stood before sculpture that brought me to tears. Paintings that took my breath away.

    That art touched some part of the wretched soul that resides uneasily in me.

    It evokes things hard for me to express in a linear, coherent manner. It bypasses the crude, clumsy artifice of language composed of words that can reflect on but never quite adequately convey complex impressed feelings. Words fail, but art does not.

    Things foisted off as art, like the above, are a cruel joke.

    Might as well tape a bannana to a wall. Oh, wait…

    6

  24. The thing about Rothko’s is that they aren’t making them anymore and every Rothko that is lost or destroyed makes that many fewer that might ever make it on the art market ever again.

    Economics is scarcity and the study of how we humans respond to it.

    1

  26. And besides, the amount of money that supposedly represents the ‘value’ of the ‘painting’ is most relevant according to whosoever is providing said money.

    2

  28. billy truth- You DO know that someone dropped a pair of reading glasses and people flocked to see it thinking it was some sort of bold new art, right? The dude was mocking the behavior of the ‘art class,’ just like we are.

    Go be smug somewhere else, art pharisee.

    7

  30. I feel compelled to weigh in.
    Let me first say I do not dislike Mark Rothko. I dislike Rothko admirers who talk down to people who dislike Rothko.

    Art since cave paintings evolved forward, with artists developing their “realistic” skills to depict the world that they saw. Artists played with space, perspective, and color- all exercises in craft that “impressed” the viewer.

    Inevitably, artists reached a ceiling on realism, and different movements came about as art entered a deconstruction phase.

    Then, along came the art critic. This person told the viewer why their thinking was not thinking at all. The critic would tell unsophisticated people why their distaste was a lack of taste.

    Rothko is simply an artist who rode the wave of critical absurdity. For the most part, these movements were clowning critics and art collectors. They produce a piece, and a carried-away critic will provide all the profundity and imprimatur needed to elevate a square on a canvas into sheer genius. The art is not genius. the business of peddling that particular movement kinda is.

    I agree with Tar. I just like some stuff, even if just a square. But it’s perfectly valid for someone else to say, “wtf, dude, it’s just a square.”
    There is no reason to shit on anyone that broadcasts their aesthetic.

    7

  32. If the “art” was actually of any value it would have likely been displayed behind a piece of highly resistant plexiglass or some other form of protection….

    4

  33. I see the Dutch have adopted modern American concepts of child rearing; let little precious do whatever he/she wants, without barriers, guidelines or discipline.

    2

  34. I appreciate great art, like that created by great artists, like Dave Kendig and Chip Foose. I can relate to their medium of choice, and how they have suffered for their passion.

    1

  35. Dan- good point. That was my other issue with it, besides the idiotic price tag and the snobbery of people.

    A dozen years ago at an LA museum, I got 1/4 inch too close to the (filthy) velvet rope looking at something that was about 4 – 6 feet away, and a sekuurdy guard got in my face about it. I told him that I was squinting to see if the little tag said that it was a reproduction and that if it doesn’t say that, it should. He just stared at me like- “I onno.” lol.

    I turned and told my friend, “I mean, if tax payers are gonna fund this stuff, they should bring in the real thing and not a wax casting covered with hot glue and colored with bronze house paint.”

    Now, fetch us the docent, knave! 😂

    Then, we went to the LA county nat. history museum, where we enjoyed paper cups, plastic bags, and newspapers floating in the tar pit. The loose dinosaur untethered from its base was a nice touch, also.

    The Getty was much nicer. The art was shielded, the floors were clean, and the security guards actually knew about the art.

  37. Oh! The bronze thing we were looking at… Turns out, it was a reproduction of a reproduction. 🤣 The original was in the warehouse rusting and twisted. Why wouldn’t they bring that out instead? At least you could see the artist’s process and intentions. My former boss’ wife was a docent at the Getty. She knew all the dirt.

Comments are closed.

iOTWreport.com ©2024 ----- iOTWreport is not responsible for the content of comments. All opinions in comments are solely the commenter's.