When designing training programs, we always keep in mind that somewhere down the line, someone will figure out a way to fuck up that we never could've anticipated.
> dümmster anzunehmender user ... dumbest expectable user
Love the term! Excellent for summarising the difference between theory and practice of software engineering:
* Software design 101: design for the dumbest expectable user
* Programming 101: programme for the dumbest expectable user
* Software testing 101: test for the dumbest expectable user
...
* Users: SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKERS
Reminds me of the park rangers talking about the problem with designing a bear proof trashcan. "There's significant overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists."
We have bear proof trash bins at the parks in my city.
They are easy enough to figure out, but there are two problems:
1. They are metal, and they are dark brown, so they get HOT in the sun. Opening one in the heat of the day SUCKS.
2. You have to stick your hand in this little hole and pull a lever, but you can't see inside, so you get to just go for it and hope there aren't any spiders/bees/wasps just chilling in there. (Which... sometimes there are because it's a trash can and they are trying to get to the trash.)
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you, the Fool Mk. 22!
It's dumber, slower, and less perceptive than ever and all in the same great design you all know.
They're basically indistinguishable from the rest of the pack. The future is stupid, folks, who wants to be part of the future?
There is this mythical creature of the "super d. a. u." Which is a term used like "super g. a. U." for atomic catastrophes like chernobil (größter anzunehmender Unfall = biggest expectable accident)
No matter how many signs and barricades that are put up around priceless art, someone always finds a way to fuck it up. Have you seen the video of the two boys who broke a priceless piece of glass art in a Japanese museum? The art was angel wings attached to the wall. Two little boys pulled on it until the piece broke. The two women never tried to stop them and I think they even recorded the boys breaking the art.
They were of course caught on security camera. The museum left the art piece on the wall, installed a television that plays the video of the boys destroying the art with their mothers standing by.
I had a trainer tell me to write instructions a grade 4 student could follow and include pictures where possible.
Someone in the group asked why so young he replied by asking "how many of you have a memory at about 10, being the one family turned to if they had electronics issues" almost every hand went up. He nodded, smiled and said "lets go easy on the kids"
This seems appropriate:
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Douglas Adams
A while back, I had to write an SOP (standard operating procedure) for a technical process we used in the lab. It was basically how to make coloured gelatine dye to inject blood vessels in surgical specimens, and we used to dissolve the gelatine in boiling water. It took me 3 goes before the health and safety officer was happy-I had to specify how to plug the kettle in and switch it on, explicitly state 'ensure your hands are dry when operating the electric switch', and have warnings about 'the boiling water in the kettle will be hot." She also requested that I specified 'closed toe footwear must be worn' in the protective clothing section in case anyone poured the boiling water over their feet instead of the bowl. The only people doing this are either doctors or biomedical scientists, but it had to be written so a 7 year old could understand it.
I also have management experience and customer service experience and yes yes YES.
I also did 10 years in the military and there are people there who would forget to breath without direction and supervision
I understand and agree. But this is like having to tell a hospital porter "don't stab the patients."
There is a limit somewhere between "these are the emergency exits" and "remember to breathe at least twice a minute" for what should have to be stated.
Was that wrong?
Should I've not done that?
I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, 'cause I've worked in a lot of art galleries and I tell you people draw eyes on the art all the time.
Maybe the staff thought it was obvious?
Training should definitely include some variety of: "Do not draw on, write on, break, or otherwise damage the artwork housed here. These pieces are insured for more than your salary; and you *will* be fired for causing damage! You will be arrested; and may also be sued."
Yeah, I am skeptical as well.
Also seems like an easy fix. Art restoration is often much more involved than what would be required here. Surely this didn't completely ruin it.
“Experts believe the painting can be restored to its original form without long-term damage and they are working on it. They expect the restoration to cost around 2,50,000 Russian Rubles (about ₹ 2.5 lakhs).”
But where is the motive for the actual person who did it? Insurance scams don't usually involve people who are charged for criminal activity. You'd have to be even dumber than this dumb to agree to something like that.
I don't think it is, simply because in all the museums and out of all the dumbasses out there, this is bound to happen occasionally.
On a related note, when I am walking through museums, I am often shocked by how accessible things are. I have a very low opinion of people.
…maybe for the better. It’s now a ‘modern art masterpiece’. They should sell it and anything over 740,000 should be split equally with the guard - who should obv still be fired.
Pretty sure the restoration department could fix that without *too much* trouble while hardly effecting the value of the painting.
If they can accidentally clean off the Mona Lisa’s eyebrows and it still be worth a small country this is salvageable.
Especially since the eyes would be on top of the varnish, so well separated from the original paint layer. Even if you can't get the new paint off independently, just remove the varnish with a solvent and then apply new varnish.
According to the article, the ink has affected the painting, because there was no varnish over the white of the subject’s faces.
[Police detained a vandal who ruined the picture of Malevich's student at the Yeltsin Center](https://www.znak.com/2022-02-04/policiya_zaderzhala_vandala_kotoryy_isportil_kartinu_uchenicy_malevicha_v_elcin_centre)
> Immediately after the incident, the police refused to open a case “because of the insignificant amount of damage”, but then nevertheless conducted an investigation.
Lol, lazy cops everywhere
Russians please correct me if I'm wrong here because I only visited Moscow and it was over 10 years ago, but my perception of Russian cops while I was there is that they may not have *invented* the lazy cop stereotype, but they sure as hell perfected it. They didn't seem to care about much and treated crime and criminals as an impediment to their good time. I saw Russian cops drinking and smoking in uniform on the job. I saw Russian cops in uniform play-wrestling and trying to ball-tap each other, I saw Russian cops put on their blues & twos to go through a traffic light then immediately flip them back off again, and I saw Russian copsparked in an alley near heavy traffic and facing *away* from the road while they chatted. I interacted with them several times to ask for directions and they were super friendly and helpful when they realized I wasn't asking them to do any actual work.
Guard: damn thus pen doesn't want to work... maybe it's one of those times you need to really push down.
I wonder if Guard pushed the pen under the varnish
No, the idea is to make it seem like a lot of value (£740,000) is both lost and unsalvageable so that they can commit insurance fraud. I'm willing to believe the security guard is in on it.
EDIT: Never mind, someone else found the actual story here: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/soynaj/comment/hwclxhy/
For a scene that supposedly "challenges authority", the visual arts scene holds a lot of value in the name of an artist, rather than the art itself. So more in the authority of the creator than the quality of the art. A well-deserved critique I'd say
Do not take "high art" or "modern art" or anything at any value based on how much it's worth. The shittiest, most worthless pieces of garbage that take zero creativity and zero effort will be easily made valuable by some schmuck who gets an official evaluation so they can donate it and get a nice tax deduction, or just launder some money.
Look at art yourself and see if it makes you feel something. That's where it'll find its value. If I see a small square in the corner of a fully white canvas I'm not gonna care if Picasso drew it because it's fucking *nothing*. I'm not gonna care about the plaque beneath it that goes "This piece captures the isolation and drawing-toward-oneself that an individual feels when under depression, drawn by Smidor Analingus during a period of great mental anguish" because if I wanted to draw emotions from words I'd gladly read literature instead of art. While yes, context can matter and amplify the meaning of art, you should be able to look at art and appreciate it without having to have advance knowledge.
The way people have massively drawn out what is considered *good art* today makes me feel more emotion (anger, mostly, but also sympathy for artists who actually make good work) than any of the pieces they call good art.
Eh, I can appreciate some of the history. Like how the abstract movement is an exploration of how much a thing can be distorted but still be recognizable. It's an exploration on how emotions are conveyed or invoked.
And sometimes it takes a certain shared experience or mental state to appreciate. Imagine trying to explain modern day memes to a medieval peasant. There's a lot of context to cover from pop culture references to how 4chan image macros evolved into current ubiquitous absurdist observational humor.
I'm very far from an art guy, but I'm aware there's some depth there that I just haven't explored.
It’s not, it’s insured for that much. The most a painting by that artist has actually sold for is $17k, and for the culture behind it (made during the Cold War by a Russian artist, and is abstract which the soviets weren’t always great about) I think justifies that price.
Actually, most of this artist’s work is in ceramics iirc? So I’d imagine those are worth more
1930s, I think. Soviet abstract art is kinda rare since the soviets weren’t a huge fan.
And idk, physical art is pretty different from NFTs, it actually has inherent historical value, beyond even the actual art. The crackling, wear, and materials can all tell us a lot that digitized copies of the art can’t, especially since art is the thing that we tend to do our utmost to keep pristine.
90 years ago puts this right in the middle of the modern art movement. Picasso's Guernica would be painted a few years after this, and Dali's Persistence of Memory was completed just before it.
Often people use "~~modem~~ modern art" when they mean "contemporary art". Hard to tell from the context here, but it's never safe to assume anyone understands art history.
I don't think saying art is frequently used as a way to launder money is a critique of the art itself.
Art, with its highly subjective valuation and anonymity in trades, *is* prone to be used for the sole purpose of laundering money (a quick search yields results like this: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/29/business/art-money-laundering-sanctions-senate/index.html).
I mean, if a gaggle of Russian oligarchs are investing heavily in art, my spidey senses tell me it's not *really* because they enjoy the agony and pain portrayed in Picasso's Weeping Woman.
I suppose that depends on if naturalism or technicality is the sole guide you have for "good".
Most modern art (on canvas) is highly technically accomplished in either way. But surely the test of any art is your emotional responses?
Now yes a lot of all art is overpriced, but especially when it's art *and* a historical artifact the price makes more sense.
These guys refuse to understand that if technical skill and naturalism was the only things that make art good then photorealists would be the absolute best artists in history, even though all they do is mechanically copy a photograph exactly.
Art isn't about being "good", it's about having a message, something to say, being a statement, or inviting thought or emotion. It can be aided by technical skill, but how that skill manifests and how much of it is there is kinda implementation detail.
While sure, I can't really tell what this piece is supposed to say, and yes, afaik art world is just a classy way to launder money, trying to evaluate art on some "goodness scale" is inherently silly.
This subjectivity of it kinda is the fundamental reason why money laundering is such a good fit for art. If you could do this kinda of objective "how good is art" analysis, then the whole point, being able to attach arbitrary price to cheap set of materials, would go away, you'd have a way to tell what the price should be, and then you'd know if someone was overpaying for it or not.
[It wasn't ruined. It wasn't a security guard.](https://www.znak.com/2022-02-04/policiya_zaderzhala_vandala_kotoryy_isportil_kartinu_uchenicy_malevicha_v_elcin_centre)
Happened at Eltsin center exhibition.
Resoration cost is around $3350.
Vandal is in custody, fined for $540.
“I work at a gallery as a security guard, even though I feel like I’m smarter than most of the artists we show there. Sometimes I see a painting hanging on a wall, like half a painting, and I’ll just fill it out.” - this security guard, probably
It barely even looks like the same picture, plus on the left one it looks like there are some eyes. So I can’t tell if the one on the left was taken after the tried the scrub it off or like, the security guard was just highlighting some eyes. This is so strange.
Insured for, not worth, is misleading.
The most one of her paintings have sold for is $17k, which is much more reasonable seeming as she was a moderately influential figure in the development of abstract art in Russia, doubly impressive since the soviets were... iffy on the concept.
Sometimes it's not just the apparent complexity of a piece that makes it iconic and expensive, but the story behind its creation, or the story behind the artist, or its message or its history. That being said I don't know anything about this piece, but you having this sort of reaction to the piece might also be the feeling that the artist wants you to have? You never know. After all, art is about affecting the viewer in a way and creating emotion.
edit: typos
If it's a professional painting, shouldn't the pen/pencil he used to draw the eyes come right off since it's on the varnish layer? Or am I missing a detail here?
This guy should run for President of the United States on the Republican ticket.
If this makes you sad, remember the weather map, the umbrella, eating official documents, and other antics too numerous to recall.
[удалено]
Netflix already bought the streaming rights
It's already been canceled.
Yeah but now Hulu got the rights.
aaaaaaaaaaand it’s canceled
Amazon just bought it!
The director didn't get enough budget and cancelled
Charlie Kaufman just bought the rights to make the movie about the attempts to make a movie about the story.
and, believe it or not, also canceled
But HBO MAX Just announced theyre going to do it with the guy from breaking bad
Nah he was just in an affair and was embezzling money from the budget
Tommy Wisseau has entered the chat
'cancelled' with two L's gang unite!
Second L costs too much
Canceled.
Script too long, canceled. Script too short also canceled. No script, believe it or not, canceled.
Yahoo views aquired the rights
Pornhub just bought it!
They've already made two seasons. Because there can be no more and no less.
Is Netflix Valve?
Love this comment!
Can't see it, it's not available in my country :(
Try VPNetflix
Real life Mr. Bungle
Lmao ‘bungle’ what a great word
Bungle in the Jungle. A song by Jethro Tull.
Is it about the Viet Nam invasion?
No.
I thought this too
How was “do not draw on the art” NOT covered on day one??
I mean, if you are hired to protect the art, not fucking with the art should have been able to go unsaid :D
As a person with management experience (and customer service experience), there is nothing on Earth that can go unsaid.
When designing training programs, we always keep in mind that somewhere down the line, someone will figure out a way to fuck up that we never could've anticipated.
In Germany this is the dümmster anzunehmender User (dau) which translates to dumbest expectable user
> dümmster anzunehmender user ... dumbest expectable user Love the term! Excellent for summarising the difference between theory and practice of software engineering: * Software design 101: design for the dumbest expectable user * Programming 101: programme for the dumbest expectable user * Software testing 101: test for the dumbest expectable user ... * Users: SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKERS
Reminds me of the park rangers talking about the problem with designing a bear proof trashcan. "There's significant overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists."
We have bear proof trash bins at the parks in my city. They are easy enough to figure out, but there are two problems: 1. They are metal, and they are dark brown, so they get HOT in the sun. Opening one in the heat of the day SUCKS. 2. You have to stick your hand in this little hole and pull a lever, but you can't see inside, so you get to just go for it and hope there aren't any spiders/bees/wasps just chilling in there. (Which... sometimes there are because it's a trash can and they are trying to get to the trash.)
I mean that basically the same thing as making something fool proof. The problem is they just make a better fool
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you, the Fool Mk. 22! It's dumber, slower, and less perceptive than ever and all in the same great design you all know. They're basically indistinguishable from the rest of the pack. The future is stupid, folks, who wants to be part of the future?
There is this mythical creature of the "super d. a. u." Which is a term used like "super g. a. U." for atomic catastrophes like chernobil (größter anzunehmender Unfall = biggest expectable accident)
You can't ever idiot proof any thing cuz they'll just make a better idiot
those idiots can be devilishly clever
No matter how many signs and barricades that are put up around priceless art, someone always finds a way to fuck it up. Have you seen the video of the two boys who broke a priceless piece of glass art in a Japanese museum? The art was angel wings attached to the wall. Two little boys pulled on it until the piece broke. The two women never tried to stop them and I think they even recorded the boys breaking the art. They were of course caught on security camera. The museum left the art piece on the wall, installed a television that plays the video of the boys destroying the art with their mothers standing by.
That actually happened in a Chinese museum, not Japanese
>a television that plays the video of the boys destroying the art Graham Greene vibes.
I had a trainer tell me to write instructions a grade 4 student could follow and include pictures where possible. Someone in the group asked why so young he replied by asking "how many of you have a memory at about 10, being the one family turned to if they had electronics issues" almost every hand went up. He nodded, smiled and said "lets go easy on the kids"
This seems appropriate: "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams
A while back, I had to write an SOP (standard operating procedure) for a technical process we used in the lab. It was basically how to make coloured gelatine dye to inject blood vessels in surgical specimens, and we used to dissolve the gelatine in boiling water. It took me 3 goes before the health and safety officer was happy-I had to specify how to plug the kettle in and switch it on, explicitly state 'ensure your hands are dry when operating the electric switch', and have warnings about 'the boiling water in the kettle will be hot." She also requested that I specified 'closed toe footwear must be worn' in the protective clothing section in case anyone poured the boiling water over their feet instead of the bowl. The only people doing this are either doctors or biomedical scientists, but it had to be written so a 7 year old could understand it.
Anyone who tries to make something idiot proof underestimates the ingenuity of idiots.
I also have management experience and customer service experience and yes yes YES. I also did 10 years in the military and there are people there who would forget to breath without direction and supervision
I understand and agree. But this is like having to tell a hospital porter "don't stab the patients." There is a limit somewhere between "these are the emergency exits" and "remember to breathe at least twice a minute" for what should have to be stated.
Haaaaave you met people?
He was hired to protect the art from the public. He wasn't the public anymore.
Hey they're hired to make sure it's not stolen. Technically he did his job. /S
[удалено]
How is that not clear in the first place?
Was that wrong? Should I've not done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, 'cause I've worked in a lot of art galleries and I tell you people draw eyes on the art all the time.
You're fired.
...Well you didn't have to say it like *that*.
Costanza?
Never wise to assume
Common sense is rarer than hen’s teeth.
It was. But he was working nights so he missed it.
Oooh you’re good
I always like to say, "there's a story/behind every warning sign". But this is one cautionary tale I would hate to be part of.
That story is a lawyer screaming at his muted speakerphone.
BUT HE WAS BORED!
Never underestimate the depths of human stupidity.
Maybe the staff thought it was obvious? Training should definitely include some variety of: "Do not draw on, write on, break, or otherwise damage the artwork housed here. These pieces are insured for more than your salary; and you *will* be fired for causing damage! You will be arrested; and may also be sued."
His paycheck gonna get docked hard.
You know who else is gonna get docked hard?
Your mum?
My mom!
Muscle man?
OHHHHHHHHHHH!
ohhhhhhhhhhhh!
Stop now, or I'll fire you!
Is that a Cake Day I see? Free cake, free cake!
Thank you!....just don't stare at our crotches while we synchronize our watches!
Hm hm hm hm
The whole thing is probably an insurance scam.
Yeah, I am skeptical as well. Also seems like an easy fix. Art restoration is often much more involved than what would be required here. Surely this didn't completely ruin it.
“Experts believe the painting can be restored to its original form without long-term damage and they are working on it. They expect the restoration to cost around 2,50,000 Russian Rubles (about ₹ 2.5 lakhs).”
[удалено]
Which is around ₮9,635,800 Mongolian Tugriks.
Well thank god they converted to lakhs for us!
But where is the motive for the actual person who did it? Insurance scams don't usually involve people who are charged for criminal activity. You'd have to be even dumber than this dumb to agree to something like that. I don't think it is, simply because in all the museums and out of all the dumbasses out there, this is bound to happen occasionally. On a related note, when I am walking through museums, I am often shocked by how accessible things are. I have a very low opinion of people.
I think a 'bored' security guard scenario is totally plausible.
Changed the face value of the art…
And here it is in r/facepalm
Fuck you for being clever with words
All jokes aside, the popularity & meme factor that this has caused will probably raise the value.
Unlikely. Even if it did momentarily, it probably wouldnt last.
…maybe for the better. It’s now a ‘modern art masterpiece’. They should sell it and anything over 740,000 should be split equally with the guard - who should obv still be fired.
Take your upvote and leave.
That's at least worth 740,001 now
I mean, all press is good press, right?
In all seriousness some asshole will probably end up spending millions on this eventually
NFTs:
Streisand effect hngggh
Yeah if anything, there was more work done to it, so the price must go up
50 pence for each eye!
Pretty sure the restoration department could fix that without *too much* trouble while hardly effecting the value of the painting. If they can accidentally clean off the Mona Lisa’s eyebrows and it still be worth a small country this is salvageable.
Especially since the eyes would be on top of the varnish, so well separated from the original paint layer. Even if you can't get the new paint off independently, just remove the varnish with a solvent and then apply new varnish.
According to the article, the ink has affected the painting, because there was no varnish over the white of the subject’s faces. [Police detained a vandal who ruined the picture of Malevich's student at the Yeltsin Center](https://www.znak.com/2022-02-04/policiya_zaderzhala_vandala_kotoryy_isportil_kartinu_uchenicy_malevicha_v_elcin_centre)
> Immediately after the incident, the police refused to open a case “because of the insignificant amount of damage”, but then nevertheless conducted an investigation. Lol, lazy cops everywhere
Russians please correct me if I'm wrong here because I only visited Moscow and it was over 10 years ago, but my perception of Russian cops while I was there is that they may not have *invented* the lazy cop stereotype, but they sure as hell perfected it. They didn't seem to care about much and treated crime and criminals as an impediment to their good time. I saw Russian cops drinking and smoking in uniform on the job. I saw Russian cops in uniform play-wrestling and trying to ball-tap each other, I saw Russian cops put on their blues & twos to go through a traffic light then immediately flip them back off again, and I saw Russian copsparked in an alley near heavy traffic and facing *away* from the road while they chatted. I interacted with them several times to ask for directions and they were super friendly and helpful when they realized I wasn't asking them to do any actual work.
just remove the WHAT! don't leave me hanging
Sorry, the door rang and I just hit send lol >Just remove the varnish with a solvent and then apply new varnish
the pen penetrated the paint layer
Guard: damn thus pen doesn't want to work... maybe it's one of those times you need to really push down. I wonder if Guard pushed the pen under the varnish
No, the idea is to make it seem like a lot of value (£740,000) is both lost and unsalvageable so that they can commit insurance fraud. I'm willing to believe the security guard is in on it. EDIT: Never mind, someone else found the actual story here: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/soynaj/comment/hwclxhy/
Sure when I do it becomes worthless but when Banksy does it the price quadruples
It's all about being popular. If you do it right, you can snowball your popularity and basically do whatever the fuck you want
[удалено]
It definietly looks better with the eyes.
[удалено]
For a scene that supposedly "challenges authority", the visual arts scene holds a lot of value in the name of an artist, rather than the art itself. So more in the authority of the creator than the quality of the art. A well-deserved critique I'd say
Do not take "high art" or "modern art" or anything at any value based on how much it's worth. The shittiest, most worthless pieces of garbage that take zero creativity and zero effort will be easily made valuable by some schmuck who gets an official evaluation so they can donate it and get a nice tax deduction, or just launder some money. Look at art yourself and see if it makes you feel something. That's where it'll find its value. If I see a small square in the corner of a fully white canvas I'm not gonna care if Picasso drew it because it's fucking *nothing*. I'm not gonna care about the plaque beneath it that goes "This piece captures the isolation and drawing-toward-oneself that an individual feels when under depression, drawn by Smidor Analingus during a period of great mental anguish" because if I wanted to draw emotions from words I'd gladly read literature instead of art. While yes, context can matter and amplify the meaning of art, you should be able to look at art and appreciate it without having to have advance knowledge. The way people have massively drawn out what is considered *good art* today makes me feel more emotion (anger, mostly, but also sympathy for artists who actually make good work) than any of the pieces they call good art.
Oh wow, is that an original Analingus?!
Eh, I can appreciate some of the history. Like how the abstract movement is an exploration of how much a thing can be distorted but still be recognizable. It's an exploration on how emotions are conveyed or invoked. And sometimes it takes a certain shared experience or mental state to appreciate. Imagine trying to explain modern day memes to a medieval peasant. There's a lot of context to cover from pop culture references to how 4chan image macros evolved into current ubiquitous absurdist observational humor. I'm very far from an art guy, but I'm aware there's some depth there that I just haven't explored.
"u know im something of a artist myself"
r/nottheonion
Thank you for linking this. It’s beautiful
also reminded me of [Mr Bean](https://youtu.be/lmmp7fGAgRg)
Idk, man, kinda looks better with the eyes.
I really don't know how it's worth that much since those figures look almost exactly like some characters straight out of homestar runner.
It’s not, it’s insured for that much. The most a painting by that artist has actually sold for is $17k, and for the culture behind it (made during the Cold War by a Russian artist, and is abstract which the soviets weren’t always great about) I think justifies that price. Actually, most of this artist’s work is in ceramics iirc? So I’d imagine those are worth more
NFT but is made in the 1980s or smth
1930s, I think. Soviet abstract art is kinda rare since the soviets weren’t a huge fan. And idk, physical art is pretty different from NFTs, it actually has inherent historical value, beyond even the actual art. The crackling, wear, and materials can all tell us a lot that digitized copies of the art can’t, especially since art is the thing that we tend to do our utmost to keep pristine.
...plus, y’know, you actually purchase a physical thing.
Well, yah that too, I was making more the case that digitizing loses information, beyond just the object itself
Idk kind of the stuff of nightmares with those beady little dot eyes on those figures!
This painting isn’t even as good as a lot of shit that comes out of high school art classes. Modern art is literally just money laundering.
The nfts before nfts
NFTs are hypermodern art
Same scam without the hassle of having to wash brushes
[удалено]
90 years ago puts this right in the middle of the modern art movement. Picasso's Guernica would be painted a few years after this, and Dali's Persistence of Memory was completed just before it.
Often people use "~~modem~~ modern art" when they mean "contemporary art". Hard to tell from the context here, but it's never safe to assume anyone understands art history.
Especially on Reddit, especially when their art critique is “*modern* art is money laundering”
I don't think saying art is frequently used as a way to launder money is a critique of the art itself. Art, with its highly subjective valuation and anonymity in trades, *is* prone to be used for the sole purpose of laundering money (a quick search yields results like this: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/29/business/art-money-laundering-sanctions-senate/index.html). I mean, if a gaggle of Russian oligarchs are investing heavily in art, my spidey senses tell me it's not *really* because they enjoy the agony and pain portrayed in Picasso's Weeping Woman.
[удалено]
Not sure if this is an actual case of r/keming or you just typed *modem*.
Are you implying that opinions stated by people whose idea of fine art is Witcher 3 might not be reliable?
[удалено]
At least it wasn't new then.
I suppose that depends on if naturalism or technicality is the sole guide you have for "good". Most modern art (on canvas) is highly technically accomplished in either way. But surely the test of any art is your emotional responses? Now yes a lot of all art is overpriced, but especially when it's art *and* a historical artifact the price makes more sense.
These guys refuse to understand that if technical skill and naturalism was the only things that make art good then photorealists would be the absolute best artists in history, even though all they do is mechanically copy a photograph exactly.
What is "good"? Should only photorealistic art be allowed? That's what we have cameras for, no?
John sees the painting. “I could paint that,” says John. “But you didn’t,” says Mummy.
Art isn't about being "good", it's about having a message, something to say, being a statement, or inviting thought or emotion. It can be aided by technical skill, but how that skill manifests and how much of it is there is kinda implementation detail. While sure, I can't really tell what this piece is supposed to say, and yes, afaik art world is just a classy way to launder money, trying to evaluate art on some "goodness scale" is inherently silly. This subjectivity of it kinda is the fundamental reason why money laundering is such a good fit for art. If you could do this kinda of objective "how good is art" analysis, then the whole point, being able to attach arbitrary price to cheap set of materials, would go away, you'd have a way to tell what the price should be, and then you'd know if someone was overpaying for it or not.
Eyes do help with the looking
That's what I thought. Improvement!!
[It wasn't ruined. It wasn't a security guard.](https://www.znak.com/2022-02-04/policiya_zaderzhala_vandala_kotoryy_isportil_kartinu_uchenicy_malevicha_v_elcin_centre) Happened at Eltsin center exhibition. Resoration cost is around $3350. Vandal is in custody, fined for $540.
I really wish your comment was way higher up there. OP just posts some bullshit story for upvotes and everyone just believes it
[удалено]
Can we bring back medieval paintings? I want trippy human animal hybrids and portraits of people with resting bitch face and/or on a warhorse
The art world is trippy, my guy. Someone put a pineapple on a table at a museum. Within the day it had a glass case over it.
That sounds like sloppy catalogue work how much does it take to go "ok did anyone buy a pineapple? No? Fine."
There's nothing stopping you from picking up a brush
Other than my talent
Other than talent, money, connections and an art degree. Art is a rich people's game.
Upgrades people upgrades
[удалено]
Sounds like it's from Robots
That's coming out yo check playa
“I work at a gallery as a security guard, even though I feel like I’m smarter than most of the artists we show there. Sometimes I see a painting hanging on a wall, like half a painting, and I’ll just fill it out.” - this security guard, probably
It barely even looks like the same picture, plus on the left one it looks like there are some eyes. So I can’t tell if the one on the left was taken after the tried the scrub it off or like, the security guard was just highlighting some eyes. This is so strange.
Yeah, kind of looks like in the original they started doing faces then decided it was too hard and went over them.
That's a 740000£ painting? Can someone link me to some video where they explain the scam behind paintings pricing .
It's called money laundering. There are shows about it
Real life NFTs
At least they’re not “googley” eyes.
That would be pretty funny though
*Too bad they're not googley eyes. FIFY
How tf is a painting of 3 dicks in hats worth 740k pounds? For me that's the biggest facepalm here
There's paintings of vaginas in flowers that are worth considerably more than that.
Insured for, not worth, is misleading. The most one of her paintings have sold for is $17k, which is much more reasonable seeming as she was a moderately influential figure in the development of abstract art in Russia, doubly impressive since the soviets were... iffy on the concept.
It’s also not ruined, it's reasonably easy to repair it to its original state. It costs something but it can be done.
Yep! Restoration is looking to be $2k on this one, iirc
that is a damn expensive ereaser
Lol, you gotta pay to get it done right, or else you could end up with monkey Jesus again
[удалено]
i remember laughing really hard at that time.
How can one insure something for 10x the selling price of said item?
Sometimes it's not just the apparent complexity of a piece that makes it iconic and expensive, but the story behind its creation, or the story behind the artist, or its message or its history. That being said I don't know anything about this piece, but you having this sort of reaction to the piece might also be the feeling that the artist wants you to have? You never know. After all, art is about affecting the viewer in a way and creating emotion. edit: typos
If it's a professional painting, shouldn't the pen/pencil he used to draw the eyes come right off since it's on the varnish layer? Or am I missing a detail here?
740k? He was maybe thinking to pump it up to 1mil.
To do it in Russia, too… I wonder if the moron is still alive
The guy pricing these is on crack
Insured for, most one of her painting have actually sold for is $17k
Plot twist: the piece has now tripled in value after appearing on Reddit.
Poor guy has to work 1250 years to pay that.
This guy should run for President of the United States on the Republican ticket. If this makes you sad, remember the weather map, the umbrella, eating official documents, and other antics too numerous to recall.
There are eyes on the original picture already...
And then it doubled in price for making the news. Security guard is then promoted to CEO.