A couple who defaced a $400,000 painting thought it was a public art project...

[DGUtley]

A couple who defaced a $400,000 painting thought it was a public art project... The vandalism of a piece by the graffiti artist JonOne at a gallery in South Korea has prompted a debate about contemporary art.

The couple saw brushes and paint cans in front of a paint-splattered canvas at a gallery in a Seoul shopping mall. So they added a few brush strokes, assuming it was a participatory mural. Not quite: The painting was a finished work by an American artist whose abstract aesthetic riffs on street art. The piece is worth more than $400,000, according to the organizers of the exhibition that featured the painting.
Now it’s hard to tell where the artist’s work ends and the vandalism begins. “Graffitied graffiti,” a local newspaper headline said last week.


Either way, the piece, “Untitled,” by John Andrew Perello, the graffiti artist known as JonOne, is now a magnet for selfies. And on social media, South Koreans are debating what the vandalism illustrates about art, authorship and authenticity.

Graffiti1.jpg

ezgif-4-ab52bad4aeea.jpg

ezgif-4-46107b80c9c9.jpg


With the additions by the couple:

ezgif-4-8a215f7f9642.jpg


JonOne-portrait-photo-by-Gwen-Le-Bras-crop-c0-5__0-5-555x312-70.jpg



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/w...tm_source=digg

[Peter1469]

It looks like someone painted something while wacked out on drugs.

[Cotton1]

It looks like someone painted something while wacked out on drugs.

Thats "abstract art". Looks like the drugs themselves painted someone that was "whacked out"

[stjames1_53]

It looks like someone painted something while wacked out on drugs.

purple microdot................

[Collateral Damage]

I'm not big on abstract art. However, I would not assume that something is participation art, regardless of paint and brushes being in front of a painting.

The artist is 'angry' that his work was defaced. Since a professional art restorer said it's fixable, I'm sure the couple who did this will foot that bill.

Meanwhile, the Artist just got a boat load of free advertising. Perhaps he should unknot his panties.

[Dr. Who]

I prefer this artist's work:

[DGUtley]

$400,000????

Who said so?

[Collateral Damage]

$400,000????

Who said so?

The artist, I'm sure lol.

[Standing Wolf]

The painting was being exhibited at a shopping mall. The paints and brushes were sitting there in front of it and within reach of anyone walking by. Assuming that there were no signs prominently displayed warning people away, picking up a brush to add to the painting would seem to be the most natural reaction. I would probably have done it. If the artist meant for the paint cans and brushes to be there, then what happened is on him. If the exhibitors thought it would be a nice touch, then it's entirely their fault.

As for the painting's value, until someone actually shells out a given amount to own it, the artist and "the organizers of the exhibition" can say whatever they want and it means exactly nothing.

EDIT: Okay, I'll confess I'm guilty of not reading the entire article before posting. Apparently there were signs advising people to leave the painting alone, and the paint cans and brushes were those used by the artist in making the painting and were part of the "work". So I guess the question is, how big, clear and prominently displayed was the notice?

[jigglepete]

Not to make excuses for the couple, but, with malls and airports having grand pianos set up for public playing...well...

Also, velvet rope..."Veeelvet roooope" ~ Lisa Simpson.