Vandal Artist makes a case.
Rindy Sam probably doesn’t stand a chance in court but I must confess a blank canvas looks pretty inviting to me as well.
Being that it’s absolutely white must be a form of abstract expressionism where the artist appeals to the incoherence caused by laziness of actually doing art or actually lifting a paintbrush.
Blank canvases belong on easels, not in galleries.
Even as an abstract expressionist myself, there is a certain lack of expression here that questions the form.
In the article mentioned above, the work is described as
" a pristine white canvas"
How the heck is that worth the $2 million that Ms. Rindy Sam is being sued.
I’ll buy you another canvas. Or better yet.
I think someone should sue Cy Twombly for copyright infringement. I’d love to see that go to trial.
6 Comments
some things about the art world i’ll never get. this i get. hilarious! i’ve got a white canvas for sale. let’s start the bidding!
let me know where, and I’ll come “deface” it…lol
This is one of the things about art that bothers me. There is no finite line which you have to cross in order to be called art.
This is outrageous. If anything that guy owes the ‘artist’ $20.
You know, it could be worse! At least the “artist” paid $20 for the canvas. I have some odd junk I could just jumble on top of a display area for free.
Could I sue someone for moving them, once I set them up? I’d settle for $55,000–does that make me cheap?
Good point Joshua. Pile of junk for $55k sounds like a bargai compared to 2 million for a blank cavas.
Haha, I don’t know if that’s completely laughable, or really, really horrible.
I very much agree a blank white canvas does not belong in a gallery. And two million dollars? That’s completely out of line! Maybe $15 the artist paid for the canvas and a like, $20 more for inconveniences.
I still can’t believe it was hanging in a gallery in the first place!