Robert Rauschenberg - Erased De Kooning

konzwambii Says:

Sep 2, 2009 - Old masters are depressing to you because you have no vision and no understanding of art. Art speaks across the chasm of the ages, but apparently not to YOU. Sad.

konzwambii Says:

Sep 2, 2009 - Please define "mediated images". As there are those here who both support and decry this pathetic attempt at fame, are you sure we are all idiots?

konzwambii Says:

Sep 2, 2009 - hahahahahahaha: "build the stretchers"...

konzwambii Says:

Sep 2, 2009 - Well, by now we are all on the same page: 1. It wasn't "art". 2. It was an act of vandalism. 3. It was a sad cry for attention, to "connect' himself with a greater artist. 4. It wasn't even creative. 5. RR himself could not draw.

MrWowforever Says:

Sep 2, 2009 - ....................yawn.

claureic Says:

Sep 4, 2009 - This story actually shows what a great artist De Kooning was and his deep understanding of what art is. He quickly got RR's point and gave him one of his drawing he prized most.

imthehiphopopotamus Says:

Sep 22, 2009 - haha... bottle of jack daniels...

steve228uk Says:

Sep 24, 2009 - Art is less about what something looks like, it's about the idea. You need to understand why RR did it to understand the artwork.

konzwambii Says:

Sep 25, 2009 - Yes. DeKooning made art, while Rauschenberg made only "a point". Sadly, some think that "point" is also art. Wouldn't it make a great "point" if some "artist" erased everything RR ever did?

trwc1980 Says:

Oct 1, 2009 - THIS IS ART! Let's clap and fuck.

humiliat3dGrape Says:

Oct 8, 2009 - This was just one piece, not everything de Kooning did. Art is supposed to make a point.

konzwambii Says:

Oct 8, 2009 - Yes, and wouldn't it make a perfect "point" and be ever so Poetic, Creative, and Artistic if the next "artist" not only emulates RR by erasing 1 drawing, but goes one better and erases EVERYTHING RR ever did! Now THAT is Art!

headspace42 Says:

Oct 10, 2009 - poop-a-loop... hey look i just made art! thank you all for this entertainment

HeathenLoveGod Says:

Oct 23, 2009 - Rauschenberg was one of the greatest artists of the C20th.

godgin Says:

Oct 26, 2009 - I think RR would be all for it.

konzwambii Says:

Oct 27, 2009 - I'm glad you said that, getting to the REAL point. That is EXACTLY wrong, and why most modern "art" is so, so pathetic. Art is EXACTLY about what it looks like. We use eyes to see art (although sculpture can be well appreciated by the blind, since that is tactile). Art has always been about "what it looks like", that is, until now. Now everybody is an "artist"! Hooray! No talent needed, now everyone can be a great artist!

Furze2 Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - Art is in the eye of the beholder, Much art is uncertain and often the reward is uncomfortable rather than reassuring.

ImagineA92 Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - i think whats so great about art is the broad definition that it has taken on

ActsOfBeauty Says:

Nov 14, 2009 - Marcel Duchamp flipped a urinal upside down. That's art, too.

safetydept Says:

Nov 14, 2009 - how can you erase paintings which are already white?

joanneheartsstrokes Says:

Nov 16, 2009 - i LOVE it. it's artistic gesture on Duchampian scale

Metamusik Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - Konzwambii, I feel for your enthusiasm, but please. You've obviously have no idea about the history of art or contemporary art, otherwise you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement as claiming art is only what it looks like. You seriously believe conceptual art doesn't require talent? Let go of the formalist bullshit for crying out loud, it's painful to watch.

Metamusik Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - Conceptual art requires a special point of view, a mindset, a talent if you will. You don't get this work, which I would like to claim is a true conceptual masterpiece, so you must lack the talent. Congratulations: You can't become a great conceptual artist! Art is yet again saved from nihilism.

konzwambii Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - Incorrect. I've made a lifetime study of art and art history, and have studied with some of the most prominent art historians. And yes, I do believe conceptual art is an oxymoron: it may be conceptual but it isn't art. It is an artifice, a concoction by elitist narcissistic talentless FAILED "artists" and the effite inbred sychophants, critics, and magazines that wish to sell us the emporer's clothes. I'm not buying.

Metamusik Says:

Nov 25, 2009 - Furthermore I don't care who you studied with: You still flunk. Remember the first lesson: Art is not static. Fools bash post-modern art for not being modernistic just as fools used to bash modernistic art for not being classical. It's called "Not getting it". The best way to experience art is not by having a good ol' jerk-off in the Sistine Chapel. True art is never that dull.