Art Attack

Just this past fall someone “vandalized” a Mark Rothko painting in the Tate Modern in London.  The vandal does not consider himself a vandal, but rather someone who is expanding the conversation around art.  Read the attached articles and points of view.  Do you agree with the perpetrator?  Is there any situation where altering one person’s piece of art is acceptable?






Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to Art Attack

  1. ashley palmer says:

    After reading the posted articles on the vandalism and art I think that there is and should be more of a clear boundary that separates the public and this form of defamation. I can understand the eagerness and willingness to invoke new feelings and thoughts concerning art and art pieces but I don’t believe that it is necessary for another person to basically destroy another artist’s work in the name of art. The reasoning for having art galleries and viewings is to engage in conversations about the work and to bring up questions, comments and criticisms. I personally don’t believe that it’s necessary for another person to put their tag or mark on another’s work. Although in most of the incidents discussed in the article the vandalism was easily repaired, the point of violating that piece of art in that moment in time is truly unnecessary. In order to expand the conversation around a work of art, it needs to be observed, felt, consumed, digested and amongst the most important it needs to be discussed. Art can be replicated and altered using the original as an inspiration and foundation, which can expand the conversation by comparing and contrasting each artist’s interpretation. I thi8nk the time and dedication is what truly suffers when a work of art is vandalism and would hurt the artist more rather than the message they were trying to convey. Art is suppose to stir up controversy and questions, proposing criticisms and applauses not become a location of a crime or a lead to a suspect for criminal charges. Equally talented people can create renditions or adaptations of what they think is a better version, more updated or realistic prototype of any form of art putting whatever twist they would like to add to it, as long as the original isn’t compromised. For example, imagine if someone decided to climb Mt. Rushmore to give Abraham Lincoln a new nose or George Washington a face lift, or even spray paint the statue of liberty gold, that person would face criminal charges and not only be declared a vandal but a threat to American nationalism. Anytime art is created it captures a bit of history because it captures a particular moment in time and the feelings associated with it that the artist decided to portray. Altering this moment is not acceptable no matter how miniscule or large to scale the change is and for whatever purpose or message trying to be conveyed.

  2. Alicia says:

    Just this past fall someone “vandalized” a Mark Rothko painting in the Tate Modern in London. The vandal does not consider himself a vandal, but rather someone who is expanding the conversation around art. Read the attached articles and points of view. Do you agree with the perpetrator? Is there any situation where altering one person’s piece of art is acceptable?

    Art is a way for people to express their thoughts, feelings and opinions in a creative way. I would say that the artist is free to express whatever as long as the art piece doesn’t express illegal thoughts, symbols or actions as for example Swastika – the Nazi sign. I think that vandalizing one person’s piece of art is acceptable if the art piece is a danger for people’s safety. Mark Rothko’s art piece was not an intention to e.g. discriminate, and I therefore think it was unacceptable to vandalize his art piece. As I said – art is a way to express thoughts, and people must accept that people have different opinions. Not only is it childish to ruin someone’s piece just because one disagrees, but it is also illegal to vandalize other people’s properties. The person who vandalized Rothko’s art piece could rather make a form of response to it. It is understandable that to ruin the painting makes a bigger statement, but it also draws bad attention to the person who vandalized the painting including some other kind of sanction. It is unnecessary to vandalize when one can express himself in so many different ways considering everything we have access to nowadays. It is not just unnecessary, but also not acceptable as long as the art piece isn’t a danger for anyone.

  3. Bridget Sutcliffe says:

    I believe that art should be treated with respect. Vandalizing is a serious crime and the man who vandalized Mark Rothko’s painting should be charged for the damages. If he did not like how his piece was, then he could have made one of his own instead of destroying that painting. I do not understand how the man who vandalized the painting does not think it was wrong because it is. I know he wanted to express what he was feeling when he saw the painting, but to write on it is totally unacceptable and unnecessary. I do not think under any circumstances that this act is acceptable because art is someones feelings and thoughts, and for someone to ruin it by vandalizing it, defeats the whole purpose. I know it has been happening for a while after reading these articles and I still believe that it is unacceptable and people should have to pay for the damages and possibly prison time.

  4. Bridget Parkes says:

    After reading through the articles, I do feel it is disrespectful to vandalize artwork because it is someone else’s doing. I feel art is a way to express oneself and by vandalizing, you are taking away that basic right. Although I do believe this, I do feel that art “vandalism” can make something new and exciting. I felt that vandal who put the lip stain on the painting might have added an element that the author never would have thought of. This being said, I am a major fan of Bansky. I feel that graffiti in the streets and street art is not a form of vandalism. Philadelphia is a prime example of a city that is colored by the works of street artist and it is through this “vandalism” that we have some of the most inspiring pieces that people admire on buildings. I feel this cannot be categorized with the people who openly vandalized someones painting because Bansky, and those similar, are also just finding a way to express themselves. I feel that this topic can have many different sides and to me, whether something is vandalism or not, remains to be situational

  5. Georgia Papaloukas says:

    I do not understand why a person would feel the need to vandalize someone’s work of art. I think the reason I don’t understand is because I can’t comprehend what it is like to feel such a passion about a piece and want to vandalize it. Paintings and such are just art to me, I have never had a deep connection or feeling while looking at art, so I would never feel the need to mess with art or alter it. Some people do feel the need to destroy valuable art and they most certainly should be forced to face the consequences. Looking at it from another prospective- I don’t think the price of art should be valued so high (monetary wise) and if it weren’t so expensive nobody would care if it were being vandalized. That is the hard truth. Regardless, we are living in a world where “extraordinary” art is priced high and people adore it. Those who don’t adore it and choose to mess with art should be punished, though I don’t think paying for damages would change the minds of those who vandalize others’ art.

  6. Isabel Lopez says:

    After reading through the articles, I do feel it is disrespectful to vandalize artwork because it is not necessary to destroy an artists work of art because of one’s strong feelings and thoughts concerning art. Art, in my opinion, is a way to express oneself; when one commits an act of vandalism, they are taking away that right. Art galleries and viewing are used for the sole purposes of engaging in conversations, exchanging comments and criticisms, and asking any question regarding the work of art, I do not think it necessary for a person to vandalize another persons’s work of art because of their feelings towards art at the moment. Although art is meant to cause a reaction while at the same be observed and consumed, one should not mark the work of art but rather discuss their opinions on the piece. Art is meant to inspire people to express themselves and get their message across. It is also supposed to stir up controversy and questions, not acts of vandalism. By vandalizing a work of art, you are not getting your message across but facing a criminal charge. By vandalizing a work of art, you are hurting the artist and the message they are trying to convey through their work of art instead of proving your own point. If a person has a strong opinion on a certain piece of art, they should just create a rendition of what they think is a better way of conveying their message or proving their point instead of vandalizing another artist’s hard work. For example, if someone spray painted graffiti on the statue of liberty they are not only facing a serious charge, but they are destroying a piece of history because that work of art captures a moment and feeling of a moment in history. In my opinion, I do not think a person should turn to vandalism to get their point across. There are many way to get a point or message across in the world of art, vandalism is not one of them.

  7. Zhane Holman says:

    I personally do not agree with the perpetrator who vandalized Mark Rotho’s painting, or any of the other people who have taken it upon themselves to alter someone else’s work of art. These were masterpieces created by people with their own opinions and perspectives and nobody has the right to try to destroy or tamper with them just to get theirs across. There is no situation where altering a person’s piece of art is acceptable. Despite whether he change is done in malice or with the intent to “better” the art in some way, the artist made it that way for a reason so it should be left alone. Destroying someone else’s vision to create your own is just wrong. I believe that those perpetrators who did these acts in order to make a statement should’ve took the time to reflect about how the artist felt and what statement they were trying to create when they originally made these pieces of art.

  8. Caroline Slusarczyk says:

    I do not think that it should ever be considered acceptable to vandalize someone else’s artwork. The person who vandalized the Mark Rothko painting claimed to be expanding on the conversation of art, but it is unnecessary to ruin another person’s art. Art has a different meaning to every person, and when an individual completes a piece it is meant to be displayed in that way. When someone vandalizes someone’s art, I view it as a disrespectful act. Graffiti, when standing alone and created without criminal intent, is one person’s artistic expression. But once graffiti and other forms of vandalization are created in a way that disturbs someone else’s art, such as the art in the articles we read, it becomes unacceptable.

  9. Rachel Sload says:

    After reading all of the articles and already having an opinion on this matter, I came to the conclusion that I, personally, never see a reason to tamper with someone else’s art. The person created the piece of art with an image in mind, or maybe not, maybe they just it as they went. It doesn’t matter; when they were happy with their piece, they were done. They stopped. They had nothing else to add because it was exactly how they wanted it. Art is a very relative term. What art means to me, and what art means to you, can be two totally different things. No one is ever in the right to decide that someone needs to add something to their piece so they are going to just vandalize it. Tampering with someone else’s art, regardless of how it’s done, is wrong. Even the one person who got locked up because they put a kiss mark on a piece was wrong. The person who painted it would have put it there if they wanted it. I don’t see there ever being an appropriate time to touch someone else’s art.

  10. Caroline Mancuso says:

    When reading all of these articles on vandalism of art work it just makes me upset. I personally am not a person who enjoys art as much as others do. With that being said I respect any type of art in the ways society should show its respect by not vandalizing someone else’s work. Everyone takes pride in what they do regardless if it’s art work or not. When you find out that your work has been touched or disturbed by someone else without permission it really makes someone mad. Unless someone has the permission to alter one’s work or artwork then it is acceptable to touch it. Also people should know better than to mess around with someone else’s artwork. But there should definitely be a better way of expressing one’s feelings towards art. Also in museum’s all art should be in picture frames or cases where it is impossible to vandalize the art. Hopefully that would help against people kissing art work or writing how they feel on the piece. Another way people might not vandalize art is if there was a sign that listed the consequences against violating the rules. Maybe the woman who kissed the art work by Cy Twombly would not have showed her affection towards the art as dramatically. It’s just crazy how people can act so out of place in society. It really bothers me and most definitely the artist how disrespectful some people can be towards art work such as going as far to alter the hard work of someone else’s.

  11. Megan McCreadie says:

    It is not acceptable to deface or vandalize someone else’s work of art. After reading each article, and reading through the different works of art that have been vandalized, I couldn’t help but be upset at each situation. The vandal in each situation each had a different reasoning behind their defacement, whether it be to protest something, done as a joke, or done because the way they feel about the art. No matter what the reasoning behind their defacements were, I still find no logical reason why someone should tamper with someone else’s work of art. If I were the artist of something thats been vandalized, I would feel angry, cheated, and annoyed at the situation and at the person who felt the need to vandalize. There was not one reason I saw that would justify damaging someone else’s work. There are other ways to protest, to show affection towards something, or to show anger towards something. Overall, the defacement or the attempt of defacement of someone’s work of art is disrespectful, and you should never tamper with it.

  12. Maia barnes says:

    After reading through the various situations where art has been vandalized, I was shocked to see that the people who had been doing it felt they could justify it. When one person creates a piece of art and it is somewhere for many people to see it becomes their work, not somebody else’s to tamper with. No matter how those that see this work feel about it, it is not theirs to change. They can love it, hate it, think it needs something else, disagree with the point of view, etc. Regardless, those thoughts are not ones that can prompt someone to freely change another person’s art. The only situation I can think of this being OK would be if someone altered their own work, or if someone altered a work that they purchased or obtained and keep privately. As long the person who owns the piece of art has consent on tampering with it I dont see it as a problem. In all of the above cases, however, that was not the case and each piece of art in my mind was ruined when someone felt they had the right to inflict their ideas on someone else’s art.

  13. Katie Lachenmayer says:

    After reading the different articles on the vandalism of artwork, I was shocked. Some of the people believed they were doing nothing wrong. French artist Pierre Pinoncelli smashed a piece of art in Paris’ Pompidou Centre. He was quoted saying “I made it fresh and new, I created something new of which Duchamp would have approved, he’d have said ‘Bravo!'” I don’t think anyone can claim that they are making someone else’s piece of art better. Art is supposed to be a release of the artists’ creativity and feeling. A person can have an opinion on a piece of are but they certainly have no right to change it. The vandal of the Mark Rothko painting should be punished for what he did. These vandals say they are just expressing themselves, but they don’t need to ruin someone else’s work while doing it. I really don’t think there is any situation where altering one person’s piece of art, even if you are trying to express yourself in a different way.

  14. Joe Cappello says:

    The defamation of the Mark Rothko painting was indeed an act of vandalism. It is lazy to try and alter an existing piece of art and claim you have changed its message. While art is open for interpretation we are not free to impose our narrow views of it onto others. How can anybody claim to understand any piece so well that they feel the need to add something that the artist themselves did not feel was necessary? If this man wanted to make a print of Mark Rothko’s painting and add his tag to it that would be fine. He could even make multiples and distribute them if he felt his message was important enough to share. But marking the original painting of which he is neither the artist nor the owner, cannot be considered anything more than vandalism. The only instances when destroying or altering an original work would be acceptable are when the piece in question represents any form of oppression. Statues and busts of conquerors, kings, and dictators have been destroyed as a necessary part of revolution and change. Those people can call themselves activists leading a movement. But if you simply destroy another individuals art or property in order to deliver a personal message you are nothing more than a vandal.

  15. Patrick O'Reilly says:

    Well, if art is going to be vandalized, as an expressive form of art, let these people have a go at the “modern art” artists. I would highly doubt if Da Vinci would agree that drawing on his painting was continuing his expression of art. Now the weirdo’s that do a white on white canvas, sure. If they claim something like, I want my art to be a blank canvas to be thought provoking of peoples own art work. Then yes, they probably shouldn’t get mad at someone kissing their white canvas. The article that mentioned self-destructing art, well, sure artistic expression is prevalent in that style, but if something is made out of loose nuts and bolts and is designed to fail upon a little pressure ,and has his live destruction ‘vandalized’ by another artist, who happens to have a day job selling Loctite. Who’s to say his expression of art is not valid? While, I don’t agree with “modern art” on general principle, and seeing people get all upset about another “artist” or “criminal” “vandalizing” a piece for the purpose of challenging society’s view of art. Like the guy that revolutionized the art world by writing on a urinal. When artists stretch the bounds of what’s considered art, the people that pay attention to that outer edge limit can’t really complain about someone pushing it further. I like paintings and pictures of sailboats. I don’t want to see some smart ass drawing a sea monster eating the sailboat while I’m looking at it.

  16. Shamus Roache says:

    I have no problem is an artist decides to destroy his or her OWN art or making that “destroys” itself but for a person to pose as an artist and claim that their art is doing something, whether it be destroy, deface or alter another person’s art is a joke. To me the people that do this are either trying to gain attention for attention’s sake or are simply standing on the shoulders of giants and claiming to be tall. I have no problem with art altering if its the person’s own art. Other than that I can honestly not think of another reason where I would condone such conduct.

  17. Joney Mai says:

    From the articles I’ve read, I believe that the perpetrator are in the wrong for vandalizing art that have been observed and viewed for centuries. The perpetrators believe that their actions are ways of showing their love/hate for the art. However, vandalizing the art should not be tolerated. Famous artworks should not be vandalized because of the rarity and delicacy of the artwork. Just because one perpetrator disagrees with the artwork does not mean the society as a whole dislikes the artwork. Other viewers pay a lot of money to see fine art and perpetrators should not be able to take that away from them.
    The only reason I can think of that would make altering one’s piece of art acceptable would be, if the art piece was made by the artist themselves. The only acceptable reason for altering a piece of art is if the artist itself disapproves of the artwork or wants to critique the art work. It would only be logical for the artist whom created the art to have the privilege to change their art piece.

  18. Sarah Amon says:

    i feel as though these kind of acts aren’t OK, and shouldn’t be tolerated. when someone makes a piece of art it is expressing there feelings and thoughts and when someone vandalizes that it is unacceptable. i like that many of the art that have been restored have insurances and that guards know what to do in case of an accident or vandalism. some people do it out of passion but others do it out of hatred and ignorance either way i am glad their are laws to protect .these pieces of work. although people have opinions there needs to be a clear line between what is voicing ones opinion and what is destroying property and well as another persons right to express how they feel. Tampering with someone work of art shouldn’t be condone under any circumstances unless your the owner. i mean people burn books all the time which is offensive in many aspects and ways.

  19. Paulette Palmer says:

    After reading the articles on vandalizing art, it all depends on how you look at it. Some people do vandalize art just for the sake of having some fun or just because they can but other people vandalize art because they have a reason for doing it, an explanation. As stated in on of the articles we read, the woman stated that she kiss the painting because it made her feel and her emotions were brought to life as she looked at the painting. In the end, all the woman did was leave a little kiss mark on the painting, nothing too serious, but she was still arrested and fined. Many people that vandalize are just because they do not agree with the art do not get caught, compared to the ones that wanted to add some finishing touches to the piece of art. It really does depend on what the situation and the circumstances are in my opinion, in each case. Some people have a supporting argument for why they vandalize art and some people do not have any reasoning at all.

  20. Gregory Masiello says:

    Although vandalism can be considered as a form of art, it doesn’t give someone the right to deface someone else’s work. I don’t agree with the perpetrator; however, I understand his actions for doing so. Vandalism can create new forms of art, and in many ways. This vandal was only trying to do just that. Previous artists are now famous for their actions of vandalism. Thus, this vandal was not only inspired by previous artists attempts, but it seems his acts are somewhat encouraged by the people who accept this art form.
    I do believe that it is acceptable to deface other artist’s works, only if permission was given by the artist themselves. If the request is denied, then the vandal shouldn’t touch the painting. I also believe that much can evolve out of this art form, only if these “artists” use discretion and respect other peoples’ artwork.

  21. Nahome Menker says:

    After reading this article I feel vandalizing artwork is a very bad thing. It is not necessary to destroy an artist’s work of art because of one’s strong feelings and thoughts concerning art. When one commits an act of vandalism, they are violating the rights of the original artist. Art viewing are used for the sole purposes creating conversations, exchanging comments and criticisms around the world as we view it through our eyes. I do not think it is necessary for a person to vandalize another persons’s work of art because of their feelings towards art at the moment. On the other hand art is meant to cause a conversation of any kind while at the same be observed and consumed, one should not mark the work of art but rather discuss their opinions on the piece. All arts are supposed to create a conversation or even controversy of any kind in the society. By vandalizing a work of art a person is trying to change the message of the original artist. If a person is really attracted to a piece of art they should modify their own. I do not think a person steel other persons work to get their point across.

  22. Ajila Koshy says:

    I personally felt that vandalizing someones art is just portraying the dissatisfaction with the art and as well as with their consciousness of being a human, who have no right to destroy others work. When an artist create a form of art, they put all their hard-work and dedication to it. And when someone vandalizes it, its not only the art they are destroying but also that artists dream. It is surprising that the guy who vandalized Mark Rothko’s painting is so confident with what he had done and without any fear calls himself as someone who really creates an art. I believe that no person should just go and vandalize someones art to express how they feel about it because there are other legal ways to express yourself than vandalizing other peoples work. If he thinks that he is the real creator of art, then I think he should have created his own work of art, because just doing something to others work wont make him an artist.

  23. faisal alhilal says:

    In my opinion, I believe that we all have to respect and treat art as a great job or business. For me art is one way to say and explain to other people what you want to tell them, if you do not want to talk directly to them. For example, drawing a piece of art could have different point of view for each one of us. It might represent good point of view for me and, it could be unacceptable for other. However, no one has the right to destroy that piece of art if he or she did not like it for some reasons.
    I believe that vandalizing is a crime and by doing that I could be charged for the destruction or more than that. Therefore, before thinking of destroy someone art I have to think what is the consequences will be. If I were an artist and someone did the same for my paint I am going to call the police and I will try to charge him for the damage to make him pay for my paint.

  24. Kate McCann says:

    This is tough, obviously. Because disagreeing with the perp assumes you are against artists pushing boundaries, which artists hate.
    I understand the vandal’s idea here, but maybe he did it more for the publicity and for the discussion that would follow the incident, then for actually art’s sake. But I suppose that’s something we’ll never know.

    There are definitely circumstances where the vandalism of “art” is more acceptable than on a notable piece in the Tate Modern. When artists alter other artist’s street art, I think that is for statement purposes. I think that’s also more of the culture surrounding graffiti, as opposed to fine art. Yes, these are all unwritten rules, but people know them, and the vandal can’t play ignorance here. I also feel that billboards, public advertising and graphic design call for more manipulation than a one-of-a-kind piece in a gallery. One can vandalize or change the idea of a billboard or common graphic design, because A. is usually a political or social statement, and B. there are hundreds, if not thousands, or replicas that still hold the original, intended message.

    Defacing someone’s original piece of art is pretty disrespectful, since you know they won’t be able to create it the same way again. Despite the idea of pushing boundaries in art, I think this vandal lays pretty guilty in terms of intentionally defacing someone’s work.

  25. Bianca D'Amato says:

    After reading the four articles, I came to the conclusion that art should not be destroyed/ruined by an outsider because that was not the intention of the original artist. Although vandalism does occur among art, it is usually because the person doing the damage has: a new idea that he or she wants to express or resentment against the art or artist. The fact that people choose to vandalize other people’s works of art shows disrespect and belittling. I feel that if someone has a new idea that they want to express they should start with a clean slate and create something completely new instead or adding to an already finished piece of art.

    When reading about how the vandal, who tagged Mark Rothko’s painting, thinks he was further expressing art with a new message, I realized that although everyone has different ways of expressing art, it should never be in spite of someone else or their work. The only acceptable time for someone to alter an artist’s already finished work is with the permission from the original artist.

    People should also realize the consequences they could face if caught after vandalizing a piece of art. Although some people do not care about the consequences and troubles they will face after this crime, some will continue to vandalize just to make their point because to them that is their biggest concern.

  26. Samantha Dunnum says:

    Art and what art is, is always changing. People constantly want to break the mold and bend the rules. What once was ostracized and outrageous in the art world is now mundane and boring. I understand that the people were attempting to change the art into a new kind of art, it wasn’t to destroy the art. I disagree with the perpetrator. I think it’s wrong to put your own art onto someone else’s. He mentions that Duchamp would like what he did but I think he’s wrong. Duchamp was trying to make his own statement in his own way, why would he want someone else trying to make their statement on his artwork. The artwork that is on display is priceless. These artists made amazing works of art, were incredibly talented and vandalizing them doesn’t add value. It would seem to be easy to assume that most renowned artists would be at least a little ticked if they knew people were vandalizing their art. It would be different to destroy or deface one’s own art work. Gustav Metzger makes his art and then destroys it to make a point. That is completely different from vandalizing artwork that has been around for hundreds of years. Part of the artists art is the destroy it, also Metzger has the right to do what he wants with his art. Hes making his statement using his art. It’s understandable to want to get people to recognize wrongs or to make a statement but destroying something in the process is a backwards way of doing things. I don’t think that there really are acceptable times to destroy someone else’s artwork unless the artist puts it out there that you could. There are so many ways to make art stand out and make people think, using other artists artwork is the wrong way to do get a message across.

  27. Krista DiTomo says:

    After reading these articles I feel as though vandalism is just set off as one specific thing when the truth is there are so many different kinds of vandalism. There are the people who get to passionate and vandalize like that woman who kissed the painting. She had not intent behind her crime, she did not go to museum with plans to ruin a masterpiece but she did. Then there are people on the streets. For example while go to the play this past Wednesday I noticed while on the subway that there was a lot of graffiti vandalism on the walls with names of gangs and curse words. Then there are people like Marcel Duchamp and Vladimir Umanets who think they are somehow improving the already work of art. In my personal opinion though all vandalism is bad vandalism. Artist devote their lives to create something whether it be a statue of a urinal, a painting or even a subway station. Artist have a vision of what they would like their masterpiece to look like so for person to feel they have the right to deface that for the sake of themselves is mind boggling to me. If you want to send a message then create your own work to display. I find that there is no good vandalism and in the end its a disrespectful plea for attention. Unless you are given the artists consent to add your own twist, don’t. Yes I believe in the freedom of art and you should be able to paint, sculpt or built what moves you inside but I feel once that piece of art is submitted it should not be touched but anyone besides it rightful owner.

  28. Cassidy Spring says:

    I believe that vandalizing someone else’s art work is wrong and extremely disrespectful. The man who damaged Rothko’s painting should be charged, and have to pay like the other people who destroyed other art works had to. Artists take a lot of time, and put in a lot of effort in to their pieces. They make their art pieces speak in different ways, and portray their thoughts, opinions, and emotions in the ways that they want. Vandalizing could ruin the art, and ruin the way spectators view and see art, as well as disrespecting the artist. If security has to increase in museums, it might make the whole experience less enjoyable for many, and make it uncomfortable with security all around. If the man who vandalized the painting didn’t like it, or wanted to express how he felt about the painting, then he should have found an alternative. I believe he has every right to express his feelings, but not on the art work itself. I believe that there is no example of when it would be acceptable to vandalize someones art work. If it is your own piece of work, then it is acceptable to damage, destroy, hit, and vandalize your own work to how you please, like Metzger. If you want to express your feelings, or make a statement, then create your own piece of art, and display how you feel with that. Ruining someone else’s work that they have created based on their own thoughts, and feelings, is wrong, and there is no exception.

  29. Joseph A Palazzola says:

    I feel that it is very wrong to vandalize someone else’s art. What the artists has produced was there vision and when they felt it was finished they stopped working on it. I would be perfectly fine with the artist too change something on there work at a later time because it is there vision, but for someone with no emotional connection with the work to come and vandalize it is just wrong. As an architecture major I have a strong opinion in this, if someone was to ever vandalize my work i would not be very happy about it. I feel there is no way to justify changing someone else’s work no matter what.

  30. tue41354 says:

    I don’t think there’s any right or wrong answer when in comes to altering artwork. Obviously, if it was my own artwork, I would not be very happy if somebody vandalized my piece, but I do however think there are exceptions to the rules. Art is supposed to be there for the public to enjoy, but also to talked about, to evoke emotion, and sometimes controversy. While it’s without a doubt unacceptable to intentionally destroy (and I mean actually, physically destroy, not just alter) someone’s piece, I think sometimes it’s really remarkable and interesting how those feelings can be captured in the art itself. I keep thinking in particular about the lipstick senario. That woman had absolutely no intention in changing the artwork or making any kind of “statement”, but, for whatever reason, that piece of art, influenced her so much, that she simply felt the need to embrace it. Personally, I think that’s actually really cool that that reaction could be part of the art itself. It really shows the power that art can have on a person, and I think any artist should be proud to display that. Even in the case of the suffragette, which was pre-meditated, I think it would be really interesting if they left the scars from her attack, because it is represents a part of our history. I don’t think punishments for defacing artwork should be so grand. This is not to say everyone should run around changing other people’s pieces of art, but art is in a museum for the entertainment of the public, so shouldn’t they embrace public reaction? When they try to restore a painting after being “vandalized” it’s not really the original anymore anyway, so I don’t understand what the big deal is. Like I mentioned before, of course if it was my on piece, I would be a little offended by someone just changing my piece because they think they know better. But at the end of the day, it’s really just a painting (or a urinal), and I find it ridiculous that somebody can be thrown in jail and fined millions of dollars, or a kid can be suspended from school, whether it was a mistake or they’re just expressing their opinion, when that’s really why art exists in the first place; for both the public and the artists’ interest and pleasure.

  31. Emma Ross says:

    I believe that under no circumstance it is acceptable to vandalize someone else’s artwork. I understand that every person that has ever vandalized someone’s artwork has a reason to do so, but their reasons do not make it okay. In my opinion, I think that most people do it just because they simply do not like the art or they think it represents something that they do not personally believe in themselves. Even if you do not like what you think the art work represents, that gives no reason to vandalize it. Most of the time art is only really understood by it’s artist. An artist produces a piece of art however they feel and it means whatever they want it to mean. There is no reason to judge someone else’s opinion. Just think, if you spent hours or days or weeks or months or even longer on an art piece and someone vandalized it, how would you feel? Even if you do no like the artwork, everybody should have enough maturity to respect the artist and their work.

  32. Rebecca Shoup says:

    After reading the articles about vandalism and art, I believe that there is no justifiable reason for anyone to vandalize someone else’s art. Art is meant to invoke many different emotions, feelings, controversies, etc., however, under no circumstance should another persons piece of art be vandalized and destroyed. With that being said, I disagree with the perpetrator. I do not believe that is it okay to put your own “art” into someone else’s because they put their time and effort into that piece and it is their original work and no one else’s. If someone does not like another persons artwork or it invokes some sort of strong emotion that they feel they should do something about, they should find a different way to express their feeling about it than through vandalism. I believe through vandalizing a piece of art it completely diminishes its importance to the artists along with its viewers.

  33. Megan Rybak says:

    I disagree whole-heartedly with the perpetrator of Rothko’s painting and I would characterize him as a bit narcissistic and contemptuous. What strikes me in particular is how the defacers and vandals mentioned in these articles try to justify their actions by saying things like “I was overcome with passion.” To me, this is an issue of self-control and not being able to channel your emotions in an appropriate, mature manner (no matter how offensive, tempestuous, or painstakingly exquisite and beautiful the painting may be to you). In my opinion, it is vital to exhibit some form of etiquette and respect for not just the art itself, but also for those people around you who may wish to indulge in an uncorrupted version of the work, as it was INITIALLY painted by the ORIGINAL artist. If you have powerful opinions or feelings of anger, disgust, or overwhelming passion about a piece of work upon viewing it, there is a simple solution: to leave the building, to write about your thoughts, or to talk about them with others in a way that is not detrimental to the positive experience that other viewers may desire. However; to deface a piece of art that someone has expended so much energy and dedication on, is rather immature. How would it make you feel if someone scribbled their name (appearing to take credit for your work) or took a hammer to something that you put your heart and soul into creating? I’m sure that the artist of any work understands that their art may raise controversy, and in some cases, they may even endorse such controversy; however, I think it goes without saying that they’d prefer that their work be discussed rather than destroyed.
    On the other hand, I do agree that is possible to create new artwork through the modification of permanently existing work. I also realize that people share varying opinions on artwork and that they are entitled to those opinions. The woman who axed a Velasquez painting complained that the country cared more for that work of art than for a suffering human being, and after contemplating that idea, she does raise a lot of questions about the priorities of our country; however, is it the artist’s fault that the country is making their painting more of a priority? Will slashing it get her point across or just land her in jail? Personally, I think that vandals are using these “creations through destruction” and “attempts to communicate a message” as explanations to cover up their hasty acts of disrespect. In the case of Rothko, the artwork did not BELONG to the perpetrator who painted a message on it. If it was his own work, only then would I personally feel that the alteration of art was acceptable. In regards to the woman who repeatedly slashed the painting of Venus, she decides to validate her actions; stating that by extinguishing the painting, she was protesting against the government who arrested a significant sufragette. I feel that her vandalism did not address the people whom she really targeted. The government was who she desired to punish, and she made that fully evident in her statement; however through her rash actions, she didn’t punish the government, she punished herself (through jail), and more importantly, she punished all members of society wishing to view that piece of art in its natural form. She deprived them of that opportunity. In fact, I find her approach to protestation quite cowardly.
    Ultimately, vandalized paintings lead to tighter security and lenders being more and more reluctant to sell pieces to galleries. This only makes art less accessible to the public, and in a world where art is already being denied of its vitality, do we really need that? I personally don’t think so.

  34. Theo Umble says:

    I think that any vandal is immature. Unless intended to be vandalized by the initial artist, no man’s work should be vandalized. There is absolutely no need to try and manipulate someone else’s project; it is unfair to the artist. It is analogous to misquoting someone: that which was intended/specified by the artist (or speaker) is lost, unless reparations are made (which is near impossible when discussing physical artwork). That said, I do not object to any idea for a given work; rather, what matters are the means by which a given idea is shared. Thus, the concept of vandalism is just fine, but to deface a work of anyone (let alone someone like Rothko!) is by no means necessary in order to achieve its portrayal. Even so, why the childish idea of vandalism would appeal to anyone as a worthy subject for a work of art remains a mystery to me. Composer John Cage says that the purpose of music is to “sober and quiet the mind…” I agree with said viewpoint, and I feel it applies to any facet of art. To vandalize the workings of a master such as Rothko is to reveal one’s insecurity and troubling impatience; it is to scream for attention as would a child, compared to the adult who calmly shares his thoughts and lets others speak.

  35. Angela Cornelio-Weimer says:

    As an artist myself and having many friends who are artists I believe that any form of vandalism on a piece of art work that isn’t your own is wrong. I do not believe that the reason behind why the art work was vandalized is any justification for the act. Artists work very hard on their art and I feel as if no one has any right to mess with that. Personally, I would be very upset if someone did something like that to a piece of my own art. I understand that art is meant to bring about many different emotions and thoughts but there are other ways to express those emotions and or ideas with out defacing someones artwork.

  36. Lan Tran says:

    I do not agree with the perpetrator who vandalised Mark Rothko’s painting stationed in London. He could have “expanded the converstaion around art” by committing some other act that would not destroy or taint the original painting itself. Like life, people who did not create the work should not be able to take away from it.
    I admit that the conversations initiated by the altering of some art work can be intriquing and maybe even innovative, but that does not make it moral.
    It is never acceptable to vandalise or attack another person’s art work. I can slightly understand that some people take extreme action to prove their points but that does not justify destroying or altering another person’s creation. I believe that art work can be changed however one may like if it was created by himself/herself.

  37. Kursteen Lundy says:

    This perp is such an idiot. If we all started thinking like him where would we be? What if I blew up someone’s house proclaiming “I made it different and new!!!” Would it be considered art or just plain wrong? Altering someone else’s art is never okay, if they asked you to tag team on the art, go right ahead, but i highly doubt that. Seriously, if you want to make a statement, don’t ride on anyone’s coat tails, do it yourself to your own things. Art is creating, not destroying.

  38. Nikki James says:

    I believe that the perpetrator did commit an act of vandalism. Art is all individual and speaks the authors point of view. Only the creator can really create it, a copy is just a copy. Its never okay to vandalize or copy someones work no matter what the case is, why should this situation be any different? It is unfair to the original creator and in someways can be cheating. The fact that the painting only has one creator gives it uniqueness. A copy of the same thing destroys that. I dont think there is any point where altering a piece of art is acceptable; it diminishes the meaning. Unless you are the artist yourself. There is no point of creating a copy. The cheater is unoriginal and untalented. I completely think that this was an act of vandalism.

  39. Travis N. Irizarry says:

    Going through the posts of my classmates, it is the consensus of the group that the piece was vandalized. Art is something that is very difficult to define, I believe that if it wasn’t for the fact that Rothko’s piece was hanging in a museum then most people wouldn’t recognize it as art. While I am in no way trying to justify the act of the “vandal”, nor am I agreeing with him, he did in fact draw attention to this piece of art. Not that Rothko needs any more recognition at this point, his tag has created the opportunity for people to learn about art, explore the ideas, and create their own judgement about art. As far as the idea of alteration of art, restoration in itself is alteration. Restoration is the alteration of an original piece for the sake of prolonging the piece’s lifespan. Vandalism is the alteration for the intentional destruction of a public image. Is alteration acceptable in certain circumstances? Yes, but many alterations are vandalism, not restoration.

  40. Michelle Bouh says:

    In regards to Mark Rothko’s painting and art in general, vandalism is a no-no. I believe that the perpetrator did commit a crime. When a piece of art is created, it is made in the artist’s vision and view point and when complete, no one has the right or permission to alter the piece in any manner. If a person wishes to “add” to a piece of art, they should try and recreate the original piece, and then add their own twists. By vandalizing a piece of art, the culprit is ripping the originality from the piece as well as destroying the artists’ vision. Therefore leading my point that vandalism is a crime and should be punishable.

  41. Marquis Chamberlain says:

    I don’t think that a person vandalism is a crime, it only seems to be a problem when a piece of art cannot yield money. With this in mind, street graffiti is something once considered vandalism and now decorates many American cities as a response to living conditions and feelings harbored by those residents. From reading the first article I think these “acts of vandalism” are stupid, someone threw a rock at the Mona Lisa, seriously? Perhaps set it on fire, that’s destroying art. But in this day and age we can copy these things, I only think these galleries try to have originals for the prestige, the feelings they invoke are no different from laptop screen to picture hanging on a wall. You can see all the colors and the feelings they may invoke. Vandalism plays to popular culture’s interests, for example when the barbs invaded and destroyed Rome and the art within, the popular culture (the barbs) obviously didn’t care for “art” so they didn’t vandalize anything, they simply destroyed what they felt unimportant and replace it with what they favored. Art is progressive, you can’t expect everything to stay the same forever, if that was the case there would be no progress. Surely old art we see can help us dive into the mind of artists from the past, but mankind strives for progress. If slightly altering paintings or urinals or whatever society holds dear helps someone express their artistic nature, so be it.

  42. Leroy Mapp says:

    I concur wtih the statement that what the perpetrator did was a crime to the painting. For example, I feel as though if the artist desired to have any alterations to the painting he would ultimately ask for it. However, he did not do so because he felt as if the painting was desirable as it is. I feel as if the act of vandalizing other peoples property is immensely disrespectful. Take for instance the Little Mermaid statue. People were being very disrespectful to that statue by painting vulgar things on it and placing inappriopriate objects on it. To me, that shows the blatant disrespect for that piece of art that is seen as valuable because it made to display. If that art piece was not valuable, it would not have made it to the museum or been place on display. So, I do not agree with the perpetrator’s actions at all because if his act of vandalism was desired the artist would have asked for it.

  43. Erica Trofa says:

    I operate under the idea that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But ONLY their own opinion. Just because someone doesn’t agree with a piece of art of they have their own view of it doesn’t mean that they should change it. This guy was “making a statement about contemporary art” but he destroyed someone else’s artwork because he wanted to be infamous. He kind of just road the coattails of the artist of the work he destroyed. Recently I was looking online at prominent graffiti artist, Banksy’s, feud with another well known graffiti artist. The rivalry went a little too far when they continually tagged all over each others work and defiled each new painting. As an artist especially one should have respect for anothers piece of work. When you walk into a tattoo shop and ask them to add onto a piece that an artist has already done they won’t do it simply because of this unspoken understood agreement that an artists work is an artists work and you shouldn’t mess with that. I have two small tattoos on each wrist and they did not get done very well by the first artist. I went to see the guy that does my tattoos now and asked him to touch it up but he wouldn’t because it was another artists work. Even though the tattoos are so small and they are just words there is still a great deal of respect there. If everyone had this same respect art would never get ruined (or maybe it would only get ruined by the crazies). Anyway, I don’t think there is ever a time in which it is okay to destroy another artists work.

  44. Amelia Rose Tognoli says:

    While I do admit that purposely “tainting” a piece of art is discourteous to the artist who probably spent hours upon hours perfecting it, I am using the word taint very loose. In class we constantly talk about how artists’ are constantly trying to push the boundaries and redefine what is normal and acceptable. If this was just a person trying to wreak havoc, then no, it is absolutely unacceptable. However, if this was an artist trying to break the wall and push limits in art, than as an artist, I find it tolerable. Nevertheless, morally speaking, it is very wrong. But where do limits and morality clash? When is the line so thin that it becomes absurd? It’s very hard to set that standard. I’ve read a couple comments stating how when an artist finishes his work he is distorting the meaning or original thoughts. If that’s the case then what about the thousands of Hamlet renditions? What about the people who paint the Mono Lisa with cheesy smiles and buck teeth? Is that disrespectful, or is it just “continuing conversations.” I feel as though there is no double standard here. Either you can appreciate an artist trying to evoke something different, or you can’t.

  45. Asante Lewis says:

    To my interpretation, Art is something to be reveled and revered. The public can comment, like, or dislike it but not change it. Art can be seen as ephemeral, but its purpose was never to be vandalized and or amended in any way that would change its meaning and or purpose. If someone doesn’t like a painting sublimate their hatred into another piece of art not someones established work, for it would change its meaning. The acts of the Yellowism movement in the readings are shown through others kissing paintings (Ms. Sam & Cy Twombly painting), and peeing in the urinal of the famous work Marcel Duchamp. The emotions and drives to do these acts all culminate to the same end, changing the purpose of the artist original intentions. This is still vandalism, these people had no permission and at the end of the day it is still wrong. Without permission from the original artist, I cannot condone what the perpetrator has done. No matter the ulterior motives, in the eyes of the law he is guilty. The Art community would see this signature as a major offense to the original artist. And even if this signature was expanding the conversation of around art., the conversation would not be very pleasant.

  46. Michelle Dinh says:

    Personally I do not agree with the perpetrator nor do I think that he is a criminal. Art is something made for everyone to enjoy and possibly find a connection to. However, when someone vandalizes a piece of art it also ruins the original artist’s connection with the viewers. This is why I do not believe vandalism should be allowed to pieces of art. Although the perpetrator did commit vandalism, I don’t think his intentions were a crime. He wanted to express his own opinion of the art and share it with every in the only way he knew how to. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions about art, but it is still unacceptable to ruin the original piece. If the artists were still alive, what would they say to people vandalizing their work? Alternating the original work is not acceptable and I do not agree with the perpatrator even though his intentions may be harmless.

  47. Elizabeth Chapman says:

    After reading the articles I do believe that the perpetrator did commit a crime. I do not agree with the perpetrator, it is never alright to deface someone’s art. The artist’s work is displayed for a reason, it has it’s own message and reason behind it, and it is not acceptable for someone else to ruin that. When people vandalize art and come up with excuses to try and justify what they have done, they know they did something wrong. It does not matter if they were trying to “change the message” of the artwork that is no one’s responsibility except for the artist whose work it is. I do not believe that there is any situation when vandalizing someone’s art work is acceptable. However in the one article where it discuses the different situations where people have vandalized art work, the little boy who got gum on the artwork while on a field trip, I do believe that was an accident. Other than that I do think that vandalizing is a crime and the people who do it should pay for what they have done. As I said before these artist’s work is displayed to the public for enjoyment and to be shown the way the artist created that art, and should remain that way.

  48. Antonia Curry says:

    I do not believe the defamation and vandalism of a person’s art is acceptable on any level. The vandalism of art shares characteristics with the vandalism of property, or defamation of a person. It is against the law to vandalize a person’s personal property such as their house or car. It is illegal and sickening to defile another person. Both crimes have no grey area, the perpetrator is arrested, fined, and in some cases institutionalized. Art is the property of the artist. Every work of art includes the artist’s most passionate thoughts, emotions, troubles, aspects that go way beneath the surface. To deface the phyisical reperesentation of what lies deep inside a person’s mind is like abusing and defiling the person itself. If a person wants to challenge one’s work of art, they should do so without dafacing the value of the piece. Challenge an artist with words, or with another piece of art. Lashing out in such a way as vandalism diminishes the value of the artist’s work and does not make the point of the perpetrator any stronger. To me, the violation of a work of art in such a way makes the challenger of the piece appear as a person lacking confidence and starving for attention. All in all the vandalism of a piece of art is wrong.
    The alteration of art is slightly more plyable. For example, a play can be altered and modified according to the time period or audience, or an old, classic movie can be restored and altered as long as the skeleton of the production remains the same. That is the only circimstance which art can be tampered with in my opinion.

  49. Tibin Prince says:

    It is crazy that people actually can even touch these paintings and other art works, and on top of that vandalizing it? A piece by these very skilled artists are simply amazing, they have a great interpretation and meaning behind it. To go and simply write stuff on it and not even accepting the fact that it was vandalized is just wrong. I definitely take the side of the artists, this is not something that is moral or ethical. Someone created that piece out of their creativity, uniqueness and mindset. Vandalizing it shows no sign of respect. It ruins the piece of art. He stated that “art allows us to take what someone’s done and put a message on it” that shouldn’t be taken in a literal sense. I don’t care what this man has to say because that is clearly vandalism and is in no type or form a work of art. Same with the Mona Lisa, that painting is just epic, the words it speaks are simply speechless. To throw a vase and paint over it? that is utter disrespect towards the artist. Although this is not harmless in anyway , it is disturbing and unessential. In no way does this help the viewers or the artist.

  50. Adi Cohen says:

    I think personally that vandalizing someones artwork is never acceptable. People have the right to express themselves regardless if other people like the art work or not. Each piece of artwork is for the individual to express themselves. Just because someone feels it is incomplete or does not like it doesn’t mean they can vandalize it. People think they are justified because they are standing up for a cause, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with that piece of artwork and still gives no reason to destroy someones art. Artists work hard on their work and if they do not give permission then it is not alright to change anything they have done. I think it is a crime and people who vandalize other people’s artwork should be prosecuted.

  51. I think that vandalism on someone else’s artwork is completely unacceptable, regardless of the reasoning for it. That is an individual’s piece of art and the way that it is displayed is the way that they intended on it being. Instead of ruining another persons work of art, one, like the vandal in this example, should create their own piece of art. While it is disrespectful to the artist him/herself to vandalize a piece of art, it is also disrespectful to the audience as well. This is because the audience’s experience on the piece of art is then manipulated. They are not getting the experience that the artist intended for them to have, and most likely the audience is not focusing on the piece itself but the vandalism written on it.

  52. Rachel O'Neill says:

    Vandaizing any type of art is just wrong. People put their sweat and tears into their art, and if an individual does not like it, than that is the individual’s problem. There is no need to destroy someone’s art. That proves absolutey nothing besides that fact that you are an uncivilized human being. With this being said, it is safe to say that the vandal is a vandal. His definition of expanding the conversion of art is appauling. If he feels as if it is necessary to expand a piece of art, there are other ways that this can be done. For instance, one can get a similar piece of art and expand what they would like starting from scratch. Art was made to be liked and disliked, and many indivuals have different opinions on numerous pieces of art. It would be a different if someone destroyed their own piece of art because that has potential to prove something, however destroying another individual’s art is not acceptable.

  53. Walter Egner says:

    No way is this acceptable! I do not care if vandalism is a form of art. It might be, but vandalism to me is an unacceptable form of art. Artist do not spend all that time on a piece of art just to have some guy come up and deface it. What do you think the security in a museum are for? What was going through that guys mind? To try to alter a piece of art in a museum is just stupid. Even children know not to touch the art. The only way that changing ones art is acceptable is if the original artist, the creator of the art, approves of it beforehand. Art can very well evolve and be altered to become even greater pieces or art. However, the artist must respect the original artists art and must have his or her consent. Otherwise this is destruction of one’s property.

  54. Victoria DeLeo says:

    I believe that vandalism of art is completely unacceptable for the original artist’s sake. To purposefully destroy or tarnish a work of art is wrong, especially those containing a historical value. I don’t think people fully understand the process that artists go through to create such moving pieces. It can take a long period of time to create these pieces, not to mention the emotional connection that the artist develops in relation to their work. For someone to intentionally alter somebody else’s creation is selfish. Many people enjoy art in galleries, and for some famous masterpieces, people specifically travel to a new place to see it. Vandals do not take into consideration that they are not only destroying the artist’s prized piece, but they are ruining the public’s ability to appreciate and interpret the piece. Many times, artists create works that are meant to send a certain message, and vandalism takes away from that concept, sometimes even changing the whole focus of the message. A possible justification for vandalism is the fact that the limits and constraints of art are constantly being exceeded. Artists do not like to follow rules and formulas, so to some, this may be the newest way to rebel against what has been accepted as the “layout” of modern art. While this idea of pushing the limits often brings art to new and exciting levels, and has evolved society’s artistic views, it should not be brought to the point of destroying the hard work and successes of fellow artists.

  55. Alex Ventresca says:

    First and foremost, let me say that the term “artist” is very vague. “Artists” create and produce countless forms of art, ranging from dance to music to film to poetry to theater. WIthin their confines, both their talent and ego come into play. A talented artist usually succeeds in his or her work, and moreover their “art” is generally accepted. With that comes either modesty or vainness. Contrary, there are struggling artists who produce art labeled as “misunderstood” or “obscure,” ignoring both formality and conventionality (which also is fine). In this instance, the vandal seems to be the latter-described type of artist. To possess an attitude in which one believes he/she can defame an existing, acclaimed piece of art in a public institution is flat-out wrong. It is NOT art and it is NOT what an artist should partake in. One might argue that musicians and filmmakers alter, imitate, add to and/or “cookie-cut” from previous, inspired works. However, musicians or filmmakers are caught when they steal or defame or give a lack of credit. Moreover, this particular London “artist” was just flat out disrespectful, regardless of whatever “artistic conventions” he was following.

  56. Shane George says:

    Anyone and everyone can create art. Art is an expression and it can be created in many ways. After reading the given article I truly felt bad for Mark Rothko. He took the time out to create an artwork his way. He expressed his emotions in his artwork freely and then someone came along and made changes to it. The person who made changes to Mark Rothko’s artwork doesn’t believe he has “vandalized” Marks artwork but I strongly disagree. Mark created his artwork so he can show the world his skills, not so someone else can come along and look at the artwork and make changes. If the person who vandalized Mark’s artwork didn’t like what they saw they should have just walked away. By making changes to another persons artwork you are in a way destroying their work.

  57. Don Otto says:

    What Umanets did was purely vandalism. Though it may fit the definition of art for the most part (it was artificial, stood alone, the artist-vandal may have accomplished a goal, and certainly produced a response), it also is the destruction of another individual’s work. I feel that the vandal was essentially attempting to gain some publicity for his yellowism movement, and this seemed like a good idea on how he would accomplish it. It’s very similar to how people might write a website on a dollar bill or post flyers advertising an event, but what Umanets did is completely illegal. I feel that in most case, barring permission from the original creator, altering physical artwork is not okay. At the same time, I suppose that the alterations would translate differently to theatre. Some alterations need to be made to accommodate for the venue. Ultimately, though, what Umanets did was deface another artist’s work.

  58. Labriah Morgan says:

    When it comes to someone creating a piece of art work and having another person mark it in any way that the artist did not intend, it’s not only vandalism, but pure disrespect. People will have their options on any and everything, but just because I feel a certain way about something doesn’t mean that I will go and destroy it. If I don’t like the choreography of a dance, or if I love it, that doesn’t give me the right to jump on the stage and dance while its being performed. There are ways to get your voice heard that don’t involve ruining someone’s work.

  59. Alexa N Dippolito says:

    I do not think that putting graffiti on someones artwork is considered art. This was Mark Rothko’s personal piece of art and some one ruined it. Unless Mark wanted people to vandalize it, that would be the only way I think this would have been appropriate. With out his consent I think this is just very sad. I’m sure he worked hard on his artwork, and put a lot of time and energy into it so for some one to just ruin it like that is very disappointing. I remember when I was in high school there was students artwork hanging in the hallways that got vandalized and in no way did I think it was an expression of art. I think it derives more from people lacking morals and respect for other peoples artwork. Someone drew the typical mustache and uni-brow on a portrait of a girl. I felt so bad for whom ever’s art that was. This would have been something they were proud of and now I feel like they wouldn’t want to show it to anyone. Essentially I think that it ruins art, whether the person means for that to happen or not. People who feel the need to vandalize other peoples artwork really need to learn how to control themselves. Instead of acting physically, maybe expressing feelings emotionally about the art may be seen in a more positive light.

  60. Brandon C. George says:

    Vandalism by any means that does not send a meaningful, substantial message to the artist or the world which views the art is wrong, in essence. I make my statement on Vandalism with the disclaimer because I do believe that Vandalism can be done with righteous intentions. For example, the woman who vandalized the painting of Venus for the sake of woman’s suffrage was just in her actions in destroying the painting. Her reasoning in that she wants to take away from the men that viewed the paint, any sort of pleasure they experienced in viewing the art. Conscious destruction of art that leads to a general consensus that the vandalism of said art is beneficial to human kind is the defining factor between a “foolish vandal who smashes for pleasure of smashing and stupidity, and an artist who destroys in an attempt to create.” When we go into the idea of altering another’s art, I believe that is only acceptable if you aren’t altering the actual original. Altering an original piece of art is only acceptable if it sends a clear, widely accepted message. When I think of altering an original piece of art, I think of how today, music artists are doing covers and remixes to other artists songs via their sampled instrumental. A very big advocate of this is Kanye West, who has done this very creatively on a large majority of his discography. I believe that the acceptance of the altering and destruction of any form of art is merely a matter of perception in the eyes of society.

  61. Evan Herron says:

    Before I read the articles my original thought was that this is a disgusting act. Vandalizing someone else’s art is not expanding the conversation of art. It is a cheap way to get your opinion heard. I still believe this after reading the entries but I have thought about the issue further. The example “Beautiful Woman” is the one that really challanged my mindset on this issue. This woman who vandalized the original piece did know what she was doing. It seems that she expected this reaction and hostility. She embraced it and stood by her principals of “updating the art” to include a modern day woman hero.

    That reminded me of a trip to Bulgaria where I saw street art as an expression instead of vandalism. During the collapse of communism people took to gerfetti as a form of expressing themselves. I didn’t take this as a form of vandalism even though they were clearly “defaming” buildings. I actually took that as art.

    In conclsugion, I do feel that what this person did was an act of vandalism and not expanding any conversation. However, the example of Beautiful woman did make me think about how I define the line between the two.

  62. Aaliyah Anderson says:

    While ethically wrong, I do not see it as morally wrong for all cases. It is legally wrong to destroy such historical pieces. Many of these vandals were fans of art and either really like the pieces or thought that they attributed to art by altering a piece. The vandals definately did expand the conversation around art, whether they wanted it to be in backlash or agreement. The only situation where I see an alteration acceptable, is if the original piece is not tampered with. There should be a way where there can be a copy made then changes can be madebecause the original can still be there in tact. When a historical original is destroyed, it means a lot and it can not be given back. When going to see such these ancient pieces, these people know that it is legally wrong and charges can be made against them. So if they want to find a way to express themselves that bad, they can find a way to do it that does not ruin the piece for others and get them charged with a crime.

  63. Caitlyn Molinaro says:

    I feel that the act of any person changing a piece of art, whom is not the original artist, is wrong. If this person wants to create something new, but based on something another person created, a solution would be to simply create and then alter a copy of the original piece. It is not anyone’s place but the original artist’s to change the image that a piece portrays. It is an act of vandalism and should not be tolerated. Using the explanation that the original artist would have enjoyed the defacing of his or her own artwork is not valid, unless the artist actually spoke those exact words. To vandalize another’s artwork will only associate one’s name with that piece of art in a bad way. His or her name will not be penciled in next to the original artist’s. It was not a group effort when the artist was working to create something significant from an empty canvas.

  64. Gokul Kumar says:

    Art is expressive. It’s passionate and riveting. It captures the mind and soul of certain viewers and makes them feel emotions that they wouldn’t normally feel in everyday life situations. It’s a type of gateway that people use to express feelings that can’t be conveyed with words. Not everyone thinks or feels the same way and that’s why art is such an important thing in society for it allows each individual to have his or her own say in his or her own way. But what happens when someone disagrees with an artist’s point of view? This is what I came across when reading the assigned articles. I went through them and firmly believe that it is absolutely disgraceful that someone would destroy another person’s artwork just because they didn’t agree with it. I do believe this was a clear act of vandalism. No one has the right to diminish someone else’s expression of art. If the person thought a different way they should have just done their own work to express their opinion. I put more blame on galleries such as this for it is way too easy for someone to vandalize a piece of art when it is out in the public and the only thing keeping it safe is a velvet rope or “do not touch” sign. There should be higher security so incidents like this don’t happen. All in all this is unacceptable and I do not agree with the perpetrator he should have more respect for not only the artist but art itself and made a better decision.

  65. Danielle Altomonte says:

    Before reading the articles I personally felt that altering others art work is wrong and uncalled for. It is that artist personal depiction of the matter they are expressing. As an adult, a person can not go around vandalizing others property no matter how they feel. After reading the articles, I still have the same opinion. No matter what art piece is created, there will always be a person who will not like or agree with the art work. This doesn’t mean there is a “right” to alter or vandalize the pieces. I do not think there is any situation where vandalizing art is acceptable. If this becomes acceptable there is a possibility of multiple artworks being destroyed or altered.

  66. Meghan Shortt says:

    I do not agree with the perpetrator. I believe that artwork belongs to the artist and it is a statement of only his or her feelings or expression. I perceive the actions of Vladimir to be vandalism and not an extension of art. By altering the piece of artwork, Vladimir has ruined what Mark Rothko has created, and that artwork cannot be replicated. I think that Vladimir has a right to express his feelings towards the piece of artwork, but he could express himself in a way that doesn’t ruin the expression of another artist.

    Although I dont agree with what Vladimir did to Rothko’s painting, I think it would be interesting to have a place where artists could post their artwork and other people or artists could make additions to it. But I think that it should be an artists choice whether or not other artists can alter their work.

  67. Ashley Marie Rapp says:

    There is no doubt about it that the defacement of the the Mark Rothko piece was an act of vandalism. The article written by BBC News called “Destroying art for arts sake” explained how art defacement is considered either an act of lunacy or criminality. It gave an example of a man banging a hammer on a piece of art and shouting “I am Jesus” This was clearly an act of lunacy but no matter how lunatic the act is it should always be considered a crime. To damage someones piece of art that means something to them and that they worked so hard on is defiantly an act that needs to be treated with punishment. That is why when reading the article by the London south east article i was shocked to read that the man who ruined the Mark Rothko piece really didn’t believe it to be a crime. He said is was his chance to speak out and that it was “an artistic statement”. This is mind boggling to me. He was defiantly not making any sort of “artistic statement”. That was Mark Rothkos personal piece and this man destroyed it.
    whatever the vandalism may be i think any sort of vandalism on a piece of art should be considered a crime and not taken lightly.

  68. Anastasiya Silenok says:

    As someone who loves art, I have to say that in no way is destroying/vandalizing art acceptable.No one has the right to ruin someones work of art. I feel that if you have the urge to vandalize other peoples property and art, you are a disrespectful human being. Not only is it disrespectful, but it is also an imature act. If you do not like someones art, you can just keep it to yourself and move on to something that you do like, no need for being nasty. All the hatered needs to stop, or there will be consequences! Those who destroy great art need to be punished for it, not brutally, but deffinetly get a large fine. Vandalism needs to be stoped, its wrong.

  69. Erin Griffith says:

    I believe that the vandalism of someone else’s art work is extremely wrong and whoever does it should face the consequences of their actions. To want to look at someones work and then want to destroy their image, their creation is not something that should be ignored. However, the definition of vandalism is not just destroying someones work by painting or drawing over it, it is also a form of art. Graffiti is a form of vandalism, however many people consider it art, especially here in Philadelphia. I believe that a lot of graffiti is art, these people who graffiti and spray paint buildings and walls have so much talent that is unseen and in some cases punished. I don’t believe those people should be punished for doing something that makes them happy and is talent. My point is that vandalizing someone else’s work is wrong, however expressing your self on a blank wall shouldn’t be illegal.

  70. Nicole Ney says:

    I find vandalism to someone else’s work completely disrespectful – regardless of the vandal’s intent. The piece of art that the perpetrators took upon themselves was not their work and they had no right to alter it. If they felt that the piece was incomplete, it was not their judgment to make because that piece was the product of someone else’s talent. If you were a parent and your child gave you a drawling they had created themselves, you would not take an eraser and “fix it” because that implies that they are wrong and you are stifling their creativity. I also feel that vandalizing a wall with graffiti is wrong. Though many pieces of graffiti are visually captivating and may add a note of positive aesthetic to the community, by spray painting over a structure designed by someone else without their consent is wrong and is justly punishable by law. If someone wishes to express their own creativity I feel it should be in a legal manner which does not stifle the work of others.

  71. Tyler Snook says:

    Art can be looked at in numerous ways and carries numerous styles. I personally do not feel as if anyone has the right to impose on another’s work without consent, but in the end it all depends on what the artist that creates the work feels. In the first reading the majority of the people acted out and damaged/vandalized the artwork in order to catch attention for other reasons, as explained here: “I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history as a protest against the government for destroying Mrs. Pankhurst, who is the most beautiful character in modern history,” Ms Richardson said in a press statement. So no, I do not feel that vandalizing art should be acceptable in any form if it is strictly based off of the “wrong-doers” choices and opinionated thoughts, the artist who originally crafted the work should only have a say and for those pieces in which the artist is long gone I do not feel anything should ever be done to change the outlook of it no matter who poses an idea. In terms of the graffiti/murals on buildings, that’s tough. I feel as if those should remain if they are positive and are visually appealing to people but as the building owner they do have a right to the property and all it’s although I feel it is a shame in this case, there isn’t much I can go off of to back it. But with art you never know have to give a direct answer and it remains ever-evolving so in the end the law makers are really the only people that have opinions that matter. If this weren’t the case people could act out whenever they felt necessary and in some way claim what they were doing was art, and obviously we cannot have that.

  72. Robert Morris says:

    These articles are very interesting, and has made me consider art from the perspective of the “vandals,” but at the same time, I can’t get over the fact that their actions necessarily destroy the original. The man who attacked the copy of the Fountain in particular seems to be making a real statement, especially considering the Fountain’s intent in pushing boundaries and redefining art, and his statement relied on attacking it while it was on display. I agree with the statement, but not the execution (as paradoxical as that is), because he had to destroy someone else’s work in order to create his. Art is by nature constantly changing and evolving, but “remixing” a painting like the Rothko vandal did is different from remixing a song, for example, where you can still have the unchanged original after other artists change it the way they want to- there is no way to have the original on display next to Umanets’ take on it. The immediacy of art is exactly the point he’s making, but it’s very hard to make the call that his version of art’s future is worth changing artifacts of art history. Another issue with permitting this idea of vandalism as art is that no one can decide who does and doesn’t have the right to participate- if Umanets has the artistic right to walk into Tate Modern and change the art on display, as he argues, why don’t any of us? If we don’t, then why is his idea better, why is he allowed, and why not anyone? If we do, then how can we manage pieces of art that are constantly being embellished by anyone who feels the urge to? It’s a thorny question, and the answer requires defining art, which I think is a generally futile and naive exercise, because there will continue to be Duchamps in the world, whether or not Umanets qualifies as one. I think i would have rather seen Umanets use a copy of the painting to make his statement, but I know that that would completely invalidate the point he wants to make. I think destroying someone’s work in the process of creating your own is generally not okay, but at the same time, I know that art belongs to society and can’t be controlled or defined by a single body. I’m not entirely sure how to answer the question. I think it is kind of naive to think that I could, at this point, and I don’t think I have the understanding of art to make that call. Protection of property is important, but the growth of art might be more important. Too close to call.

  73. Joseph J. Sebastian says:

    There is no merit to the perpetrators that vandalized the priceless works of art. If art is something that is the purest form of expression from the artist, it should not altered by another person. We are not to know whether or not the artist intended for a piece to symbolize something or if it were to just the artist’s talents. There is no instance where someone randomly jumping in and altering or defacing a work of art is considered acceptable. This is vandalism because it is taking away from the nature of the environment surrounding it, just like graffiti on a government building would be considered vandalism. However, graffiti on a blank wall does no harm while allowing an artist to express himself. I believe that vandalism on art work that has already been established is wrong but having the courage to stamp your name on a blank canvas should be allowed, even if it costs the tagger a fine.

  74. Chris Covone says:

    After reading the articles about this new form of “vandalism” or “yellowism,” I think it is important to draw a distinction between those vandalizing art simply for the purpose of vandalizing it, and those who believe they are making a further artistic statement. It is clear from the reading that many of these acts of vandalism came from people with mental health issues, or who simply just wanted to destroy something for no real purpose. I believe these types of vandalism are unacceptable and very unfortunate. However, in the other cases, where people believed they were furthering a conversation about the art or adding to it, I was not as opposed. I think this topic is not very cut and dry, and brings about a lot of questions. For example, something I began to think about was how do we decide who owns a piece of art? In a lot of the cases in the articles, the original artist is long gone. So, what makes one person more qualified to know what is best for the artwork over another person? And moreover, is anyone but the original artist qualified to make those decisions? Something that struck me especially in these articles was when the author wrote about Banksy’s graffiti art being painted over. However, I think it is important to keep in mind that Banksy’s art is created on public domain. Therefore, isn’t the right of any other member of the public to alter it, just as it was Banksy’s right to create it in the first place? I thought about this in comparison to performing in a play. In this case, the actor has created his art on stage through his words and actions, but does he own it? It is being performed on a public domain, for the public to have their own opinions and spin on the work. So, would it be considered vandalizing the art if someone were to misconstrue the actor’s message publicly, like writing a review with his/her interpretations? I think it could certainly be argued that this would be a form of vandalism. And I think this is another example of how this topic does not have a simple yes or no answer, and it is one that will continue to be discussed and argued over. But perhaps that is the general purpose of this: to get people talking about art again, and to urge people to have an opinion.

  75. Nicole Keating says:

    I don’t believe that there is any circumstance where defacing someone’s art is acceptable. Before I read all of the articles I believed that 100%, without any question, but after I read them I could see where some were coming from, but of course it is still not okay. The man who tried to destroy the art in the vatican screaming “I am Jesus” is obviously insane; going into the core area of Catholicism and claiming to be the most important symbol of it is not a reason to destroy art, he was just crazy. But then I also think about the woman who just wanted to kiss the artwork, an obvious sign of love for it. I guess I wouldn’t really call that vandalism, but I’m not sure if i’m okay with it. I think this question has a very straight forward answer that no one will really disagree with. Vandalizing art, someone’s hard work, has no excuse as to why you did it. The man who vandalized that painting called it “yellowism,” something I don’t really understand besides it being a group of people who believe that their vandalism is just adding to and changing the art to get it talked about, was wrong, and nothing that he says would have made it okay. Granted, his adding to the painting was very small, but I’m sure someone will try to use that excuse to really destroy a painting. The other problem I have with this is these vandals are ruining art for everyone else. One woman stated that now they can not get as close to, figuratively and literally, the paintings. Now art is losing the appeal as an outlet of feelings from the painter and the observers. Overall I believe that nothing excuses vandalizing art, and is a crime that shouldn’t be taken lightly.

  76. Payal Patel says:

    Vandalism is not acceptable in any shape or form. Creating art takes creativity, effort, and time. It is put on exhibition to view the talent of humankind, and for discussion. Destroying it is a sign of disrespect for the artist as well as everyone else. One is considered selfish by vandalizing art that many have yet to see. Just because one has a strong opinion about something they don’t like does not give them the right to even touch the piece of art. People say they are creating art by ‘vandalizing’ it as mentioned in the articles is just an excuse. If anyone wanted to create art, they could start out fresh like the other artists do. The boy who was suspended for sticking gum to the canvas was suspended because it was a foolish act. I don’t believe he knew the consequences, but he learned his lesson. I don’t think it is appropriate to alter anyone’s piece of art. It is not justified at all.

  77. Tyler Edwards says:

    First and foremost; vandalism is described as a deliberate, mischievous, or malicious destruction or damage of property. Any form of vandalism is illegal, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. For a person to vandalize artwork is completely wrong, and it is not considered art in any type of way. Art such as Mark Rothko’s painting is open to interpretation to anyone that is viewing it, however leaving a message of your interpretation on the artwork is dumb and inconsiderate. The person who vandalized Rothkos artwork doesn’t have the slightest idea of how much work and dedication was put into creating a masterpiece. I am sure Rothko put forth numerous hours of his life to create something that could last for ever. For someone to deface a piece of artwork is belittling the artist. The vandal could have expressed his opinion in many other ways such as writing, taking pictures, blog post ect. Expressing opinions on someone elses work is an unacceptable way of expressing art. The only time defacing someones art is tolerable is when it is degrading a group of people, otherwise it is not acceptable. Art should be untouched by anyone other than the artist. In doing so the message that the artist inteneded to convey is preserved.

  78. Paul Persichilli says:

    After reading the articles, it is interesting to hear how some perceive destruction as art. I would not have thought of it like that at all, but one thing vandalism does is attract attention which is why i believe the people carry out these destructive acts. These vandals are just artists without the creativity that want to be a part of history. Yes, we should put our own messages on art, but not literally walk up and write on a historic painting. Art is like an opinion; not everyone is going to like it, but you must respect the opinions of others. There may be a “greater good” that these vandals are trying to bring light to, but nothing gives them the right to ruin the balance of the original works of art for their own personal beliefs.

  79. Elizabeth Roy says:

    Art is a method of expressing one’s feelings or thoughts. A person puts effort and valuable time into the art he or she creates. So another person does not have the right to destroy it. I understand when people write on a person’s artwork, it could be a way of stating their opinion. But to me, that is destroying the art work. The artist created to look a certain way and it should be left like that. I think vandalizing art work is wrong. There should be a punishment for it.

  80. Ashoka Robin says:

    Never has vandalism been looked upon an acceptable in any nature. Vandalism is synonomous to the complete and utter disrespect to the property of another. In this situation, it is far worst than a property such as a building or wall, but this is someones artwork and vision that took time and dedication to create. Vandalism of someones artwork is a complete slap to the face to the artist and shows no respect for the time and work they put into it. After reading these articles I dont believe that there can every be any type of justification to these types of acts. An opinion should remain just that, you clearly can’t kill someone if you dont like them or their actions, so how can you destroy a piece of art if you dont like it or its creator.

  81. Dominic Forziati says:

    The topic of whether art should be covered under of freedom of speech is a somewhat controversial subject. The stance taken by the Judiciary branch of the federal government is that freedom of speech is extended to encompass art as well, as long as it is not obscene. So this would mean that as long as someone is doing something they declare for the sake of art, such as adding to a previous artist’s work, then it must be protected? Just like every other right that Americans have, it is only protected as long as it is not infringing on anyone else. The tagging and alterations done to the works of art in the articles found above are not only damaging to the property of either the artist, or the museum, but also preventing the artist from using his freedom of expression by altering the message of his artwork with these modifications. The vandal’s excuse for the tag was that he was simply, “commenting on contemporary art,” however there are so many ways that this could have been achieved productively, instead of destructively. Considering how easy it is to communicate in the electronic age, “commenting,” is something that does not require physical damage to a work of art. The only time art should be altered is with the permission of the owner, or by the ideal professional(s) to repair a damaged piece.

  82. Asel Zamir-Kyzy says:

    After reading the articles and learning the different points of view offered, I still stand by my opinion when I say that “recreating” someone else’s piece of artwork by writing on it, is definitely not acceptable. Art is a way of expressing one’s emotion and feelings through work. The work that was created by different artists mentioned, was their idea and their way of expressing their emotions. Having someone create art on a piece of art that was already created, is not justifiable. Their piece was created with intentions of showing the rest of the world their view on life with secret messages hidden in their work. When we look at art, we all see different things. The artist is creating an idea for people to view and feel different emotions. Writing something that promotes a different idea on a famous art piece is definitely not something the creator would want on their creation. If they wanted it there, they would have put it there. It contradicts the initial message the creator was setting. I don’t believe there is an exception for someone to alter another person’s art piece. There are different ways to express one’s thought than to vandalize someone else’s hard work. Especially on pieces that are well known because that shows that the vandal is just seeking for some sort of attention from the crowd. People appreciate art because of its purity and originality, therefore, a change on the artwork that wasn’t made by its original creator is wrong.

  83. Bria Coaxum says:

    Art is an outlet for expression, creativity, thought, ideas, controversy, politics, etc. When an artist creates a piece, he or she is putting all of that or even one of that into their artwork, so as to extend it to the public. Though some people may consider certain art pieces as trivial, not truly art, or just something to view, artists put their all into their work. Therefore, it is wrong for someone to come along and vandalize an art piece.
    Understandably, in some cases, the defacer is trying to get a message across, but it is not ok to cause defamation to another person’s mode of expression – especially not in the way that Vladmir Umanets did it. Umanets basically tagged Rothko’s artwork. He did not truly do anything to bring about a message. What he did was more or less advertising his created cause. If Umanets had done something similar to the ‘silencing’ of what was felt to be false idols in the 16th century or the dynamiting of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, that would have truly been a message and not vandalizing. Though these actions did in effect destroy the artworks, they were done with reasoning that could and should be fully understood. Could the anger/emotions felt behind these acts of vandalism been expressed in another way? No doubt but, in the time, this was all the people felt they could do to really get their message across.
    Umanets had many other options to spread his Yellowism movement. Therefore, he was not creating or expressing anything. As I said before, he was just tagging. In answer to the question, I believe that vandalism is wrong but if there is a message that can not be expressed in any other form than defacing art, then so be it. If it must be done to express a true and exponentially effecting message, I am sure that the artist, who only created the defaced piece to express a message as well, will understand.

  84. Brandon Gibson says:

    Reading this made me a bit frustrated. I don’t understand how someone would “vandalize” something. Even if they themselves consider that they didn’t vandalize the art, which happened in this case, but after reading the attached articles and gaining a grasp of the multiple points of views that were expressed, I do not agree with the perpetrator.

    In my opinion, Art is a way for people to express their thoughts, feelings and points of views. I personally feel that vandalizing someone else’s piece of art is not acceptable. It would have been different if this vandal would have recreated the art and then vandalized it on separate canvas. For example, two of my favorite artist are Banksy and KAWS. They both do different kids of street art. Kaws, whos more of a cartoonist has created prints, sculptures, and other forms of art, but has re-created them. For example, he has a “Mickxy” collection which is Mickey Mouse and it’s basically a dead mouse. It’s art. It’s his form of expression. You don’t see him going to Disney World and defacing one of the murals there because he feels like he can contribute to the art. That, by definition would be illegal.

    What if I felt that the very famous Mona Lisa would look a lot better if it showcased a full out old-fashioned gold-minners beard!? I draw it in with marker and state that this was my contribution to art, and that I was simply acting as an artist expressing my feelings, and adding to the art. People not only would think I’m crazy, but they would have also thrown me in jail for the rest of my life.

    I understand that art is a way to express thoughts, and sometimes people express that in different ways, but to go out your way and deface something that you don’t have ownership of and add your “two cents” is not only absurd, but it is also illegal to vandalize other people’s properties. The person who vandalized Rothko’s art piece now draws attention away from the actual art and instead draws attention to the vandalized portion of the painting. I felt that the vandalizing was very unnecessary and the vandal should be held accountable for their actions.

  85. Tonii Mackie says:

    Art is and should be a conversation piece. Whether it be created for personal means or in order to shed light on social issues or instances its purpose is to inspire dialect. The artist conveys his work, his views; consequently, viewers form their own opinions on both the art and the purpose for which it has been created. Vandalism takes away from the statement attempted to be made by the artist; consequently, altering the perceptions and even awareness of the viewers.

    Although art should be free of restriction in an ideal world, in today’s society if art crosses certain boundaries it is not accepted. Vandalism in many instances serves to show disdain and disrespect, whether it be in direct correlation to the art or to a broader topic. Art has become circumscribed by society, accepted or disputed along the lines of a spectral checklist we have created over time. However, vandalism is not acceptable in any instance in my opinion.

    Mark Rothko’s painting at first glance did not appear at least bit offensive. If it were, destruction of it though not acceptable may have been condoned by some. The man who “vandalized” the painting was not out to destroy supposedly. He said “that Marcel Duchamp, the French artist most famous for his 1917 urinal that shocked the art establishment, would be ‘happy’ at what he had done.” He did not consider his action vandal, but a conversation piece. “It’s more about to change perception of things, of spectators. It’s more about an idea,” he said.

    Isn’t that what art should be, a conversation piece? Yes; but who is to say that his action of assumed “yellowism” is the conversation start Rothko was looking for. I do not agree with the perpetrator’s view.

    In actual accepted instances of vandal the reason most times is to show dispute. For example:

    ” ‘Beautiful woman’ — This vandalism was an attack on symbols of an authority to be overturned.
    In 1914, suffragette Mary Richardson took out an axe in London’s National Gallery and smashed
    into Velasquez’s Rokeby Venus – a real national treasure. “After her arrest she released a statement to the press,” says
    historian Lynda Nead. ‘She announced she’d attacked the most beautiful woman in ancient history as a protest against the government for trying to destroy suffragette leader Mrs Pankhurst, who was the most beautiful woman in modern history.’ ”

    Though not acceptable, instances along lines such as this are understood and agreeable to many.

    Other instances like the “defaced” or destroyed works of Banksy it is a different view on the idea of vandalism. “Several of the prolific street artist’s “installations” have been painted over by council workers or building owners, many of whom were unaware the graffiti was worth thousands of pounds.” Graffiti, usually considered vandalism in its own right is recognized as accepted art in this instance. Though accidental due to those unknowing of the art it is still vandalism and still unacceptable to alter its appearance. In one instance of destruction, the residents of the area personally apologized for the covering of an art piece in black paint. It is just pretty eye opening to see the idea of graffiti and street art as highly reputable when most references to it are negative.

  86. Lavar Jackson says:

    just this past fall someone “vandalized” a Mark Rothko painting in the Tate Modern in London. The vandal does not consider himself a vandal, but rather someone who is expanding the conversation around art. Read the attached articles and points of view. Do you agree with the perpetrator? Is there any situation where altering one person’s piece of art is acceptable?

    In result of reading these articles I understand the severity as well the effects this event had on the public, from my understanding the vandalism was a result of deranged and unstable minded person feeling the need to express his mind artistically but in reality it was the practice of yellow-ism which is not really considered a form of art. I am an advocate for artistic expression but i don’t believe altering or defacing another artists’ work is acceptable and legal action should have definitely been taken. I don’t believe that there is situation where this would be permissible even if you argued that yellowism was artistic expression

  87. Merissa Brophy says:

    Vladimir Umanets claims his daubing is not vandalism, that he has ‘added something new’ to the piece – and believes that he has even increased its value. Defending his actions as part of an outlandish art movement called ‘Yellowism’. Umanets said he had written on the painting, but insisted his aim was not to destroy or deface it; stating: “Some people think I’m crazy or a vandal, but my intention was not to destroy or decrease the value, or to go crazy. I am not a vandal.” Umanets describes yellowism as ‘neither art, nor anti-art’. In my opinion, I see this as a criminal act. How any person can believe smearing your mark on someone else’s work not as vandalism is beyond me. Mark Rothko’s piece would not be in a museum if it was not of high value. I’m almost completely positive if that was his work in there and some person were to tag his piece, he would be pretty pissed off rather than think “Wow, that is so moving!” I personally don’t believe there is any justification for what Umanets did. Its one thing to tag some side of a building or a billboard that can be painted over; however, its an entirely different thing to tag a one of a kind piece of art.

  88. Thomas Curiba says:

    The idea that vandalism is a “form of performance art” is completely absurd. Art is meant to be appreciated and enjoyed for your viewing pleasure. The artist is trying evoke your emotions in a certain way. If the integrity of the piece of art is defaced by vandalism, the piece loses some if not all of its artistic value. Vandalism of art must be regulated much better than what is being done. The fact that a little boy, who does not really know better, can walk up and put a piece of chewing gum on a 1.5 million euro painting is beyond me. There needs to be a higher security level with these pieces. These people that have the audacity to say that they are adding to the artistic effect of the painting in some way by distorting it are absolutely ridiculous. I understand that some art can create conflicting feelings or you may dislike how the artist is doing what he does. That however, is art. A form of self expression, meant to evoke the emotions of its viewers. Whether those feeling be of disdain or enlightenment, art does its job when it makes you think.

  89. Richard Lai says:

    Vandalism of art has been nothing new. Since as early as 441 A.D., artworks have faced some aspect of defacement. Although most suspects had a reason for what they did, it is ultimately still wrong to alter someone’s artwork. This past fall, when supposed suspect Vladimir Umanets claimed to have defaced Mark Rothko’s painting, Mr. Umanets told a reporter that the cause of the vandalism was to comment on this contemporary art work.

    I don’t believe there is ever an acceptable time to deface someone’s painting. Artworks public property that artists have given away to allow all of society to witness. The expression on an artwork should just be accepted as freely as speech. After all, they both are covered under the first amendment (in the U.S anyways). I don’t agree with the things Mr. Umanet has expressed, in regard to his act on the artwork. I don’t believe he and Marcel Duchamp stand on the same moral grounds because all of his works were original and didn’t add on to someone else’s art.

  90. Max Stahl says:

    After reading the attached articles, I can unquestionably say that it is absolutely inappropriate to vandalize a work of art. Not only that, ANY kind of vandalism should be frowned upon and cannot be justified. Whether jealousy, contempt, envy, etc; The motive does not matter. Art is a form of expression that is meant to exist in the vision of the artist that created it. Altering any of the works done by another in such a way insults the credibility of said artist. Siphoning someone else’s creative talent and trying to pass it as your own is an indicator of a lack of morality. Vandalizing works of art such as Rembrandt’s “Night Watch” and saying that the artist “would understand” is absolutely absurd. No. The artist would “understand” that you insulted his work, and simply that. Being open about your disagreement on how a work of art was created/interpreted is one thing. However, vandalizing another person’s work just because you disagree with how it was done is pathetic. If you do not like how a work was done, create your own original work and see if you may do better. That is true artistic freedom as it was intended to be; Vandalism is not it.

  91. Laura Leriche says:

    It is never acceptable to alter anyone’s art. By altering it you are definitely vandalizing it in every sense of the term. There is no justification for vandalizing an individual’s art work. The motive is just an excuse to be a jerk. If he wanted to expand conversation on the art he could of wrote a blog about it or something respectful. Anyone who considers themselves an artist understands that an individual puts in endless hours, days, maybe months in one piece of work and it is unfair to the artist if someone, without consent, adds or extracts from their piece. I would have been very offended if my work was vandalized.

  92. Ryan Luffey says:

    I don’t agree with the perpetrator for art is an individual expressing his own feelings, emotions and perspective on the world and sharing it with others. It is the others that are supposed to take an appreciation for differences in art, which is why we hold art to be so personal, its like music. There’s nothing about altering someone else’s art that is acceptable. I know if I had created a painting and I saw it on the museum wall with graffiti all over it, I’s be pretty pissed off because that is someone’s own opinion and expression about the world. The perpetrator should honestly just be banned from ever seeing art again for he has no appreciation for it.

  93. Taylor Denning says:

    I do not agree with the perpetrator. This person violated the piece of artwork that someone else put a lot of time and effort into. I feel like this person is using “expanding the conversation around art” as an excuse. It is NEVER okay to ruin someone’s hard work. Even someone sticking a piece of gum on the artwork is not okay. There needs to be better security around museums or just art galleries because I would be beyond pissed of someone ruined my artwork. I cannot even think of a time when it is okay to vandalize someone’s work of art. Unless it is the point of the project/artwork to have other people add to it, its not okay.

  94. Sean O'Connell says:

    I do not agree that it is acceptable to vandalize any piece of art. Art can be almost anything the artist wants it to be and with this the artist should not be limited to what they can make art with. Even if it offends someone they should not vandalize the art. Even if you do not appreciate the art there is someone in this world that would appreciate it. It is also wrong to vandalize someone else’s property as well which you would clearly be vandalizing property that is not yours. The only situation that it is acceptable to vandalize or change art is if it is meant to be changed and the artist wants it to be changed. Other than this one situation it should not be acceptable to change an artists work.

  95. Chris Schoen says:

    I don’t agree with changing someone else work. I think that the decision to add or remove things from the piece should be left up to the original artist. I think the person that vandalized it is wrong in thinking that he was expanding on the piece because it wasn’t his piece in the first place so how could he know exactly what the artist wanted.

  96. Siquette Williams says:

    When something is not a number one priority in our lives we tend to push it on the back burner and rarely think of it. Of course we know it exist but we still do not find it important. Art is one of these topics for many people, especially Art Vandalizing. The idea of someone vandalizing precious materials that someone put their all into is wrong to me no matter the reason. After reading the articles and hearing about the peoples’ reasoning for destroying or attempting to destroy different forms of art I was surprised. When these artist created their art the thought of to be perfect, the way they intended it to be. So to take it upon yourself and call yourself too and “art expresser” after altering an artist work is in no shape or form ever right. Most of these people are not alive to vouch for their art and to stand up and say no I do not want you do change what I created for politics or to make a point or even just because you disagreed with a purpose of point being made. No matter whether the art be mediocre or worth millions after that painters drops his/her brush, after that sculptor mold his/her final groove their art is complete and to destroy of alter it is wrong.

  97. Lisa Stark says:

    In the majority of the cases described, there normally isn’t a clear or valid reason as to why the art was vandalized. I don’t think there’s ever a case when someone should vandalize art, even in protest. When an artist creates something, they’re normally trying to express something through their art to the viewer. However, if the art is ruined it no longer expresses what the artist originally intended and instead expresses the vandals views. This leaves the art forever ruined for future generations. If someone finds the need to protest something through vandalism, they should be protesting by doing something that won’t negatively affect other people. The lady who tried to ruin the Mona Lisa in protest of disabled people not being allowed in the exhibit was helping disabled people, but at the same time she was hurting millions of people who had yet to see the Mona Lisa. The woman should have found another means of protest.

  98. Xiaoyue Zhao says:

    We’re not asking for your money, we’re not asking for your art.We’re not asking for your time. We’re only asking for your RESPECT.Art is a gift. Art is a treasure. Art is emotion.And sometimes, it is our job.Be an Artist for Respect. As individual artists, we can create meaningful and beautiful work. But as a community of artists, we can do much more. We can provide inspiration, share ideas, offer support, create goodwill, practice common courtesy, be catalysts for change, teach and learn from one another, achieve our goals, give credit where credit is due, set an example, and perhaps most importantly and most simply, show courtesy and respect to each other. Think it. Do it. Be it. Artist for Respect.There seems to be an up-for-grabs mentality of re-purposing published material that may come with the territory of being an anonymous viewer in a vast arena. I am certain there would be far less ill feelings if validation were granted to the originating author or artist. Ask permission, request consent, provide credit, acknowledge. Who wants to be typing unfriendly phrases like ‘please remove’, or ‘cease and desist’? It squashes the spirit to have to defend one’s rights simply because another didn’t obey the rules. Let’s show by example how it’s done and keep this playground spinning with positive energy.