Accidental Cleanliness Destroys $1.1m Art Installation

[Daystar Clarion]

I don't know.

I'd certainly throw that piece of crap away.

Art my arse.

Lets be honest here if you saw that in the middle of an art gallery you would know that it was not garbage. Its not like the thing was sitting on the side of the road or anything. It doesnt matter what it looks like if you see a very large strange thing in the middle of an art gallery anybody with half a brain should instantly realise its not garbage. Wether or not we think it is art is really not an issue because of the location that it was in.

I'd gather that most people would know not to touch it, but the fact she actually confused it with rubbish doesn't surprise me.

The cleaner probably wasn't too bright, but I don't blame her for confusing 'art' with crap.

 

[Rawne1980]

I have to ask was the cleaning lady mental or something? Honestly you would have to have brain damage not to understand that that was art and not meant to be cleaned.

Have you seen it?

Seriously?

If that is what passes for art then i'm off to shit in a cup and sell it to some moron who loves art.

I'll name it "my coffee tastes like shit".

 

[Arluza]

Insurers value Martin Kippenberger's It Starts Dripping From The Ceiling at $1.1 million. At least they did until a cleaning woman mistook the piece of art for an unsightly mess.

The cleaning lady wasn't mistaken. It was an unsightly mess. Worth almost nothing. But then gain, the art world looks at shit (literal shit) on canvas and says "this is the most valuble Art of the '00 decade!"

 

[RJ Dalton]

Honestly, I'm surprised something like this hasn't happened before. Or maybe it was...

Swept under the rug?

http://www.instantsfun.es/yeahhh

Modern Art: indistinguishable from trash.

Ninjas. Damn.

 

[Yopaz]

anyone else just think of the Mr Bean film?

Actually my first thought was that annoying cleaning lady from Family Guy, but the Mr. Bean movie is a hilarious analogy to this too.

 

[GeorgW]

Perhaps it's easier to understand with a description of the piece (for whatever reason, the 'net seems to be completely devoid of any actual pictures).

Now that it's news there are, apparently. It's not too late to edit the OP

A) That image is copyrighted by the Guardian, I believe. I'd rather not be sued.

B) That's the piece as it exists currently. There are no images of the piece as it was originally. Seriously, I looked for like half an hour.

Ah, I see. Just a question, does that copyright prevent you from using it? Isn't there something about freedom of press that should circumvent that?

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

ITT: WAAAAAAH THIS ISN'T ART BECAUSE A JANITOR DIDN'T THINK IT WAS, BUT MAH GAEMZORS SHOULD BE ART BECAUSE OMGDECENTSTORYIT'SSOAWESOMEYEAH!

Seriously guys?

I certainly don't want to stand around in a museum watching someone play a game if that's it as art. Never enjoyed letting friends play either.

That being said, modern art is still shit.

 

[Outlaw Torn]

I don't know.

I'd certainly throw that piece of crap away.

Art my arse.

Lets be honest here if you saw that in the middle of an art gallery you would know that it was not garbage. Its not like the thing was sitting on the side of the road or anything. It doesnt matter what it looks like if you see a very large strange thing in the middle of an art gallery anybody with half a brain should instantly realise its not garbage. Wether or not we think it is art is really not an issue because of the location that it was in.

I'd gather that most people would know not to touch it, but the fact she actually confused it with rubbish doesn't surprise me.

The cleaner probably wasn't too bright, but I don't blame them for confusing 'art' with crap.

If you didn't know it was an art gallery, you would be excused for thinking that a tornado got in to a fight with several vagrants' makeshift cottages inside a conveniently whitewashed warehouse.

It's all thanks to the desperation of some people to find meaning in random piles of things. It's a wonder that noone has just bought an old junkyard and opened it as an art gallery, charge £5 a head entry with a glass of bubbly and whatever you want for the various oddities within and you'd make a decent profit.

 

[PureChaos]

anyone else just think of the Mr Bean film?

Actually my first thought was that annoying cleaning lady from Family Guy, but the Mr. Bean movie is a hilarious analogy to this too.

maybe she needed more lemon pledge

 

[Lunar Templar]

That is worth $1.1 Million!?

BRB gluing a bunch of sticks together so I can get myself set for life.

looks like fire starter to me, but yeah, if she couldn't tell the difference between 'art' ( and this isn't) and trash, then they both failed, the artist more then the cleaning lady

 

[jonyboy13]

Justice has been done.


Couldn't find the whole scene but this will do.

 

[mrblakemiller]

I am so tired of fake art like this. Hooray for the cleaning lady.

Actually, why don't we just all agree that this was a collaborative art piece and the celaning lady was the second artist, finishing the piece? One makes a mess; the other cleans. The circle of life.

There. Now it's worh TWO million.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

That is worth $1.1 Million!?

BRB gluing a bunch of sticks together so I can get myself set for life.

-_-

Oh God please tell me your kidding.

OT: This kind of thing is fairly common, with some cities teaching cleaning crews how to disguish between piles of trash, and art.

Sometimes, it is actually good art, such as a time a woman tried to "fix" the smudges on a chalk piece that downgraded it from "10,000 dollar piece that took months to get it right" to "wet chalk board."

 

[direkiller]

Perhaps it's easier to understand with a description of the piece (for whatever reason, the 'net seems to be completely devoid of any actual pictures).

Now that it's news there are, apparently. It's not too late to edit the OP

A) That image is copyrighted by the Guardian, I believe. I'd rather not be sued.

B) That's the piece as it exists currently. There are no images of the piece as it was originally. Seriously, I looked for like half an hour.

Ah, I see. Just a question, does that copyright prevent you from using it? Isn't there something about freedom of press that should circumvent that?

there is a differences between freedom of the press and not paying the photographer for use of the picture.As the guy who posted it in the forms is not makeing money of the pic it falls under fair use. However assuming the escapist pays for writing the articles it fall under Copy right laws

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I shit in a toilet bowl, don't touch it, it's my masterpiece!

Also:

If a piece of art is worth more than $10k, get f**king security and insurance for it! Yes, a cheap piece of rope, and a sign saying "Stay Back, Don't Touch! Art at Work!" helps in million dollar saving ways!

I guess it's back to a 9-5 working day for this poor sap.

YOU GOT NINJA'D

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Piero_Manzoni_Artist%27s_shit.jpg/220px-Piero_Manzoni_Artist%27s_shit.jpg" align=right>
Artist's shit is a 1961 artwork by the Italian artist Piero Manzoni. The work consists of 90 tin cans, each 30 grams and measuring 4.8x6.5cm, with a label in Italian, English, French, and German stating:

Artist's Shit
Contents 30 gr net
Freshly preserved
Produced and tinned
in May 1961



At the time the piece was created Manzoni was producing works that explored the relationship between art production and human production, Artist's Breath ("Fiato d'artista"), a series of balloons filled with Manzoni's breath, being an example.
A tin was sold for ?124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23 2007[1]; in October 2008 tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of £50-70,000. It sold for £97,250[2]. The cans were originally to be valued according to their equivalent weight in gold ? $37 each in 1961 ? with the price fluctuating according to the market[3].
One of Manzoni's collaborators, Agostino Bonalumi, claimed that the tins are full not of faeces but plaster[4]; in contrast Manzoni's girlfriend Nanda Vigo, who helped him produce the cans, claimed the contents really were faeces

Marcel Duchamp used semen decades ago. so don't bother (also blood (even 'lady pain' blood),vomit and urine was used by others so just DON'T)


art nowadays has become a huge Troll fest and a middle ground for lazy sleazy people to get much money from fools.

See, the difference between dadaists like Duchamp and the ridiculous modern artists we have now is that the Dadaists knew they were making crap. The real "art" of their work was convincing people that, for example, a turd in a can was somehow worth something; the Emperor's New Clothes effect, if you will. The current crop somehow thinks their crappy art objects are actually worth the insane amounts they charge. There's absolutely no irony to the movement anymore, and as a result, it truly falls flat; flat enough that it's surprising we haven't had cleaning ladies doing stuff like this before.

 

[Zeraki]

I have to ask was the cleaning lady mental or something? Honestly you would have to have brain damage not to understand that that was art and not meant to be cleaned.

Common sense isn't something that is as wide spread as most would like to believe. Undoubtedly the woman is pretty thick, and cleaning this 'art' is probably going to ruin her life something awful.

 

[Aeshi]

If your art can be mistaken for garbage maybe you should stop making art.

 

[Rhatar Khurin]

I think this in fact would raise the "artworks" value as now it has an amusing story attached to it as well.