Pretentious Idiot Defaces Rothko, Would Be Horrible Boyfriend

Illustration for article titled Pretentious Idiot Defaces Rothko, Would Be Horrible Boyfriend

Cecilia Giménez, what hath you wrought? On Sunday at London's Tate Modern, some dummy entered a room full of Rothkos and preceded to deface one, "Black on Maroon," tagging it with: "Vladimir Umanets, a potential piece of yellowism." A visitor saw it happening and promptly tweeted a pic. The fuck is yellowism? Well, according to this site, it's an art movement that's neither art nor anti-art, it's everywhere and nowhere and, "the context for yellowism is yellowism." I know, I just blew your mind.

Advertisement

The defacing dummy in question, namely Vladimir Umanets, who as of yet remains a free man, tells The Guardian:

"I believe that if someone restores the [Rothko] piece and removes my signature the value of the piece would be lower but after a few years the value will go higher because of what I did," he said, comparing himself to Marcel Duchamp, the French artist who shocked the art establishment when he signed a urinal and put it on display in 1917.

Advertisement

This guy. Man, he sounds totally impossible — I feel sorry for anyone who's ever dated his arrogant ass. All talking about his big artistic ideas, thinking he's all anti-establishment, and never shutting up about how hard it is to be a white male artist in his twenties with so many feelings. You know he's just dying to be arrested, the ultimate validation.

Man who defaced Tate Modern's Rothko canvas says he's added value [Guardian]

Image via Twitter.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

Has anyone else looked at their website? It seems to be: 1)Dada-esque writing, 2) promoting a lingerie company, 3) reprints of old art with things scrawled on it, 4) typically hot models, some in surrealist-style poses or situations, some just looking hot, 5) and boobs.

Now, I am not an expert in their movement, but I don't know if I see anything that calls out to me as totally new in art. I know that art is always building on what came before, and that art in a conversation between artists about their world, but I don't know about this. The Manifesto of Yellowism would fit in in the word art of Dada and Surrealism that was up in MoMA a few months ago, maybe too well. Are these people actually adding to the discussion, or just piling up what has been done and taking credit?

I'm especially skeptical of an art movement that seems so obsessed with women who are typically considered beautiful or sexy in our society. I mean, naked sexy women has been done, and done, and done. Naomi Campbell topless with a gun? Yawn.

But hey, maybe there is more going on than meets the eye. What do you think?