a gem in art restoration

[nara]

this brought great joy to my life so I thought I'd share:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_ ... 3%ADnez%29

[Gonzap]

haha it was a really big thing here in Spain. The joke went on for months, hahaha.

[Phytotron]

Oh my god! Hi, Nara!

[nara]

I lol'd for so long. glad it was trending in Spain!

in the restorer's defense: "That day I noticed how badly the paint was peeling. So I wet the painting, making broad strokes. Then I left it to dry and went on holiday for two weeks, thinking I would finish the restoration when I returned. When I came back, everybody in the world had heard about Ecce Homo. The way people reacted still hurts me, because I wasn’t finished with the restoration. I still think about how if I hadn’t gone on holiday, none of this would have ever happened."

hahaaa thank the lord she went on vacation. Also, hi Phyto! Long time no see, what is up?

[Durf]

I find it ironic how the piece of art only became famous because of how awful it is. (was it famous before? no xD)
Turns out people care more for sacrilege than piety in art.

Though I seriously doubt that the method used (that was described) would not have made the painting look like that.
It was clearly repainted, new lines are formed, and areas that didn't have a certain color before now do.
Example, on the wiki page, look at the bottom of the comparison; the bottom was completely added in as something new.
So it wasn't just 'water' and going on vacation (at the very least blame some 4 year old as that is more believable).

So IMO, the vacation thing seems like a poor excuse. Besides, it's not like the excuse fixes anything, they are still not going to get any work after that.

Still pretty funny though.

[Phytotron]

Also, hi Phyto! Long time no see, what is up?

Wondering what happened to your pledge never to return to Armagetron.

Diggin' the avatar, though.

[nara]

Haha I don't remember making that pledge (or why I would) but...consider it retracted. I've been coming on every so often since I stopped playing regularly, so I think I'll probably be around as long as this game is here I'm also very happy to see the same people still around, and friendly new faces! yeah tron!

Also thanks...you made it lol

Also Durf, I think you're right, it's probably an excuse. I found it funny, but the old lady's 80 so she's probably not worried too much about getting work. However she did say she's very hurt from her painting becoming an international phenomenon so we're probably all terrible people.

[Malachi]

BBC Europe correspondent Christian Fraser said that the result resembled "a crayon sketch of a very hairy monkey in an ill-fitting tunic".

That BBC correspondent deserves a medal for his descriptive skills.

[Durf]

However she did say she's very hurt from her painting becoming an international phenomenon so we're probably all terrible people.

One could argue how Jesus is more important than her feelings. If we're bad people because we share information (international phenomenon), then what is she for the sacrilege?

IMO, there's no excuses - it happened and obviously she would be upset about it, but lying or trying to avoid it (and it being that obvious to the world) is only making things worse.
Think about all the times people think they're going to hell for taking the lord's name in vain; then think about this piece of art (and pretending like it's not her fault = not confessing = cannot be absolved of sin).

But regardless of all that, I still found it hilarious... and still do; thanks for sharing.

[Word]

loosely related:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-sh ... s-of-wheat

[Durf]

I gave that link and honest try. I was disappointed.
Besides the relation being very minimal (this is probably a controversial example of being on/off topic), I was forced to question the integrity of what I was reading when I saw this:

Confession: I hated literally everything about painting that stack of wheat, especially how the light bounced off it. But here’s the thing: I have to paint the light right. People go apeshit about the light and how accurate the light is. They ask annoying questions like, “Are the shadows accurate based on the light?” And I always think to myself, “Who gives a ****? It’s a painting of a red boat and it looks like a million bucks.”

July 9, 1890

The part that caught my eye was "apeshit" after seeing "July 9, 1890"... people didn't say "apeshit" in the 1890s.
Here's proof; a good representation of the vocabulary being used throughout history (books).

It seems as though some information was fabricated.
Perhaps the story was written for entertainment purposes and not to be taken seriously.
Perhaps Seth Reiss had nothing to do with it and posted what was given to them (by the art institute).

And after all that, the painting sucks.
Is this a thread to share bad paint jobs?
IMO - that wheat stacks painting looks like what I'd see if I got hit in the face a bunch of times, or if I was going blind.
It's blurry and nothing but blotches of color; where's my HD vision..? Where's the detail?

[Word]

Typical Durf post. The entire article was satire and made fun of the "tortured artist"/"troubled genius" trope that the woman from the OP's story claimed for herself when her story went public. Perhaps you should look a few more things up before you talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haystacks_ ... tic_issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Monet

(I suppose your inability to notice something like that on the first glance is really the underlying issue of the other threads and your PM wars, but I don't know why you don't learn from that and just don't question your own behaviour a little more. You clearly never read about any of these things, yet you make a condescending, stupid remark about the quality of a painting by one of the most important artists in human history because the wheat doesn't look like real wheat. Whatever the point of art is, just aping reality isn't. You can yell "unfounded assumptions!" all you want.)

[asdasd]

hahahahah

[Durf]

A typical Word post; you are somehow incapable of just getting along with me. Learn to curb your hate.

It seems as though some information was fabricated.
Perhaps the story was written for entertainment purposes and not to be taken seriously.

The entire article was satire and made fun of the "tortured artist"/"troubled genius" trope that the woman from the OP's story claimed for herself when her story went public.

^ this would have been enough as it is.
The website you linked made no attempt to tell the reader that the "journal" was faked, forcing readers to assume it was Claude's actual journal. I DID notice "humor" in the URL, but that could easily refer to the number of bad jokes made (example: the last line).
But thanks for clarifying that the entire article is a lie - now I know not to trust that website.


Word, I'm surprised at you. You somehow go out of your way to look for something wrong with my post(s), yet you fail each time - just stop trying to hate.
I am well aware of who Claude is, his painting, and what impressionism is. (I have doubts if you yourself read the links you posted)
Even so, I'm entitled to have my own opinion on something that is very subjective.
Are you having a problem that someone has an opinion that differs from yours? (you really want to argue about art?! smh)

I suppose your inability to notice something like that on the first glance is really the underlying issue of the other threads and your PM wars, but I don't know why you don't learn from that and just don't question your own behaviour a little more. You clearly never read about any of these things, yet you make a condescending, stupid remark about the quality of a painting by one of the most important artists in human history because the wheat doesn't look like real wheat. Whatever the point of art is, just aping reality isn't. You can yell "unfounded assumptions!" all you want.

^ are your feelings done being hurt by a different opinion?
Saying that I was being condescending (when I wasn't) is a sign of your own pompous and ostentatious behavior. You forget that art is subjective, and fame doesn't define art as "good" - even if it was influential. (the first "gem" in this thread is an example - very influential, known for being bad)
I suppose your inability to be open minded about opinions that differ from yours is the real underlying issue of all of our interactions.
Also I never claimed that the entire purpose of art was realism. (this is an example of your pretentious behavior - you had an opinion about a work of art in impressionism given to you, and from that you turn it into this greater meaning of what art should be as a whole. My post was fairly concise and you went our of your way to interpret some alternate meaning.)


I didn't like the painting. (even for "impressionism" it isn't good)
I didn't like the article. (what a waste of time)
GET OVER IT.
I am free to have those opinions.
You wanna tell me again what was wrong with my post? There was nothing wrong with it; it's a pretty normal post.
You want to argue about what makes art good?
Seriously Word, you say things to me like "practice what you preach" then have the audacity to say that I should question my behavior a little more.
Shall I point out the hypocrisy? Need I say more?
Learn when you're just making an ass of yourself instead of making some kind of point (because your post is only an emotional outburst) - learn to curb your hate (your post is a direct aspersion against me; "A typical Durf post" followed by claims meant to discredit any/all posts by me - I've asked you nicely plenty of times to stop this pattern - apparently you cannot be talked to like an adult).
Perhaps you should think a little more before you speak.

Be more open minded. People are allowed to have an opinion different than your own (especially on subjective matters such as art).
Learn to curb your hate.

[Word]

are your feelings done being hurt by a different opinion?

No. And I didn't imply that.

The website you linked made no attempt to tell the reader that the "journal" was faked, forcing readers to assume it was Claude's actual journal.

Because average readers who have heard of Monet don't need to be explicitly told in order to figure this out. I'm glad if the writers think I'm smart enough to comprehend it myself and don't ruin the joke by explaining it.

Saying that I was being condescending

If you say that a painting sucks without any understanding of art at all, you're not qualified and even your subjective "opinion"/taste doesn't matter if you fail to put it in the context in which it belongs. Well, maybe you're a little too subjective and open-minded to understand something as simple as this. Do you think the New Yorker editors uploaded that article to bore and mislead people as "open-minded" as you? If someone spends hours to program some code that will revolutionize computers, do you think it's OK if people who have no clue about programming come at him and tell him "that code sucks", even if, say, that programmer's work has always been flawless and only very few IT professors are able to grasp the brilliance of his idea? Oh yeah, totally subjective. You. are. wrong. It's obvious to everyone except yourself. Oh, actually even you see it, but now you're blaming the staff of the magazine for not changing their headline to "ATTENTION DURF! THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS SATIRE!"

(And asking for more detail/more realistic wheatstacks in an impressionist painting is kind of like ordering Italian pasta in McDonalds)

I give up now.