why does it matter what the blobs make?
anyway, what I don't get is why Twombly doesn't drop the charges against her. (in stating that i must concede that i know nothing of French law, or the type of case being presented against her... so anything i say is just pure opinion based on my knowns of English Common Law carried into American Civil Law, which is strange unto itself... man.) but, the painting he made represents something to him and he produced it for the world to show us something, but that is only half of the equation with expressive art for an audience. if he needed to represent something exactly then she was wrong to do that, but her reaction would also not be uncontrollably emotive. he threw down some blobs and things and such to express a thing in mind when he was processing the throwing down the blobs and things to express something. abstract art isn't an absolute. and if it wants to make the audience think or feel or have reaction, then the artist would welcome any reaction made. i'd say even destroying it. the artist doesn't always imply this relationship, but by exhibiting the piece it is welcoming critique.
two cents. worth only that.
Praxius, thx for always posting interesting news... i no longer have to find it myself if i don't want to. :)