French woman leaves lipstick kiss on $2M artwork:

[Praxius]

French woman leaves lipstick kiss on $2M artwork

French police have arrested a woman for planting a kiss on a painting in Avignon by the artist Cy Twombly, leaving a lipstick imprint on the otherwise unblemished white canvas. Sam Rindy, 30, who visited the show with a friend on Thursday, says she was so overcome by the three-by-two metre canvas, worth an estimated $2 million US, that she was compelled to kiss it. "I stepped back. I found the painting even more beautiful," she said. "The artist left this white for me." Police arrested Rindy over the weekend. "A red stain remained on the canvas — this red stain is testimony to this moment, to the power of art," Rindy, who is also an artist, told the Daily Telegraph. The painting, on display at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Avignon, is part of the Blooming exhibition slated to run until the end of September. Court officials say she will be tried for "damage to a work of art." Rindy's next court appearance will be Aug. 16 in Avignon. Twombly, born in Virginia in 1928, is an abstract painter who uses drawing techniques, repetitive lines, graffiti as well as letters and words in his works. The artist has lived in Italy for almost half a century. He won the prestigious Golden Lion award at the Venice Biennale in 2001.

If it was that good of a piece of art, then don't friggin kiss the dam thing.

I'm really sure he left that white spot for her in paticular to kiss it.... :rolleyes:

I know if someone did that to something I had in an art museum, I'd be looking for 40 lashes.

[ZNFYRH]

Any links to a picture of the... errr... picture?

They don't identify which one she kissed.

[Praxius]

yeah I noticed, I usually supply pics if I have one.... let me see if I can get another source:

Nope... this was the closest I could find:



There are reports elsewhere around the world, yet I have not seen any pictures of the evidence except this one being used by all the media outlets with images.

[yourwrong]

How is that worth two million dollars? Looks like the paintings of a two year old.

[Praxius]

Quote by: yourwrong How is that worth two million dollars? Looks like the paintings of a two year old.

:rolleyes: Do you study art by any chance? Perhaps if you got to see the actual art or a close up shot of the painting, perhaps you might understand the message in the art..... as well as the details in style used.There is also pattern complexity which you have to take into considderation towards the amount of actual effort used in making it.

[PatrickHenry]

I favor a public beating for the perp...then restitutiton...should be able to do it in the remainder of her lifetime...

[tinybear]

This is art? Worth 2 million dollars? Hmmm....

Hey, seems to me you could leave a lipstick mark there and I wouldn't spot the difference.

[Praxius]

Ah.... yeah up close it looks like some baby exploded their food all over the place..... but as she said that she saw it from a distance and saw the art.....

Either way, now that I see it up closer, I agree..... it's pretty crappy.... then again, I gotta see the overall picture to see what these blobs make.

[christibe]

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. :)

[Praxius]

lol, np... I just post what I think someone will find interesting, funny, or will just plain PO people

But I think it's a just charge coming from an artist. Regardless if it was 2million or 20 bucks, it's someone else's artwork... if you let someone else come along and screw it up as they feel they should, because they were emotionally touched by it, then what's gonna stop people from doing the same thing to the Mona Lisa, or a Picaso?

I am sure the touch of the Mona Lisa wouldn't last if someone decided to throw some Catpain Morgan moustache on her face with a Sharpie and a speech balloon saying "The Captain was here...". ~ All because someone was struck with emotional humor of the idea.

Hell emotion could also be hate and someone picks the thing up and smashes it all over the floor....

Art is to be enjoyed by everyone, no just for one person's personal pleasure (The PPP's) that is what the artist intended.... to send along a message they saw in their minds that they wanted to send to others in their art.... not some shmuck off the street with globs of lipstick to smear all over it like grandma after church.

If someone was inspired by the artwork and it touched them emotionally.... then go make your own artwork....

I'd break someone's legs for doing that to something I spent a week or a month, or even a year on.

Granted, this painting to me close up does look pretty crappy and he probably only spent about 20 mins on each section... but I have always put a lot of time and effort into most of the art I create.

Sometimes I care, sometimes I don't and I'll chuck something someone liked that I drew in the garbage... but if I had artwork in a gallery.... I'm pretty sure I'd care about someone screwing around with it.......

Esspecially some delusional woman who can't keep her lips off of things she doesn't know where they've been (Insert joke here)

[christibe]

I do believe that you are the funniest internet-person I have known.

I agree- classical forms of art shouldn't be messed with in any way. But abstract art is just that- and any abstraction extrapolated is just, Ithink, but only if the artist allows anyone else to see/experience it. And, especially if it is for sale. :) ...shhh dont be commie christina... Clearly the artist in question doesn't share my opinion otherwise this conversation wouldn't exist. And that's totally cool, too.


My favorite exhibit i can think of right now was in the whole of a room in a live gallery of the museum of contemp art in chicago, it was living art of just piles of one specific brand of candy. you could eat it. you could not. whatever you wanted. the artist replenished the supply weekly. in that room was a piece that you needed to climb a ladder almost to the ceiling to peer into a sort of redesigned slide projector to see the image. i cant remember what the picture was, but i remember the experience of eating the candy of the other art while climbing the ladder. ..hmm... [insert nostalgia induced smile representing emoticon here]

that was a nice day.

[Nono]

Quote by: PH I favor a public beating for the perp...then restitutiton...should be able to do it in the remainder of her lifetime...

Yeah, I'd recommend public castration, 'cept she's a woman and all.
How about stringing her up by her uhh... Nah, maybe just sackcloth and ashes, followed by life imprisonment.

At least.

[christibe]

... and castration might not do because then you wouldn't have her offspring to pay restitution that she was unable to...

[Soliloquy]

Why would the woman deserve to be punished for being inspired by someone else's art despite what it might look like?

Art is an international language. Artists paint to create to evoke an emotion and to inspire. If Twombly was really set on his 2 million dollars, i guess it would make sense for him to charge her for "damaging" it. Because he's in it for the fame and the fourtion. Though, if i were this artist, i would be wholly complimented and flattered that someone who had come to see my paintings was so impressed they disregarded security and every well taught common sense that you are never allowed to touch expensive things as you would decrease their value or ruin it, and actually walk up to it and display something no one else would even think to try.

:) She is an inspiration herself!

[Praxius]

Quote by: Soliloquy Why would the woman deserve to be punished for being inspired by someone else's art despite what it might look like?

They are inspired to deface that art with what they deem the method should be used to deface it?

Art is an international language. Artists paint to create to evoke an emotion and to inspire. If Twombly was really set on his 2 million dollars, i guess it would make sense for him to charge her for "damaging" it. Because he's in it for the fame and the fourtion. Though, if i were this artist, i would be wholly complimented and flattered that someone who had come to see my paintings was so impressed they disregarded security and every well taught common sense that you are never allowed to touch expensive things as you would decrease their value or ruin it, and actually walk up to it and display something no one else would even think to try. :) She is an inspiration herself!

If I had something up for show somewhere, regardless if it was worth millions or just some comic I made in my spare time, money has nothing to do with it.... it's about respecting the work someone put into something for all to appreciate....

If I made a funny little comic book and everybody found it funny and got entertainment out of it as it was, then that's all the reward I require.... but if someone comes along and starts to scribble out speech ballons or change some colors as they see fit, it's no longer my art.... they have now leeched on thinking they made some contribution, when in fact, I have more want to break their kneecaps for such disrespect.

Some of the art I worked on could just be a few hours worth of work.... sometimes a week, sometimes up to a month.... and If I'm gonna spend a month or so on something for others to enjoy, I'll be dammed if I'm gonna let someone screw around wiping their arse with my work and get off free thinking they were inspired.....

..... I'll inspire my foot in their ass!

If they wanted to contribute to the work of art, then they should have had their ass right there when it was being made.... either that or start their own art inspired by it.... not adding to the art......

That's like someone coming along to a sculpture and spraying graffitti all over it..... one art form over another, from two different artists.... inspired or not, what's done is done..... you now have two kinds of artwork ontop of each other and now both look like crap.

You don't have Nissan coming over to Ford and ripping their parts out of their own cars and putting in their own because they were inspired by their 06 model and wanting it to be better.... They go and make their own model to compete or beat....

If you start to allow people to go screwing around with other people's artwork that has been situated over the years, then what's stopping these people causing actual physical damage to these works of art? After so many altercations, exactly how does one determine who's art it is?

Maybe someone could fight in the courts that their altercations to the painting or artwork increased the attention and value of the original art, then start to sue for compensation or the rights to the painting, then everything goes to hell from there......

That's how I see it anyways.

Art isn't something super easy for everybody depending on the level of quality and work you put into it.... some people don't put too much time in their art and don't care.... other's put raw emotions and feelings into what they are trying to express.... they have one or two very important messages they made the art portray, and for some dork to come along and glob their lipstick or their crotch all over it, because they were "inspired", that screws up the original message and meaning, and forever will be changed from what the original artist wanted to potray.

Sure this woman says she was inspired to kiss the picture..... but now that she has done this, exactly how many other's will have an equal inspiration from it? If anything, she's no inspiration to anybody, she just ruined what moved her for everybody else.

Not everybody can draw or paint, much like not everybody can sing or dance..... certain people are good at certain things due to their upbringing and interests.... If we all we're supposed to be artists or athletes, then we would be.... but we're not all the same.... so why should we interfeer with someone else's art, music, project, invention, etc?

[Wailer]

The story would have been more interesting if she would have kissed Michelangelo's David right on the pecker.

[Soliloquy]

I wouldn't expect people who cannot value the work of someone else's art to understand the overwhelming feeling this woman must have experienced.

I would be inspired by this woman simply because she stepped over the limitations of everyone elses boundaries. This is a display of something more genuine than scribbling a little letter down and sending it to the artist or standing there gazing at it behind a wall of guards and laser beamed security. Maybe if we brought down the walls to enjoy and appreciate art we all would understand a little bit better. Instead of putting it up and classing it unattainable by putting a two million dollar price on it, we are only setting ourselves apart from the art, the artist and everything that art should be able to accomplish in the world of culture and society.

Maybe if we allowed people to take a few steps over the line the art would be able to evoke something more than cynicall criticizm.

People who appreciate art don't defface it. All she did was kiss it. She wasn't intentionally trying to Damage the art. The principal behind it was to show that she appreciated it. She wasn't adding to it, correcting it as she saw fit, she was merely showing the emotion that it had evoked in her.

Despite how long the artwork to or if it was easy to create or not. The artist should appreciate the fact that someone understood the emotion that was put into the artwork.. And didn't stand there asking what the hell it was all day trying to define it.

Unless of course the safety of the artwork in question has more value than any emotion created in the wake its fan.

[Praxius]

People who appreciate art don't defface it. All she did was kiss it. She wasn't intentionally trying to Damage the art. The principal behind it was to show that she appreciated it. She wasn't adding to it, correcting it as she saw fit, she was merely showing the emotion that it had evoked in her.

To me, this is an equivilant of placing a bunch of plastic pink flamingos on the Playboy Mansion's lawn..... it's tacky is what it is.... if she wanted to show her expression towards the painting, sure.... kiss the wall beside it, kiss the picture frame.... but don't go and glob all over the viewing/working area.

Regardless of the emotional appeal, or the rights to freedom of expression, etc.... the painting was not her property to make that decision in the first place.

Sure there is some room for freedom of expression and speech/art.... but why should her rights of expression trump the rights of the original artist's freedom of expression/art? This might not have been her intentions to interfeer in the original artist's rights to freedom of expression, but that's what she did..... she interfeered with the medium and the original message/art the artists wished to express to everybody......

..... Now all everyone is gonna see is "Wow.... look at that picture..... who's lipstick is that on there?"