A few days ago, the local media was abuzz with the defacing of a $1.2 million dollar painting at the Carnegie Museum of Art. The painting was Night Sky 2 by Latvian- American artist Vija Celmins. (Click on thumbnail for larger view).
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
"I didn’t like the painting," Timur Serebrykov told police when they arrested him at the museum on May 20, the affidavit said.
He added, "I’m sorry."
Vija Celmins has wowed the art critics for her work, from a 1992 review by the NYTimes:
The ratio between natural fact and painted fact, an essential aspect
of Ms. Celmins’s art, changes radically from painting to painting. To
this point the five night sky paintings that constitute the core of the
show also form a series of variations on the double theme of painting
and nature.Compared with the straightforward, almost
flat-footed dotting of "Night Sky No. 1," "Night Sky No. 2" might be
called flamboyant. Its glowing gray surface conjures a night when
gentle, translucent fog expands every star in the sky to a soft blur of
light.
With so many artists pushing the boundary of what could be defined as art, one wonders why the museum guard Timur Serebrykov chose to run his keys and create a large vertical slash in the middle of this painting. The subject matter is meditative and Zen-like, but hardly the stuff of controversy on cultural or religious grounds. Could there be political implications (the artist being Latvian, while the guard is an Azerbaijani immigrant to the US? A personal animus of some kind?
A reporter from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review (Scaife’s mouthpiece) dug into the motivations which turned out to be nothing more than a stressed out young man with mental health issues, as per his attorney’s statements.
An Azerbaijani immigrant had no political motivation for slashing a
$1.2 million painting by a Latvian artist at Pittsburgh’s art museum,
his attorney said Friday.Something inside Timur Serebrykov, 27, of Greenfield just
"snapped," and he’s sorry for defacing the artwork at Carnegie Museum
of Art with a key, leaving a large vertical gash in the oil on canvas,
said his attorney, James Sheets.
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.
Or should the museum just display the damaged painting as an artistic statement of a different kind entitled ‘Human in the Cosmos’ ? It might draw even more crowds than the original, methinks.
Accidental Blogger 
7 responses to “A Slash in the Night Sky (Sujatha)”
Well, art can sometimes provoke uncontrollabe passions although the offender in this case says that it wasn’t the painting itself which caused his outburst. I agree that the museum should not repair the Night Sky 2. If I were the artist of this particular piece, I would let the “revised” version hang along with a print of the original. Not an entirely bad example of interactive art, in my opinion.
A similar incident of “vandalism” occurred a while ago in Paris although that one was caused by a viewer overcome by love. A plain white canvas “painted” by American Cy Twombly was disfigured by the kiss of a lipsticked art lover. The smoocher had to pay damages to the owner, the gallery and the artist. The payment of 1 euro to Twombly was declared symbolic. The plaintiff claimed that she did the damage as an “act of love” and not vandalism. “When I kissed it, I thought the artist would have understood,” she said.
Hmm. A plain white canvas valued at 2.8 million dollars and $45,000 worth of restoration? A bright red hickey that came free of cost was an improvement, I would think.
LikeLike
Odd to have chosen that one picture to attack, since according to accounts, it was one of the most peaceful entries in a very grim exhibition.
LikeLike
Ruchira,
Looking up more of Twombly’s work has me puzzled- how does his work get defined as art? How is it perceived as art by the avant-garde art crowd? Is it because it is consciously proffered as art, as opposed to, say, the random scribblings of a two year old with chalk on a black board?
I agree, the lipsticked version of the white canvas is indeed an improvement-$45,000 to remove the lipstick!!!! Twombly is evidently one of the greatest salesmen (or scam artist?) of all time if he can get a museum to pay $2.8 million for a white painted canvas.
Levana,
Interesting link, especially the artwork that would only be visible from an aerial view-but that would make it inaccessible to all except passengers and aircraft pilots who fly over Pittsburgh.
LikeLike
Twombly’s “avant-garde crowd” is now in their 80’s If we wish to know more, we crack a book. People have been writing about him for 45 years. Arguing on blogs about 1960s experimental music/painting/theatre is somewhat pointless; all of the arguments we can think of have already been made, written down, rebutted, and disputed by great minds.
LikeLike
Aha, Jarjarwang! Wondering aloud about music, paintings, books and much more from years ago or just yesterday – blogs are exactly about that. At least ours is. We reserve the right to define what purpose this blog serves.
Hardly any argument worth making has not “already been made, written down, rebutted, and disputed by great minds.” If we don’t make them again, very little conversation is possible. Cracking open a book to answer every question that intrigues us is not an effort we are all willing to make – perhaps some don’t intrigue us that much. Why a “white canvas” would sell for $2.8 million dollars is one such question. The answer, it is safe to assume is either remarkable salesmanship or laughable consumer gullibility, no matter what the illustrious back story.
LikeLike
Jarjarwang,
I had no idea about Twombly’s age, when I commented on his art. It doesn’t matter to me if he is currently in his 80’s – that doesn’t make his art any more artful to me.Art should be more than just a white canvas or toddleresque scrawls on one. Even Vija Celmins put more effort than that into her rendition of the night sky. Again, this is my opinion, even if it is just from a ‘small’ mind. Great minds are free to extol the beauty of white canvases and dish out $2.8 million a pop for them ;)
LikeLike
The most notorious white painted canvas is surely Kazimir Malevich’s Suprematist Composition. The ’60s may have passed under the bridge, but conscious proffering of art for money’s sake hasn’t. An acquaintance of mine from our high school and college days in the ’70s and ’80s has made a tidy sum at it. Mark Kostabi splits his year between NYC and Rome. His assembly-line approach to generating art drives people crazy, but he sure has a sense of humor.
LikeLike