- Larisa: If I were the leader of a gang of thieves, I’d steal as many Rothkos as possible.
- Sandra: You like this… this… thing?!
- Larisa: By Toutatis, no!!
- Larisa: BWAHAHAHA!
- Thief: Shouldn’t we, just maybe, ask for ransom instead…?
|
|
Currently on hiatus :-(
 S&W in German/auf DeutschGaia (my fantasy comic) Scarlet (my science fantasy comic) |
|
| Sandra and Woo is supported by our patron JohanDM. Thank you very much! |
|
![[0410] Some Women Just Want To Watch Abstract Expressionism Burn](/comics/2012-09-10-0410-some-women-just-want-to-watch-abstract-expressionism-burn.png "[0410] Some Women Just Want To Watch Abstract Expressionism Burn")
[0410] Some Women Just Want To Watch Abstract Expressionism Burn
└ posted on Monday, 10 September 2012, by Novil
Click here to see the comments!
Sandra and Woo by Oliver Knörzer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. See the About page for details.
Privacy Policy | Impressum | © 2008 – 2025 Oliver Knörzer
On another note, I can totally see Larisa taking even more pleasure in destroying his work, knowing the history. She’s just that evil… and I love her for it! >)
I think someone agrees with Larissa…
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/man-held-rothko-painting-defaced-214446995.html
@ Petah-Petah:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9599459/Man-accused-of-defacing-50m-Mark-Rothko-painting-welcomes-day-in-court.html
Coincidence?
I LOVE that comic!
Toutates/Toutatis is a celtic god actually……though responding to a comment this old is just silly of me
Spladle of Doom wrote:
Yes. It’d take all of ten minutes to paint two blocks of color. If that long.
I’m sorry, but I feel that in order to be a painting, the image must actually show something. The Cistene(sp?) Chapel, The Mona Lisa, Venus, these all took quite a bit of time, and have quite a bit of detail in them. Multi-colored blocks that can be done in less than a day hardly count as paintings, and should not be held in the same, or even a similar reverence to a true work of art that took time and effort to create. Larisa should be held as a hero for this.
@ Anonym:
I know I am like a year late in commenting on this comic (I just found it and I love it!) but I agree these works are over valued. I would love to hear what any of the Rothko fans have to say though about what makes it so valuable. An intelligent reason, not just “because other people call it art”
I’d extend this treatment beyond modern art and include photography. So far as “art” goes, few things annoy me quite as much as some numpty with a camera getting as much credit for it as painters who put actual time and effort into their work.
SotiCoto wrote:
To be fair, photos don’t generally generate the 6 figure price tags that the crap that gets called art these days does. Hell, there’s far more skill in the lighting and composition of good photos than in the “Art”.
Silverwolf wrote:
Come up with the right smart-ass title and a little bullshit spiel about it, and I bet it would.
Paeris Kiran wrote:
Yeah, she looks seriously hot in that last panel. I take it that’s an older version of herself she’s imagining, since she’s not that well endowed normally.
That is not abstract art that is Formalistic art I destroy those who make that mistake within stabbing range (or burning but meh…)
ShirouZhiwu wrote:
can? but you won’t. or didn’t. you might enjoy it if you did. interesting how the works of pollock and rothko, two completely different styles, would elicit the same response.
“Anyone could have made this record. Now go do your own.” – Jello Biafra
@ Anonym:
“It’d take all of ten minutes to paint two blocks of color. If that long.”
you’d be surprised.
“I’m sorry, but I feel that in order to be a painting, the image must actually show something.”
what if that something is the art? or is obscure, an expression of something in the artist’s soul, blocks of colour, swirling shapes. it’s not required to imprint that onto a physical landscape, in fact, the art can become a landscape. art is not obliged to show the viewer an objective view of events. for a good example of what i’m talking about, google julie mehretu. google the treachery of images as well, just for a laugh. hell, google monet!
“The Cistene(sp?) Chapel, The Mona Lisa, Venus, these all took quite a bit of time, and have quite a bit of detail in them.”
it’s not about hyperrealism, or time spent. if you’re into that, i’m not trying to stop you from being into that, i just feel that art can communicate more than something pored over for too long that a photograph can do 10x more realistically. here’s a hint: pay attention to the brushstrokes. sometimes the impact is in there. sometimes it’s in the obvious absence of them.
“Multi-colored blocks that can be done in less than a day hardly count as paintings”
well they do. oil on canvas.
“and should not be held in the same, or even a similar reverence to a true work of art that took time and effort to create.”
the effort is in the process. you don’t know how long rothko took to cook.
@ James:
“I would love to hear what any of the Rothko fans have to say though about what makes it so valuable. An intelligent reason, not just “because other people call it art””
see it in person.
@ Greenwood Goat:
“Now, if Larisa could do that to Tracy Emin’s bed… No, I mean the one she’s asleep in. >:=)=)>”
bruh!
@ Maarvarq:
“The one time I saw a Rothko (3 actually) close up, I giggled hysterically, that such a trivial object should be treated so reverently.”
i’m pleased you had a reaction. this means the work won.
“I’m afraid I have a certain minimm of information that I think a work of art needs to have, and one coloured square on another doesn’t cut it.”
next time, stare harder. stare closer. think harsher. think less.