Monet Painting Seriously Damaged in National Gallery

I Heart Internet

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0629/monet-painting-damaged-at-national-gallery.html

The National Gallery of Ireland has confirmed that a painting by Monet, Argenteuil Basin with a Single Sailboat (1874), was seriously damaged during an incident, involving a member of the public at the Gallery this morning.

That's sad. I hate wanton destruction, in particular of things that can't be replaced.

I wonder why the person did what they did.

Dr.Strange

Must have some form of mental illness to do that.

xzanti

I love that painting I used to take walks up to the Gallery on my lunch when I worked around the area..

That is really sad news.

Run_to_da_hills

It must have been worth a serious amount of monet.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Hopefully it can be restored.

whiskeyman

Biggy was right.

Mo Monet, Mo problems.

CreepingDeath

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I wonder why the person did what they did.

Are you canvassing our opinions?

Nothingbetter2d

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Are you canvassing our opinions?

no i think he is just trying to paint a better picture :D

Pherekydes

Bean there, done that.

I Heart Internet

Yer delicious puns are going to leave a lasting impression(ist) on me.

(Seriously though, not nice what happened)

Pherekydes

It's surreal what's going on these days. :mad:

snowgal

I think it was a stroke of madness... awful thing to happen. The world is going mad

M cebee

they should keep the originals out the back and display copies

Same difference

gara

I'd say the curator nearly had an art attack!

M cebee

M cebee wrote: »

they should keep the originals out the back and display copies

Same difference

No it's not.
They need better security it seems, for the small minority of people who like to cause hassle.

CommanderC

Attention seeker (the person who damaged the painting)- shoot the lot of them.

VEN

Dr.Strange wrote: »

Must have some form of mental illness to do that.

must have been some form of lsd that they took

whiskeyman

Dr.Strange wrote: »

Must have some form of mental illness to do that.

Sure, a bit mad in the head, but more creative madness.





You're taking about Monet, right?

Lollipops23

that's awful what happened. hope it was some sort of accident and not just vandalism.

xzanti

CommanderC wrote: »

Attention seeker.

Probably the same lad who punched Leona Lewis in the face.

M cebee

CommanderC wrote: »

Attention seeker (the person who damaged the painting)- shoot the lot of them.

Tazer them to save painting
Then shoot them

Dr.Strange

xzanti wrote: »

Probably the same lad who punched Leona Lewis in the face.

I actually laughed when I read that, but you probably didn't mean it to be funny!

brocdj

Anyone know how its damaged? Ripped, water damaged etc..?

shedweller

I mentioned here before about the destruction of history. Well, here it is again! Will we ever learn???

laoch na mona

quick to judge aren't ye
it could have been an accident

Deus Ex Machina

M cebee wrote: »

they should keep the originals out the back and display copies

Same difference

It's not the same thing. I'd be able to spot a fake from the other side of the room while glancing at it obliquely. It would ruin the gallery for people who get off on art and strut around galleries on the bone.

mattjack

It was painted in 1874,lucky it wasn't new .

DonkeyStyle \o/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zUWXKThqHw

VEN

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

strut around galleries on the bone.

how rather interesting

My name is URL

Dr.Strange wrote: »

Must have some form of mental illness to do that.

Or another 'artist' trying to make a name for themselves. This kind of thing is a lot more common than you'd think.

The art world is fickle place.. many would rejoice and celebrate acts such as this.. the fcuking idiots.

http://art-damaged.tumblr.com/post/25389817939/pablo-picasso-woman-in-a-red-armchair-spray

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/22/jacob-zuma-painting-vandalised-gallery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDHYLAEaH1M

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

No it's not..

If they didnt tell people it was a copy I doubt anyone would ever know.

mattjack

mattjack wrote: »

It was painted in 1874,lucky it wasn't new .

DDC1990

Just for information. The man took a look at the painting, walked out of the room, walked back in 60 seconds later, tested the security cordon, walked out, came back pretended to stumble and threw himself into the painting fist first. He was then restrained by another patron from going at it a second time. He was arrested with a form of paint stripper in his bag, which could be a coincidence, but more then likely not. Thankfully he only punched it, as the paint stripper would have caused irepairable damage.

Bit of a Nutter to say the least.

im invisible

Its all about the Monet, its all about the dum dum diggiy dum dum

ejmaztec

The guy who was arrested didn't do it, he was framed.:(

Gillington

DDC1990 wrote: »

Just for information. The man took a look at the painting, walked out of the room, walked back in 60 seconds later, tested the security cordon, walked out, came back pretended to stumble and threw himself into the painting fist first. He was then restrained by another patron from going at it a second time. He was arrested with a form of paint stripper in his bag, which could be a coincidence, but more then likely not. Thankfully he only punched it, as the paint stripper would have caused irepairable damage.

Bit of a Nutter to say the least.

Source for this?

That is just stupid,I always sorta reserve judgement until i hear the full story so thought it could have been an accident until I read this. What a di***ead if thats true

juan.kerr

M cebee wrote: »

they should keep the originals out the back and display copies

Same difference

Why bother having a physical gallery? Can we not just view them on the interweb?

Or if we keep the galleries can we not make 10000 copies of everything and send one to each of the worlds galleries.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I'd be able to spot a fake from the other side of the room while glancing at it obliquely.

Seriously, how?. (honest question).

M cebee

juan.kerr wrote: »

Why bother having a physical gallery? Can we not just view them on the interweb?

Or if we keep the galleries can we not make 10000 copies of everything and send one to each of the worlds galleries.

i wasn't serious

Pawwed Rig

juan.kerr wrote: »

Why bother having a physical gallery? Can we not just view them on the interweb?

Or if we keep the galleries can we not make 10000 copies of everything and send one to each of the worlds galleries.

Why go on holidays? We can view all the sites on the interweb.

In fact why leave the house?

Really hope this painting can be saved. I am not overly familiar with this particular painting but it would be a tragedy for something irreplaceable to be lost.

Not a great source but http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2166731/Man-detained-putting-fist-8m-Monet-painting-hung-gallery.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Edit Irish Times article
A large hole was made in the 1874 painting, Argenteuil Basin with a Single Sailboat, when a man lunged at it in the gallery between 11.30am and noon.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0630/1224319040491.html

Shame

Cookie_Monster

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

A large hole was made in the 1874 painting, Argenteuil Basin with a Single Sailboat, when a man lunged at it in the gallery between 11.30am and noon.

it's all blurry, did he paint without his glasses on or something?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it's all blurry, did he paint without his glasses on or something?

I'm not artistic at all, but I often wondered why artists painted like that instead of a clear scene to look at.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Braylon Blue Azimuth wrote: »

I'm not artistic at all, but I often wondered why artists painted like that instead of a clear scene to look at.

Why didn't Quentin Tanantino edit Pulp Fiction in chronological order?

ejmaztec

Braylon Blue Azimuth wrote: »

I'm not artistic at all, but I often wondered why artists painted like that instead of a clear scene to look at.

Perhaps they were rubbish at painting, but managed to con a lot of people.

juan.kerr

Braylon Blue Azimuth wrote: »

I'm not artistic at all, but I often wondered why artists painted like that instead of a clear scene to look at.

Nerxt time he should just take a photo...

tayto lover

I believe the man who did this is overcome with emulsion now.

im invisible

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it's all blurry, did he paint without his glasses on or something?

remember reading a theory a while ago that he had cataracts, and thats how he saw the world...

Gillo

Dr.Strange wrote: »

Must have some form of mental illness to do that.

You'd want to be a right dick to damage an art work but I find that post very offensive towards people with a genuine mental illness.

Merkin

Grrrrrrrrrrr this makes me so angry :mad:

Michael Weston

im invisible wrote: »

Its all about the Monet, its all about the dum dum diggiy dum dum

I beg to differ.

Its not about the Monet Monet Monet
We dont need your Monet Monet Monet
We just wanna make the world dance

My name is URL

im invisible wrote: »

remember reading a theory a while ago that he had cataracts, and thats how he saw the world...

I'm no art buff, but afaik the blurriness is a hallmark of impressionist painting. Short brushstrokes are used and an emphasis is put on the natural movement of elements in the scene.