nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

paddyandy

A blurred Painting .A photo that looks like that would be quickly discarded .The only feature is it's price on the market otherwise it's just another blurry picture among many .

LaVail

got my mind on my monet and my monet on ma mind?

Pawwed Rig

cymbaline wrote: »

I was in the art gallery recently and did wonder what the story was regarding security. It struck me when looking at the Caravaggio. That all there was in the room was a little metal cordon running along the walls and a bloke sitting on a chair. Naturally you'd not be able to pick any of the paintings off the wall and run out the door but you could do damage.

It is saddening though that there might come a day when you can't just walk into a room and be able to look at these wonderful paintings just hanging there on the walls.

Art galleries are all like that though. They allow people to get up close to priceless objects to appreciate them. Generally people know how to behave in galleries.

Dolbert

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.

Art would get pretty boring if no-one ever tried to do anything differently

Personally I would hate for art galleries to be forced to display their works behind glass. It does add to the experience to actually see the works up close. Even if they can get the painting restored, the fact that it has been damaged will knock a few hundred thousand (at least) off its value.

christmas2012

they should have these paintings encased in a breakproof type of plastic resin glass and an alarm system attached,so they can still see the painting but impossible to touch it..

RikkFlair

paddyandy wrote: »

A blurred Painting .A photo that looks like that would be quickly discarded .

Claude Monet didn't have his Photoshop blur-reduction tool available to him at the time unfortunately. It was the 19th century after all.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

paddyandy wrote: »

A blurred Painting .A photo that looks like that would be quickly discarded .The only feature is it's price on the market otherwise it's just another blurry picture among many .

Okay, who had 62nd post in the first-philistine book?

starlit

It was a disgrace really, very disappointed it happened at all. I like art and paintings, hopefully it be able to be restored. I love some of Monet's paintings and many others. Shame that it happened really! Love his painting style. Really captures the moment of the picture. Sadden that such a thing would happen to such a lovely painting. Often enjoyed visiting the National Gallery.

That sort of thing wouldn't happen in the Lourve!

Irish Guitarist

This is kind of off topic but why does the RTE website have the same video twice? One is from Six One News and the other is from the nine o'clock news but the only difference is they're introduced by two different newsreaders who say the exact same thing.

stek

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

This is kind of off topic but why does the RTE website have the same video twice? One is from Six One News and the other is from the nine o'clock news but the only difference is they're introduced by two different newsreaders who say the exact same thing.

What's your point?

M cebee

stek wrote: »

What's your point?

What's your point?

Seanchai

Ara sure it was only taking up space. You could build a two-bedroom apartment in that space (with its own door) and make more money. You can't stop progress, as they say. We need to get the economy going again, everybody, so get on board!

the groutch

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the punishment for something like this?

I assume it must be a fairly severe punishment/sentence for someone who deliberately destroys something in this manner?

He should be hung

(gets coat)

NegativeCreep

Worst drought in Somalia in 60 years, 750,000 expected deaths with nothing much being done about it and as soon as a painting is destroyed then "the world is going mad."
The mind boggles.

Lyaiera

Personally, I think this guy is a hero. We all know Monet is the root of all evil.

paddyandy

All that Monet could have taken quite a few off the hospital trolleys . 30 million for a blurry pic.

Naomi00

paddyandy wrote: »

All that Monet could have taken quite a few off the hospital trolleys . 30 million for a blurry pic.

Ok, we get it that you know nothing about the subject. Why keep posting in this thread?

paddyandy

Naomi00 wrote: »

Ok, we get it that you know nothing about the subject. Why keep posting in this thread?

I KNOW THE NAME OF THE GAME IN THE ART WORLD THAT'S WHY (and i hate it .)

Gillo

Dr.Strange wrote: »

Gillo wrote: »

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.

How come?

The best way I can put it and genuinely no pun intended, you are painting a lot of people with the same brush. I know a lot of people who suffer from various mental illness's and not one of them would do something like this. Just because someone suffers from an illness doesn't mean they are going to carry out an act if vandalism.

Perhaps the person in question just didn't like the picture or wanted to add their own interpretation? Maybe it was just a random act of vandalism?

jiltloop

He must have watched too much of that "Art Attack" program on BBC.

paddyandy

Sheer Indignation at €30 million for a Blurry picture could drive a rational person to commit such an act especially if he himself is struggling financially with a mortgage and family matters .Not necessarily insane at all .

humanji

paddyandy wrote: »

Sheer Indignation at €30 million for a Blurry picture could drive a rational person to commit such an act especially if he himself is struggling financially with a mortgage and family matters .Not necessarily insane at all .

A rational person would know that damaging a unique painting would not solve their financial problems, would not be a valid protest for anything as it would turn most people against them, and would realise that it's the tax payers who will probably foot the bill for the restoration work and increased security.

So no, it wasn't the work of a rational person.

Paparazzo

paddyandy wrote: »

Sheer Indignation at €30 million for a Blurry picture could drive a rational person to commit such an act especially if he himself is struggling financially with a mortgage and family matters .Not necessarily insane at all .

No. I don't think it would. If you attact an inanimate object because it's worth money you're not a rational person imho.

RikkFlair

paddyandy wrote: »

I KNOW THE NAME OF THE GAME IN THE ART WORLD THAT'S WHY (and i hate it .)

No you actually haven't a clue. The fact that you keep calling it a "blurry picture" proves that.

Gillo

RikkFlair wrote: »

paddyandy wrote: »

I KNOW THE NAME OF THE GAME IN THE ART WORLD THAT'S WHY (and i hate it .)

No you actually haven't a clue. The fact that you keep calling it a "blurry picture" proves that.

In fairness it is a picture and it's blurry, it was more than likely the intention of Monet to painted in a blurred style so it is an accurate description.
Is it a work if out standing quality? I'd say it's a nice painting but not a work of genius.

mikom

paddyandy wrote: »

Sheer Indignation at €30 million for a Blurry picture could drive a rational person to commit such an act especially if he himself is struggling financially with a mortgage and family matters .Not necessarily insane at all .

Twas probably drugs Paddy........ or perhaps TV........... video games even?

M cebee

its monetary value makes it important

Paparazzo

M cebee wrote: »

its monetary value makes it important

And the fact that it's irreplaceable

DDC1990

Paparazzo wrote: »

And the fact that it's irreplaceable

I think his joke went over your head :P

Unless I've completely missed a hillarious art pun in your comment.

Blondini

VEN wrote: »

i still think the person saw something in the painting that was coming to attack them, like a demon coming out of the water, they didn't like it so tried to kill it.

Are you saying that... Monet talks?