Current Events > Tourist destroys 'Van Gogh' chair covered in thousands of Swarovski crystals

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/d916c6fb.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/229307a7.jpg
Lmao. Just to clarify, it's a chair some artist made to replicate a chair that Van Gogh had, but with crystals for some reason.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/5/54b39059.jpg
If only his air maxes were comfortable enough to keep him from needing to sit down.

Why the fuck would you sit on an exhibit

Smashingpmkns posted...

Just to clarify, it's a chair some artist made to replicate a chair that Van Gogh had, but with crystals for some reason.

Then it's not a Can Gogh chair.
It's just someones tacky art piece.
which might have value in and of itself, but as "the Van Gogh chair"
It's like if you built a replica dinosaur bone out of straw and sticka and called it a "fossil"

In my personal opinion

It's still shitty to destroy it, though

ROBBAN posted...

Then it's not a Can Gogh chair.
It's just someones tacky art piece.
which might have value in and of itself, but as "the Van Gogh chair"
It's like if you built a replica dinosaur bone out of straw and sticka and called it a "fossil"

In my personal opinion

It's still shitty to destroy it, though

It's just a name for that style of chair.

It's not the Van Gogh chair, it's a Van Gogh chair.

Ooh, okay then completely ignore my rant
I totally misunderstood the premise

This is why you put ropes or some kind of barrier around your exhibits. To keep people from messing them up by mistake.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, the tourists shouldn't have done that shit.

But the museum should also be smart enough not to just leave it sitting there like that.

I'd laugh about this but this is something my parents would do.

ROBBAN posted...

Ooh, okay then completely ignore my rant
I totally misunderstood the premise

I don't disagree with it being tacky. Impossible to cover a thing in Swarovski crystals without making it tacky.

I'm wondering if that is deliberate on the part of the artist. Van Gogh's humble chair turned into a tasteless overpriced object being an analogy for how Van Gogh's work is used for commercial purposes, or maybe it reflects the absurdities of the art market (his paintings of everyday scenes becoming an elite luxury selling for tens of millions).

Something like that, anyway.

Museums do this kind of thing on purpose.

I'm generally in favor of most modern art. I like installations too, but there is a specific genre of "Wasn't Van Gogh so cool?" that just seems totally devoid of creativity. Perhaps this piece has a more striking impact in person but from here. It just looks tacky.

ai123 posted...

I'm wondering if that is deliberate on the part of the artist. Van Gogh's humble chair turned into a tasteless overpriced object being an analogy for how Van Gogh's work is used for commercial purposes, or maybe it reflects the absurdities of the art market (his paintings of everyday scenes becoming an elite luxury selling for tens of millions).

Even if this is the intend message, that's not an especially novel position. People have been making fun of the flawed elitism in art for centuries. Surely this guy can do better than "Chair but what if ugly."

Yeah there really should be a "Do not sit on this chair" sign for cases like these.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Why the fuck would you sit on an exhibit

Main characters syndrome

The police have released a sketch of the suspect. I warn you, it's graphic.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/273838af.jpg

Uta posted...

I'm generally in favor of most modern art. I like installations too, but there is a specific genre of "Wasn't Van Gogh so cool?" that just seems totally devoid of creativity. Perhaps this piece has a more striking impact in person but from here. It just looks tacky.

Even if this is the intend message, that's not an especially novel position. People have been making fun of the flawed elitism in art for centuries. Surely this guy can do better than "Chair but what if ugly."

Yeah, I don't think 'chair, but what if tasteless and expensive' is a particularly profound or original statement. No more so than the solid gold toilet.

Was just an idle speculation on my part.

LMFAO this is a top notch Father's day gift .
CCTV footage of the old guy from jurassic Park destroying that chair.

Having seen the CCTV, it's clear that the old couple recognised it was an exhibit, and were fooling around pretending to sit on it, when the guy slipped and damaged it.

Enjoy having to pay that off clown lmao

For all of the people going "Gee why would you just leave it out there like that,"

1. It clearly doesn't look like a normal chair.
2. It's on a raised blue platform, just like all of the other exhibits.

Why are we defending idiots?

Don't worry guys, all exhibits are insured.

Should definitely be ropes, a sign, literally anything

If you've worked any job ever where you want someone to not touch something you should know to put a sign out

Someone's gunna touch kt

Despised posted...

If you've worked any job ever where you want someone to not touch something you should know to put a sign out

If you've worked any job ever you should know that nobody reads signs anyway

HashtagSEP posted...

Why are we defending idiots?

We all know they're idiots, I don't think anyone's arguing that the dumbasses didn't know it was an exhibit.

We're arguing that the museum should be aware people are dumbasses and should have had at least a cursory boundary around it.

Mistere_Man posted...

This is why you put ropes or some kind of barrier around your exhibits. To keep people from messing them up by mistake.

Not that that always helps. Remember the kid a few years back who got too close to a rope-blocked painting, tripped, and put his hand through it?

TMOG posted...

If you've worked any job ever you should know that nobody reads signs anyway

This is true but it will filter out like 85%

Since it's just a piece of modern art, most people are just going to assume it's supposed to be broken like that.

Also what happened in this case isn't that he tried to sit on it, it's that he tried to pretend to sit on it for a photo.

Meh, if you don't want someone to sit on your art, then don't make it looks like chair and easily accessible on a location that do need a chair.

Heck, this probably intentional by the artist. How else this would get an attention.

RndmNmber1 posted...

Meh, if you don't want someone to sit on your art, then don't make it looks like chair and easily accessible on a location that do need a chair.

Heck, this probably intentional by the artist. How else this would get an attention.

Not really relevant.

They knew full well they weren't supposed to sit on it. That bloke didn't sit on the chair because he thought it was something he could sit on, he was pissing about for a photo and slipped.

What an idiot