Yellowism - A New Definition for Vandalism?

 

Sunday is usually the busiest day of the week for most of London’s art galleries and museums.  In addition to the ever-present throng of tourists, Sunday is the day when city dwellers, freed of the shackles of the working week and the tyranny of Saturday chores, venture out to explore all that London has to offer.

And for the Tate Modern, that temple on the banks of the Thames dedicated to the worship of modern and contemporary art, this past Sunday was no exception.  From the time the doors swung open at 10am, the crowds began to build, with attendance reaching its zenith by mid-afternoon.

But, as it turned out, this particular Sunday was to prove rather more exceptional that anyone at Tate Modern could possibly have predicted.  Because, unbeknownst to the overworked museum staff and the hordes of jaded art lovers elbowing their way around the various exhibition spaces that make up gallery’s cavernous interior, one man stood poised and ready to commit the ultimate act of vandalism – the defacement of one of the world’s most valuable works of art.



Tate Modern's Rothko Room

The target was Mark Rothko’s Black on Maroon (1958), one of a series of large murals (originally commissioned by the Seagram beverage company to adorn the walls of the company’s premises in Park Avenue, New York) which the artist bequeathed, free of charge, to the Tate in 1969.  This bequest was to prove something of a boon for Tate curators, especially considering the murals are now thought to be worth in the region of £50 million each.  And now, one of their number was about to be vandalized.

By 3.25pm, the deed was done.  Brandishing a brush and black paint, the culprit calmly (and in full view of anyone who happened to be passing), tagged Black on Maroon with the words ‘Vladimir Umanets ’12, A Potential Piece of Yellowism’.  Ironically, the defacer seems to have misjudged the space required because the graffiti was executed rather clumsily – the words were squished into the lower right-hand corner of the mural, while the runny paint dribbled messily into tiny black rivulets on the purple-hued canvas. 

 

The defaced canvas

Witnesses immediately raised the alarm, and the gallery was closed briefly while police were called in to investigate – albeit too late to ensnare the vandal, who had already fled the scene.  But considering Vladimir Umanets had used his real name in the cryptic message scrawled on Rothko’s canvas, it wouldn’t prove overly difficult for Scotland Yard’s finest to track him down …

And track him down they did.  The following evening, Sussex Police arrested Mr Umanets, a Polish national, in Worthing - and having been transferred into the custody of the Met Police, he was charged on suspicion of criminal damage.

Umanets has made no attempt to deny the allegations, freely admitting that he is the culprit.  He does, however, deny that he is a vandal, preferring instead to believe his actions have furthered the cause of the hitherto unheard-of Yellowism movement (of which, Umanets is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a founding member).

 

Umanets (R) with his Yellowism co-founder

So, what exactly is Yellowism?  A new art movement?  Or is it an anti-art statement?  Well, neither, apparently.  According to Umanets himself, "Yellowism is not art, and Yellowish isn't anti-art. It's an element of contemporary visual culture. It's not an artistic movement.  It's not art, it's not reality, it's just Yellowism. It can't be presented in a gallery of art, it can be presented only in Yellowistic chambers.  The main difference between Yellowism and art is that in art you have got freedom of interpretation, in Yellowism you don't have freedom of interpretation. Everything is about Yellowism - that's it.”

Confused? I certainly was. The art world is often guilty of adopting affected and grandiose vocabulary – but this opaque description of Yellowism was one of the most perplexing I have ever come across. I have, however, endeavoured to translate it for you, dear reader, into the following definition which may be somewhat easier to understand:

Yellowism is an undefinable, abstract movement borne out of an over-fertile, deluded, and most likely unhinged imagination. It has no obvious function except to increase the public profile (and consequently the income opportunities) of the owner of said imagination by engaging in the destruction of genuine works of art.

So there you have it. However, don’t expect this definition to enter the OED any time soon - after all, vandalism by any other name is still vandalism.

The Art World's Best Kept Secret

This weekend, fine art dealers throughout the globe were stunned by reports that the most significant art sale the world has ever seen had taken place in secret early in 2011, the details of which have just been released.

The painting in question is the much-sought-after Card Players (or Les Joueurs des Cartes) by the French post-impressionist painter, Paul Cézanne, which had previously been in the possession of the Greek shipping magnate, George Embiricos. And the buyer? Why, none other than the seriously minted Qatari royal family.

George Embiricos

The very fact that the transaction has been kept under wraps for so long is astonishing. Since his death early last year, there has been intense interest in Embiricos’ extensive art collection - hardly surprising considering the tycoon had jealously guarded his paintings for many years, repeatedly refusing requests to lend them to some of the world’s leading art galleries and museums (to the extent that much of his collection had not been seen by the public in decades). Given this level of attention, it was simply inconceivable to many that a deal of this magnitude could be completed without a hint leaking to the press.

But, if the level of secrecy which surrounded the transaction had surprised the art market cognoscenti, they were to be confounded further by the revelation that the painting had changed hands for a staggering $250 million (£160 million). This huge price tag makes Card Players the most expensive painting ever sold – easily overtaking the previous record (a Jackson Pollack which had been bought by a Mexican financier for $140 million or £90 million).

Rothko's White Centre

Indeed, this is not the first time Qatar’s ruling family have parted with extravagant sums for works of art – they have recently bought Rothko’s White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose) for $73 million and a pill cabinet by Damian Hirst for $20 million.

All this has led to accusations that the Qatari royal family’s immense purchasing power is over-inflating prices in the fine art market, which, thanks to a scarcity of great works in private hands, is already ridiculously expensive.

And while there is some veracity in such sentiments, it should be noted that, unlike the George Embiricoses of the world, the Qataris intend to put their acquisitions on display to the public in Doha. To my mind, that is infinitely more preferable to having a treasure such as Card Players languishing forlornly, unseen and unappreciated, in some dusty private collection far away from an admiring public.

Mon Dieu! La Joconde, elle est perdu!

Mona Lisa. La Gioconda. La Joconde. However you know her, Leonardo da Vinci’s portrait of a beguilingly mysterious lady is inarguably the world’s most famous painting. Instantly recognisable, the face of the Mona Lisa is identifiable to even the most uncultured philistine among us.

But why is this the case? Why is this particular painting more famous than, say, Virgin of the Rocks or Lady with an Ermine? Both are equally as accomplished, if not more so, as Mona Lisa. For that matter, why does Mona Lisa's renown eclipse works by other Old Masters, like those of Raphael, Caravaggio or Rubens?

Many would claim that the reason Mona Lisa has captured our imagination for generations is all down to that enigmatic, mesmerizing smile. Others would point to her inscrutability (Is she smiling or smirking? Is she happy or scornful?) as the reason behind our continuing fascination with her. Still more would cite the long-running theory that the painting is, in fact, a crafty self-portrait of the artist himself.

Most likely, all of these explanations are true, in part at least. But it may surprise many to learn that, up to a century ago, the most famous painting in the world existed in relative obscurity. While she still hung in the Louvre, the daily queues of tourists, eager to catch a glimpse of those legendary lips, simply did not exist. Yes, she was a highly valued example of da Vinci’s genius, but she did not inspire anything like the adoration she does today.


Vincenzo Peruggia

The fact is, Mona Lisa’s fame can be traced to a precise point in time, 21st August 1911, almost exactly one hundred years ago. On this day, a humble Italian painter and carpenter by the name of Vincenzo Peruggia staged one of the most audacious art thefts the world has ever seen, and in doing so, propelled Mona Lisa into a realm of notoriety, hitherto unknown for any artwork, no matter how extraordinary.

Peruggia, in the mistaken belief that Mona Lisa had been stolen by Napoleon, was determined to restore the masterpiece to his native Italy. (In fact, the painting had never been misappropriated - da Vinci had brought the painting with him to the court of the French king, Francis I, and it had remained in France ever since.)

Having previously worked in the Louvre, Peruggia was familiar with the layout of the gallery, and so was able to secrete himself in a hiding place close to where Mona Lisa hung. There he waited for hours, until the gallery had cleared of visitors. When he emerged, he was wearing a painter’s smock, similar to those worn by the gallery’s many restoration staff. Coolly lifting the precious painting from the wall, he then sauntered to a stairwell, where he discarded the frame and protective glass. Sticking the bulky treasure under his smock (Mona Lisa is painted on wood, not canvas), Peruggia calmly exited the building. He then took a bus back to his apartment, where he laid the painting in a specially constructed box, and stowed it under his bed, where it remained for the next two years.

Astonishingly, the theft went unnoticed for a full 24 hours. When the Louvre’s security guards saw the empty wall space which had previously been occupied by Mona Lisa, they assumed the painting had been taken to the photography department for safekeeping. Blithely unaware that any theft had taken place, the guards went about their business as normal. Only when a persistent visitor asked repeatedly about Mona Lisa’s whereabouts was the theft discovered…

Within hours, news of the robbery had spread all around the world, where it was greeted with widespread consternation. How could so precious a painting as Mona Lisa simply disappear from the Louvre, without a single person noticing the loss?

The ensuing controversy captured the public’s imagination unlike any other art theft in recent memory – to the extent that more people went to view the empty space where Mona Lisa once lived than had seen the actual painting the entire year previously. Ironically, despite the fact that Mona Lisa had hung in the Louvre for many years, it seemed the precious masterpiece only began to be appreciated in its absence.

So unknown was da Vinci’s painting prior to the theft that French police, in an attempt to familiarise the public with the image, printed 65,000 copies of Mona Lisa, which were subsequently distributed throughout Paris.

In the blink of an eye, an industry sprang up around the missing painting. Enterprising traders, keen to capitalise on the unprecedented interest, set about reproducing the police copies with fervour. Soon, she began appearing on everything from postcards to matchboxes to chocolate boxes. So intense was the demand for reproductions that, within days, even the de Medici Society in London sold out of its store of facsimile copies. Mona Lisa was suddenly the most celebrated artwork in the world.

However, two long years were to pass before Mona Lisa was returned to her adoring public. She eventually re-surfaced in a hotel in Florence in December 1913. Peruggia had travelled to Italy with a view to selling his ill-gotten gains to an art dealer. As he was leaving the Hotel Tripoli-Italia for a rendezvous with a potential buyer, an eagle-eyed concierge noticed he was carrying a rather bulky load. Fearful that Peruggia was making off with one of the hotel’s cheap reproduction paintings, he accosted the guest and accused him of theft. When a quick search of the unfortunate Peruggia revealed that painting he was carrying was, in fact, Mona Lisa, the gig was finally up - Peruggia was arrested soon afterwards. And so it was, rather comically, a lowly hotel concierge unwittingly nabbed the most daring art thief in history!

Peruggia at his trial

But the story doesn’t end here. Luckily for Peruggia, the Italian authorities refused to extradite him to France, insisting he should be tried in Italy instead. He was eventually sentenced to 27 months for his crime, which was commuted to 7 months on appeal. Upon his release, Peruggia entered the Italian army, where he served honourably during WW1. In 1921, he married an Italian girl and eventually settled in (where else?) France.

Mona Lisa was not returned to her adopted home straightaway. She went on display in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, where she was seen by many thousands of people. She was made her triumphant return to the Louvre on 4^th January, 1914, none the worse for her adventure.  If anything, her little sojourn proved only to be beneficial ... Mona Lisa emerged from her two years in darkness to become the most feted work of art in the world – and it doesn’t look like she will surrender her crown any time soon.  Now that's definitely something to smile about!

Damien Hirst ... mad genius or just plain mad?

Damien Hirst has always been controversial. Never before has an artist so polarized public opinion. He has been lauded as a genius and dismissed as a talentless hack in equal measure. His conceptual and installation artwork, which has included a bejeweled skull, a marinated shark and dissected bovines, have been described as both ground-breaking and pointless pop-art ... and much more besides.

However, the one thing that is not disputed is the enormity of his success, or the size of his bank account. In monetary terms at least, Hirst is the world's most successful artist ever. Full stop. Without question. And that degree of success demands a certain level of respect.

I have been fascinated by Hirst, the man not the artist, for a long time. I am absolutely not a fan of his work - in fact I find it, for the most part, repulsive. However, my intensely negative response to his art is what makes me interested in the man. Is he indeed a genius, or just an off-the-wall character who happened to get lucky in the fickle world of modern art? Is he motivated by art for art's sake or is he more concerned with his burgeoning personal wealth?

It was in the hope of answering some of these questions that I tuned into In Confidence on Sky Arts this week. In this rare interview, Hirst recounts tales from his childhood, when he wanted to be as good as another boy in his class at drawing dinosaurs. He describes his flirtation with the Beatles before becoming a full-fledged punk during a delinquent adolescence. He tells us how his mother destroyed his vinyl records by heating them on the gas cooker which bent them into the shape of flower-pots. He admits to "selling-out" by off-loading some of his work on Charles Saatchi.

Throughout the hour-long interview, he rarely answers the question asked, instead wandering off on tangents. He contradicts himself, or more correctly, gives several answers to one question. His memories are jumbled and vague. His sentences are mixed-up and fragmented. One suspects that his is a mind that works at warp-speed - there seems to be so much going on inside his head that his thoughts and ideas tumble out haphazardly. There is obviously a fierce intelligence hiding behind those weird blue-tinted glasses. But beyond that, he is still a mystery.

Is he mad? Yes. Eccentric? Most definitely. Talented? Possibly.

However, the one thing that we can all agree on is that Mr Damien Hirst is intensely interesting and more than a little intriguing. He remains an enigma, and therefore we remain curious. This is what will ensure he will remain in the spotlight for some time to come, even if the jury is still out on his work.