Please Resist Ruining The Rothko


I write about the recent vandalism the Mark Rothko painting Black on Maroon (1958) with some ambivalence, [i]not because it isn’t worthy of consideration, but because I don’t want to give the perpetrator more attention.  However, the Rothko incident prompted me to consider questions, regarding agency, ownership, responsibility, originality, and the responsibility of museum staff.

At around 3:30 on Sunday October 7, Vladimir Umanets entered into the Rothko gallery at the Tate Modern, and in the presence of some museum visitors, inscribed, “Vladimir Umanets a potential piece of yellowism” with paint, or a marker, or a paint marker.  The Yellowists are comprised of Umanets and Marcin Lodyga. Perhaps Umanets was galvanized by the attention given to Pussy Riot, or the art St. Petersberg-based Viona Group. I tried in vain to look-up their manifesto– the Yellowist web site is apparently down. Umanets told the press that he was making an artistic statement about challenging perceptions not unlike Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain (1917), adding that Duchamp himself would have approved of this subversive action.  [ii]Really Mr. Umanets?

I am fairly certain Umanets could not have appreciated the sad irony in choosing this Rothko, one of several in at the Tate. First of all, it arrived at the museum on the very day that Rothko committed suicide.  Secondly, Black on Maroon, (1958) was part of Rothko’s ill-fated mural series for the Four Seasons Restaurant, located in Joseph Seagram and Sons new headquarters on Park Avenue. The  commission prompted an existential crisis for the artist, which resulted in him ultimately declining to deliver the works, thus refusing a remarkable sum of money, and obliging him to return the advance.  The mercurial Rothko ultimately decided that he did not want his murals to be mere icing on the Apollonian Van der Johnson cake.

In an October 12 Washington Post article by Kriston Capps, “Can you destroy a Rothko painting that is available everywhere?” [iii]Capps dismisses the potential seriousness of the vandalism by suggesting that even if the painting was irreparably damaged, because there are numerous photographic reproductions, it would still exist in a manner that was equivocal.  It wouldn’t. You cannot reproduce a Rothko.  Even disregarding the absence of texture and surface, scale is critical to Rothko’s work; more importantly, a Rothko painting is experiential, it envelops the viewer.  It was the transcendental quality of Rothko’s work that secured him the commission from John and Dominique de Menil, for a series of paintings to be housed in the non-denominational chapel at the University of St. Thomas in Houston.  [iv]Remember that scene in front of Georges Seruat’s, Sunday on the Island of the Grande Jatte (1884) in Ferris Buller’s Day Off?[v]  To stand in front of a Rothko is similarly moving experience, but without The Smith’s instrumental music, though it would be well-suited accompaniment for a Rothko.

This incident reminded me of other acts of vandalism perpetrated on hapless paintings. Recall the 12 year old boy who stuck a piece of gum onto Helen Frankenthaler’s The Bay (1963), in the Detroit Institute of Arts [vi]late February of 2006, or Carmen Tisch [vii]who in December 2011, attacked with her tush, 1957-J-No. 2 (1957) at the Clifford Still Museum in Denver.

How does one manage to cause literally millions of dollars in damage during regular museum hours?  On two recent occassions, museum guards at the Art Institute of Chicago informed me that I was not allowed to sketch. The first time I responded, “Alright, then, I’ll just look at it really really intensely.”  This would seem an absurd statement, however I was twice admonished by a surly Guggenheim employee, for looking too closely at a Wassily Kandinsky painting.  Umanets performed his act in front of museum patrons, one of whom, Tim Wright, immediately posted an image of the graffiti on Twitter.  I can’t manage to doodle a Lichtenstein or ogle a Kandinsky without consequences.

Admission to the Tate’s permanent collection is free, which might increase the likelihood of such antics, but admission to the Clifford Still Museum is $10.  How is it that Tisch, described repeatedly as visibly intoxicated, somehow managed to pay admission, find her way into a gallery, hit the painting several times, rub her buttocks on it, then attempt to urinate on it before any museum staff or patrons stopped her?  Open less than two months, the Still Museum staff should have been operating according to strict procedure.

Our homegrown anonymous gum depositor was an adolescent, Tisch was hopped-up on alcohol and/or bath salts, but Umanets declared his act to be an artistic (or anti-artistic) statement.  The vandalization of a work of art is neither brilliant nor unique.  While items displayed in museum are available for the public, they are not props to be subjected to the whims of a sophomoric art punk. Vladimir Umanets, you are no Marcel Duchamp.

-Tamara Fox

3 Responses to “Please Resist Ruining The Rothko”
  1. Dennis Grantz says:

    Bravo, Tamara!

  2. sccmountaingirl says:

    I enjoyed reading your well-written post and hope that you continue writing. I am not the artist nor have I studied art the way that you have. That said, I do appreciate art and I find it heartbreaking that people choose to vandalize and disrespect brilliant artists of our past.

    Your question about museum officials/employee’s does peak my curiosity, especially when you were reprimanded twice for “looking/studying too closely”? It seems sad that someone such as yourself is reprimanded for appreciating the work and creativity is the one being reprimanded. Is it possible that maybe the workers in the smaller museums do not take the art as seriously as in NYC or Chicago? Do you think the employee’s at the art museums in smaller areas are just “fill-ins” or there for the sake of a paycheck while in the larger cities they are actually passionate about protecting the art? There is the possibility that these employee’s could be friends of the perpetrators but in the case of Tisch, I would hope that a friend would definitely stop you from doing something so degrading and ridiculous.

    I am not sure what the salary of a museum employee is but hopefully there is some type of screening process to attain this job. If there isn’t, there should be. After all, these employee’s are paid to protect millions of dollars in irreplaceable art. While you cannot always stop someone from being ignorant, there must be a better way to protect these masterpieces.

  3. arthack1 says:

    I don’t mean to make it seem as if museum employees are inept–its not an enviable job, being a museum security guard. I personally think that so much of their time is spent with nothing happening, when something does occur, its not surprising that the response is either over-zealous, or a bit lagging.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: