American artist Chad Wys has expressed himself by adding his own art to already existing art pieces. His controversial art is featured by using tape and paint to “mess up” the original pieces.
Sculptures are in a way “brutalized” by colorful painting splashed all over them, and the paintings are also marked with tape or black paint so the whole object won’t show.It looks rather messy, but in the same way modern.
Another similar artistic act was done by covering random lightning city billboards with smashed mosquitoes.
Kaitlin says
September 1, 2010 at 7:08 pmUm…Marcel Duchamp anyone? This has been done before. When your art is conceptual, the concept should at least be original in my humble opinion.
Gloria says
October 6, 2010 at 3:05 amAnything passes at art today. Its actually showing great disrespect for the work of “real” artists. As an artist myself I find this to be vandalism and nothing more. I hope he is sued
Tom says
November 30, 2010 at 4:01 pm@Kaitlin I’ve never heard of Marcel Duchamp, I haven’t seen this be done before. When your art is abstract, the abstraction should at least be original in the ‘humble’ opinion of a pompous wanker. Humble my arse.
@Gloria It would be vandalism if he covered the original painting, which would be in a museum somewhere, whereas these are photocopies. You’re a self righteous hypocrite & you don’t know what art really is if you think any kind of art can be judged as inadequate.
Sargent says
March 26, 2011 at 6:29 amTom
If you haven’t heard of Marcel Duchamp, then you really are not qualified to find any fault in Kaitlin’s post, and your response was simply abusive.
As was your response to Gloria. Your personal attacks on both parties indicate that you have no fact or reason based argument to present.
Chad says
April 24, 2011 at 2:13 am@Kaitlin: while Duchamp certainly was one of the first artists to embrace the notion of readymades (or found objects) as a concept unto itself — mainly as a critique of art in general, which was the motivation for most Dadaists — I hardly think it’s fair to label all readymades thenceforth has being derivative; that disfranchises an awful lot of work that has been created since. I’m not critiquing what fine art can be — as Duchamp did nearly a century ago — but am pointing to a whole host of other issues concerning consumerism (to an extent) and object ownership; not to mention notions of aestheticism and debates about high versus low art. I invite you to think more deeply about my work and what it might mean to you. On a slightly different topic: I would argue that most art is derivative.
@Gloria: you raise some interesting concerns. What is vandalism and who judges when it occurs? How interesting it would be if someone vandalized my work… then it would be a “vandal” of an already “vandalized” work. How bizarre! But seriously, I do have the utmost respect for other artists’ work. But, as Tom graciously pointed out, these things that I’ve “vandalized” are not the originals; far from them! The true vandalism takes place when the company mass-markets the likeness of the original.
Andrew says
August 25, 2011 at 1:28 pmIf Tom doesn’t know who Marcel Duchamp is, and he’s too lazy to google the name and find out about him, he’s really got no business leaving comments at all.