Yellowism

A recent incident at the Tate Modern in London has me feeling a bit more wary of any patron that gets too close to artworks at the Kemper Art Museum or Laumeier Sculpture Park. On Sunday, October 7th, a man named Valdimir Umanets walked up to Rothko's Black on Maroon and wrote on it: "Vladimir Umanets, A Potential Piece of Yellowism." Mr. Umanets, in a BBC article, claims that his actions are not vandalism and will make the artwork more valuable.

Curious, I tried to find out what exactly Yellowism is. Googling the term instantly brings up a website and blog created by Valdimir Umanets and Marcin Lodyga, which explains their artistic philosophies. The Manifesto of Yellowism, written in a bold black font against a sharp white background, explains (well sort of) what Yellowism is. I think the basic point the proponents of this philosophy are trying to get across is: what makes art, art is the context in which art exists. It's kinda like saying the only reason a Piasco painting is art is because someone hangs it up in an art museum. Statements such as "We believe that the context for works of art is already art," and "Yellowism can be presented in only yellowistic chambers," lean me towards this argument. There are, however, other statements, such as "Yellowism is not art or anti-art," and "Interpreting Yellowism as art or being about something other than just yellow deprives Yellowism of its only purpose," that refute this. So the questions remain: what makes Yellowism yellow? What makes art art? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? The world may never know.

I love art and art historical debate just as much as the next emerging museum professional. I think the concepts of Yellowism are interesting (though infuriating and possibly complete hokum) and people should be allowed to put forth these theories and discuss them in an open forum. Still, I do not approve of the defacement of another's artwork in order to bring these philosophies to light. Valdimir Umanets's actions seem to show a lack of respect for other artists and art movements. His actions, though, he feels are justified by the philosophies of his own movement, which make it acceptable and even an honor to bestow his markings on Rothko's painting. If Rothko were alive I wonder what he would say about it. What if Umanets had chosen a living artist's work to write on? Choosing an artist who can no longer speak for himself seems to be a way of avoiding artistic conflict and responsibility, and also seems very high-handed; that he has done this deceased artist a favor, who cannot say whether or not he wants such a condescending favor in the first place.

This is not a first instance of a contemporary artist claiming their destructive actions are in themselves art. In 2007 a female artist in France vandalized a Cy Twombly by kissing it and leaving her lipstick smudged on the white canvas. She later claimed that she felt the artist had "left the canvas white" for her and that "this red stain is a testimony to this moment, to the power of art." As far as I can tell, Twombly never shared his personal opinions concerning this act, but the French courts did find the woman guilty of vandalism and fined her.

While researching other examples of art vandalism I came across an article, entitled Please Refrain from Taking a Hammer to the Michelangelo, in the Arts & Entertainment section of the Wall Street Journal. It briefly discusses the Cy Twombly and current Tate Modern incidents and others like them. It also expresses my opinion about artists who vandalize art; that it is first and foremost a security issue that can ruin the visitor experiences of others. Actions like this lead to tightened security measures that can limit and even eliminate a visitor's ability to fully engage with and enjoy an artwork. Just think of every person you have ever heard complain (and I am certain you have) about all the barriers and bullet-proof glass around the Mona Lisa. No one seems to notice her anymore, just her security detail. I think no artist or philosophy about art should interfere with how others are allowed to view and interact with art.

I will not say that proponents of Yellowism do not have the right to share their ideas, in fact I think such ideas lead to fascinating scholarly debate. But no idea or philosophy should be allowed to force itself onto or brand the artistic concepts or creations of others. And all philosophical debates aside, it is also important to remember the simple fact that the damage of someone else's property is wrong and legally punishable. Black on Maroon does not belong to Umanets, it belongs to the Tate Modern, and he had no right to make his mark on it and the museum has every right to prosecute.

At the end of the day I think all that Yellowism has really accomplished is ruining the museum experiences of others and making my job a little bit more stressful.