Art attack! Woman destroyed his breast piece ever

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

One man’s art is another woman’s porn — and for the rest of us, it’s great TV.

People’s Court “judge” Marilyn Milian stunned the world of art, nudity and building etiquette last week when she ruled that a Bushwick woman who destroyed a montage of buxom nudes was justified in her personal form of art criticism.

The ruling, which will be broadcast in a few weeks, means that Marie Nazaire will not have to reimburse artist Rafael Fuchs for demolishing his one-of-a-kind piece, “Nude Megillah” — though the ruling hinged on a technicality stemming from Fuchs’s inability to prove the “value” of the 18-foot artwork.

Yes, Milian found that Nazaire destroyed the piece — hey, she readily admits it — but that wasn’t the matter before the esteemed TV judge.

As such, Fuchs was appalled at the kind of justice delivered on television.

“The judge said the woman was guilty, but I’m not getting any money,” said Fuchs, who had sued Nazaire for $5,000 in small claims court, but agreed to appear the TV show instead. “This judge prevented me from earning my money as an artist and providing for my own daughter.”

Fuchs claimed that the artwork — which consists of 16 explicit images of fulsome women flexing — is worth $7,200, though he admits that he listed it for 75-percent off at the Bushwick Open Studios art festival.

“The process of creating this long piece was spontaneous,” the artist said. “I felt like I was raped.”

But Fuchs is not the only one claiming the mantle of victimhood.

Nazaire, an expectant mother of two, made it clear before her demolition that the artist’s “pornographic” images in her lobby were an assault on good taste.

“Does anyone find it disturbing — especially the parents that have children?” Nazaire wrote on the Internet site set up for residents of the Troutman Street building, which is called Castle Braid.

But other Castle Braid tenants, many of whom work in the arts and creative industries, flooded the message board with more than 100 posts arguing that the piece should remain.

One resident wrote, “I loved it,” while another remarked, “Children should not be ashamed of their bodies.”

Lacking support in the court of public opinion, Nazaire begged her landlord, Mayer Schwartz, to remove the work or at least put a curtain over it.

When that approach didn’t work, she took matters into her own hands, tearing down the piece.

But Judge Milian declared the work easily replaceable — and therefore worthless.

But as television, it’s priceless.

Updated 5:23 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

Marie from Bay Ridge says:
You don't have the right to destroy something just because you don't like it. Whether or not there was any artistic value in these pictures or monetary value is beyond the point, this woman acted in a selfish and clearly illegal manner. Not that I would expect great justice from the people's court.
March 7, 2011, 6:02 am
Rob from Greenpoint says:
I don't get it. Was the piece in a gallery or the lobby of a residential building? The article as written doesn't
make sense.
March 7, 2011, 9:37 am
Joey from Clinton Hills says:
how did this moron get pregnant? who would dip their wick into that thing?
March 7, 2011, 10:51 am
Lib Coss from Kalamazoo says:
And the woman who saw the art she did not like went to the exhibit because?????????????????????
Certainly she knew before hand what the show was like.
I am outraged in general that we are back to the seventies of having to fight for artists to paint nudes is ridiculous.........the woman obviously has never taken any art appreciation courses.
March 7, 2011, 12:42 pm
Frank from Furter says:
"judge" is right. Arbitrator is what the person did and they were arbitrary. But there is almost no appeal even when they are least in NY...
March 7, 2011, 3:48 pm
Bruce from midwood says:
The above mentioned photographs were in the public lobby of a residence ? This is not made clear in the above story. If so they should not have been. And I do collect art and I do own nudes but they are hanging in my private living room. The question is does that give someone the right to destroy them?
March 7, 2011, 5:15 pm
Cynthia from Clinton Hill says:
Well i have to stress out that im sure if it was a guys @*%$ im sure she'd be right there and not having a problem. double stardard. heck i would be there gawking me some male penis.
March 9, 2011, 10:16 am
J from Bushwick says:
It's the lobby of a building which is an art community building. They have art shows in the lobby. She tore it down and threw it on the front desk. It was printed on nice paper. Not to mention that graffiti outside our door is more offensive then these photos. Also there have been other art shows and for some reason the chick flipped out. It was also on this upper balcony where you had to go out of your way to see it.
March 10, 2011, 6:20 pm
Cat from Bushwick says:
I live in this building. It is a residential building and we have gallery space for tenants in the lobby. He was granted the right to display it by the building's management. They approve it and professionally hang it for the artist- it's not like he just thumbtacked it to the wall. This building is marketed to prospective tenants in a certain way, and people who move in here need to understand that there is a mindset regarding art and expression. It's your choice to bring your kids into that environment. And regardless of your opinion of the art, it is never ok to destroy someone's personal property. He's out over $7,000 now, and that is unbelievable to me. This situation violates every single principle that this building and community exists for.
March 11, 2011, 3:10 pm
Froggy from Brooklyn from 35th Ave. says:
Hey Cat! Don't be sch a fuddy-duddy. If the guy had anything in his pants except a Mr. Twister, he'd have gone to Jersey and brought back Pooki Sledbanger - or anyone from her hood to slap up da beyotch.
March 11, 2011, 9:32 pm

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: