Latest news with #Rothko
New York Post
15-05-2025
- New York Post
This 55% off meat thermometer makes steak night idiot-proof
New York Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. Let me set the scene: It's a sweltering June evening in Sag Harbor. There's a linen-clad hedge funder pacing in front of you, a wife yelling about scallops, and you're wrist-deep in a vat of heirloom tomato water trying to plate a dish that looks like a Rothko. A few feet away, an ex-model-turned-wellness-influencer insists her wagyu be 'medium-rare but on the rare side,' which, for those playing along at home, is not a real temperature — just a polite way of saying, 'I want it perfect or I'll tell everyone you poisoned me.' This is when the CHEF iQ Sense Smart Wireless Meat Thermometer becomes less of a kitchen tool and more of a survival provision. Amazon The CHEF iQ Sense Smart Wireless Meat Thermometer is a sleek, Bluetooth-enabled cooking gadget that comes with three ultra-thin, dishwasher-safe probes and a compact base station. Each probe tracks temperature independently, so you can cook multiple proteins at once to different doneness levels. The real magic? It syncs with the CHEF iQ app to provide real-time temperature readings, estimated cook times, and step-by-step guidance to get restaurant-quality results with zero stress. It's designed to work seamlessly for oven, grill, air fryer, and sous vide cooking, making it a powerful all-in-one upgrade for amateurs and chefs alike. I've used a lot of meat thermometers in my time as a part-time private chef — some accurate, some pathologically wrong, most with cords that seem designed to tangle themselves (and me) into a crisis. That's why the CHEF iQ Sense Smart Wireless Meat Thermometer, currently 55% off on Amazon (just $99!), has me sweating like a roast under a heat lamp — in the best way. While I haven't personally tested this exact one, I can tell you this: the specs make it sound like the culinary equivalent of a mind-reading boyfriend. Smart, wireless, and complete with three ultra-thin probes, it lets you track multiple proteins without ever lifting the lid — or putting down your cocktail. This article was written by Kendall Cornish, New York Post Commerce Editor & Reporter. Kendall, who moonlights as a private chef in the Hamptons for New York elites, lends her expertise to testing and recommending cooking products – for beginners and aspiring sous chefs alike. Simmering and seasoning her way through both jobs, Kendall dishes on everything from the best cookware for your kitchen to cooking classes that will level-up your skills to new dinnerware to upgrade your holiday hosting. Prior to joining the Post's shopping team in 2023, Kendall previously held positions at Apartment Therapy and at Dotdash Meredith's Travel + Leisure and Departures magazines.
The Guardian
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Nigel Farage, TikTok and Lord Haw-Haw
Asking whether young people are viewing Nigel Farage's TikTok videos for the silliness of trivial content or their political message misses the point about the proven links between entertainment value and propaganda (Nigel Farage is a hit on TikTok – but are young voters listening or laughing?, 11 May). As the pollsters Ruth and Henry Durant noted in 1940 about Lord Haw-Haw's broadcasts to the UK, 'People tuned in 'to have a good laugh', but then, having acquired the habit, some began to think 'there may be something in what he says'.'Will StuddertBerlin, Germany As I stood in front of a Rothko at Tate Modern 22 years ago, our four-year-old ran up to it and I asked her what she thought. 'Too big!' she replied instantly, and ran off. She'll be starting her masters degree in fine art at Oxford University this October (The worst thing about the damaged Rothko is that it fuels the ban-kids-from-galleries debate, 11 May).Robert PedersenTotnes, Devon I once remarked to a pupil's father that I'd been impressed at how his son had handled a couple of disappointments. 'Just as well,' he replied. 'We're Everton supporters' (Letters, 13 May).Marilyn RowleyManchester Oh dear. I am a citizen of nowhere living in 'an island of strangers' (Report, 13 May). This is getting MarshallSalisbury I read Joseph Harker's article opposing low-traffic neighbourhoods (14 May) and wish him well at his next BricknellPlymouth
The Guardian
11-05-2025
- General
- The Guardian
The worst thing about the damaged Rothko is that it fuels the ban-kids-from-galleries debate
The news that a child damaged a £42m Mark Rothko painting at a museum in Rotterdam last month had me wondering how I'd feel if my toddler was the culprit. The work, Grey, Orange on Maroon, No 8, sustained small, superficial scratches to the lower part of the painting during an 'unguarded' moment, which, while not a disaster, does mean it will have to be taken off display and restored. It comes less than a year after a four-year-old boy smashed a 3,500-year-old jar at the Hecht Museum in Israel. Honestly, I'd be mortified. Not embarrassed for my child, who is too little to understand, but because as his parent I had taken my eye off the ball. I would blame myself. I'd also be terrified I would be made to pay for it. I love Rothko. Standing in front of his paintings always feels, to me, like an almost religious experience. The emotion in his work is astonishing, transcendent. This story has brought out two categories of people that I'll admit I struggle with: people who don't get the work of Mark Rothko, and people who dislike kids. The thing about the first group of people is that their inability to connect with Rothko's abstract expressionism often seems to make them cross. They rarely say, with any humility, 'Oh, I don't really get it, but perhaps I need to see it in person', or 'I can see it means a great deal to some people, but frankly it leaves me cold.' Instead, they can be a bit crotchety and defensive, hence the predictable plethora of snark in relation to this story: 'Damaged? How can anyone tell?'; 'It looks like a child painted it in the first place'; 'It's just a bunch of rectangles'; 'Emperor's new clothes' etc, etc. As for the second group of people: it's the usual calls for children to be banned from public spaces. They shouldn't be allowed into galleries if they can't behave, and their parents should be made to pay – that sort of thing. Although these ostensibly seem like two very different, frankly contradictory, lines of thinking – 'modern art is rubbish' versus 'galleries are sacred spaces' – I have come to realise that these sentiments are interlinked. Children respond instinctively to art. They have not built up defences, or preconceptions about it, and the earlier you take them to galleries and expose them to different styles and mediums, the more open and receptive they will be to things that are experimental, unusual or transgressive. Their wild, expressionistic little souls are not bogged down by the fusty notion that good art has to be figurative. Have you seen their drawings? And they themselves are chaos personified. Like the splatters on a Pollock, they appear anarchic, but they have their own internal logic. Children explore the world through touch. My boy loves to scratch his fingers against woodchip wallpaper, to stand with his palms flat against the rough bark of a tree. Anyone familiar with kids will be able to imagine what went through that child's mind as they stood in front of Grey, Orange on Maroon, No 8. Something about the unvarnished, slightly chalky surface of the paint made them want to feel it. And so they did. Arguably, in doing so, they connected with the work of Rothko on a deeper level than many adults. I'm not being entirely serious, but what I do believe is that the people who love art the most have somehow managed to retain that childish spirit of openness and curiosity into adulthood, and that spirit is precious. We need it, especially, for the next generation of artists, which is why the gallery must remain an inclusive place. No museum or gallery would seriously consider banning children. On the contrary, they tend to be ridiculously kind and understanding about these accidents. 'Every museum and gallery thinks hard about how to balance meaningful physical access to artworks and objects with keeping them safe. I'd say most have the balance right, but accidents can still happen,' the curator and writer Maxwell Blowfield said in the aftermath of the damage. 'It's impossible to prevent every potential incident, from visitors of all ages. Thankfully, things like this are very rare compared to the millions of visits taking place every day.' Meanwhile, the museum that lost the 3,500-year-old jar used it as a 'teaching opportunity', and invited its four-year-old former nemesis back to the museum with his family to see how the repairs were going. There's a loveliness to that. Perhaps, rather than charge the parents, the museum in Rotterdam will get its insurance payout and do something similar. Either way, I hope that the child wasn't made to feel too bad. Perhaps it'll be a funny story that the parents tell someday, and I bet they watch their child a bit more closely in future. I don't want to add to the shame they are probably already feeling, but I do wonder if it's time modern parents had a think about rehabilitating the much-maligned toddler reins of the 1980s and 90s, even if just for occasional use. Some kids are fine in galleries, but others are whirlwinds who need keeping in check. My son loves running through Tate Modern, but to avoid him careening head first into the Joan Mitchell triptych, I'm wondering if I should pick up a pair before our next visit. Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett is a Guardian columnist. The Republic of Parenthood book will be published this summer
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Child accidentally damages $50 million Rothko at Dutch museum
A Mark Rothko painting thought to be worth tens of millions of dollars is undergoing restoration after a child accidentally damaged the artwork at a museum in the Netherlands. 'Grey, Orange on Maroon, No. 8' sustained some visible scratches when a child brushed against the abstract painting at the Depot, a public storage area of Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam. In the Depot, much of the art is displayed similarly to how it would in a gallery without traditional exhibition protections. The Depot is currently showing highlights of its vast collection as the main museum undergoes renovations. 'It happened because a child, in an unsupervised moment, touched the lower part of the work. There was no intent. This was not vandalism,' museum spokesperson Vincent Cardinaal told ABC News. The painting has since been moved to the museum's conservation lab. Cardinaal said the restoration process was expected to be successful and that the painting would be able to be displayed in the future. The museum did not release images of the damage, further description or estimates of repair costs. A vandal who wrote on another Rothko piece at the Tate Modern in London caused about $250,000 in damages that cost 18 months to repair. 'Grey, Orange on Maroon, No. 8' has never been auctioned but it's estimated to be worth between $50 and $60 million. 'Untitled, 1968' — another of Rothko's 'color field' paintings — sold for $23.9 million at Sotheby's in 2023. The Dutch museum acquired the piece in 1970 after Rothko's death. _____
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Yahoo
Iconic, $56 Million Abstract Painting Damaged by Child
Think twice about taking children to a museum housing expensive art. Scratch that, maybe just leave them at home. That's arguably the moral of the story after a child reportedly damaged a Mark Rothko painting worth a whopping $56 million. The damage happened at the famed Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum in Rotterdam, Netherlands. According to the BBC, a museum spokesperson said it's considering the "next steps" to repair the American painter's 1960 abstract Grey, Orange on Maroon, No. 8 painting. Those "next steps" includes searching for a conservation expert in the country and abroad. A Dutch outlet reported that the damage occurred during an "unguarded moment." As far as the painting's damage, a spokesperson told the BBC that the damage is "superficial," and that "small scratches are visible in the unvarnished paint layer in the lower part of the painting."It's worth noting that a conservationist reportedly said that the painting in question is "particularly susceptible to damage." The painting had been hanging in the museum's Depot, which is a publicly accessible storage facility next to the main museum, as part of an exhibition displaying the gallery's favorite collection. The museum is optimistic that the painting will be on display again, but fixing the damage will be difficult because "Rothko's mixture of pigments and resins and glues were quite complex." This incident is eerily reminiscent to another Rothko painting that was intentionally damaged in 2012, when a man defaced a 1958 painting with graffiti. The man apologized for his action, but he was ultimately sentenced to two years in prison. During the trial, prosecutors said it would cost more than $266,000 to repair the damage, and it took conservators 18 months to repair the damage.
