should artists be prosecuted for destroying their own art?
brigit bardot brigade
painting, he'd be in deep doo doo.
now, what if a great painter created this super masterpiece. it's
recognized by many critics as a great superduper work. the public at
large thinks it's marvelous.
let's say the work is still in possession of the artist. should he be
allowed to destroy it if he wants to?
it can be manuscript, musical composition, movie, sculpture. should
certain works be protected from any harm whatsoever regardless of who
owns them, even if by the original artist?
----
how about if a psycho rich guy bought a painting for 10 million just
to destroy it. should he be allowed to destroy it?
i ask because sibelius destroyed his 8th symphony. damned moron.
and didn't kafka want his manuscripts to be burnt? just imagine that!
------
now, i'm not necessarily against destruction of art. most books
published every year should probably be burnt as with most films and
cds.
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
brigit bardot brigade wrote:
>
> you know, if someone went into an art museum and destroyed a priceless
> painting, he'd be in deep doo doo.
>
> now, what if a great painter created this super masterpiece. it's
> recognized by many critics as a great superduper work. the public at
> large thinks it's marvelous.
> let's say the work is still in possession of the artist. should he be
> allowed to destroy it if he wants to?
>
> it can be manuscript, musical composition, movie, sculpture. should
> certain works be protected from any harm whatsoever regardless of who
> owns them, even if by the original artist?
>
Don' worry about it, Brigit Bardot doesn't have control of any of her
films.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
jbourgeois
"Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
wrote in message news:40FDA516...@backpacker.com...
Gary Oblock
I think if a psycho rich guy destroyed a painting he'd get nailed to the
wall by tort lawyers if the artist retained the copyright and the right to show
to the piece.
I have a little piece of paper that I hand out with my sold work saying I retain
the copyright on the work and will seek legal redress if it is deliberately
damaged or destroyed.
-- Gary Oblock
--
Bronze Dreams
Santa Clara, CA
http://www.bronzedreams.com
-------------- ad for the hosting service I use ---------------
Free Web Hosting with Domain Registration or transfer
http://freewebhosting.catalog.com/jump/mw...@earthlink.net
Neil Coward
Recently in the uk there was a warehouse fire which destroyed many piece of
'modern' art including works by Tracey Emin - she's that stupid tart who did
her messy bed as a work of art. Has anyone heard of her outside uk? - i
hope not.
Most people seemed to think it was quite funny rather than a gigantic
tragedy.
I also listened to a debate about art and apparently one of the things that
makes these ridiculous pieces 'art' is that the artist says it is art. i.e.
its Art because I say its Art.
A good clearout of shhht like that from time to time might be a good idea
"brigit bardot brigade" <brigit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cd79f7a.04072...@posting.google.com...
artyw
> you know, if someone went into an art museum and destroyed a priceless
> painting, he'd be in deep doo doo.
>
> now, what if a great painter created this super masterpiece. it's
> recognized by many critics as a great superduper work. the public at
> large thinks it's marvelous.
> let's say the work is still in possession of the artist. should he be
> allowed to destroy it if he wants to?
>
> it can be manuscript, musical composition, movie, sculpture. should
> certain works be protected from any harm whatsoever regardless of who
> owns them, even if by the original artist?
>
Go rent The Woman Chaser (or perhaps The Fountainhead)
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Neil Coward wrote:
>
> I don't think destroying art is such an incredible big deal.
> Recently in the uk there was a warehouse fire which destroyed many piece of
> 'modern' art including works by Tracey Emin - she's that stupid tart who did
> her messy bed as a work of art. Has anyone heard of her outside uk? - i
> hope not.
> Most people seemed to think it was quite funny rather than a gigantic
> tragedy.
>
If the 'art' is anti-art, destroying it might be the best thing for it.
Did you see that art that burned up in that warehouse? I *heard* it was
amazing.
> I also listened to a debate about art and apparently one of the things that
> makes these ridiculous pieces 'art' is that the artist says it is art. i.e.
> its Art because I say its Art.
>
> A good clearout of shhht like that from time to time might be a good idea
>
So there's a good excuse for the arsonist to use when he's caught
burning down buildings. It's art.
brigit bardot brigade
> I don't think destroying art is such an incredible big deal.
> Recently in the uk there was a warehouse fire which destroyed many piece of
> 'modern' art including works by Tracey Emin - she's that stupid tart who did
> her messy bed as a work of art. Has anyone heard of her outside uk? - i
> hope not.
> Most people seemed to think it was quite funny rather than a gigantic
> tragedy.
> I also listened to a debate about art and apparently one of the things that
> makes these ridiculous pieces 'art' is that the artist says it is art. i.e.
> its Art because I say its Art.
>
> A good clearout of shhht like that from time to time might be a good idea
>
well yes, most contemp art is the same schtick over and over and who
cares if they're destroyed. i'd sacrifice 90% of contemp art in
exchange for a lost ancient sculpture.
b
Ryan
> painting, he'd be in deep doo doo.
>
> now, what if a great painter created this super masterpiece. it's
> recognized by many critics as a great superduper work. the public at
> large thinks it's marvelous.
> let's say the work is still in possession of the artist. should he be
> allowed to destroy it if he wants to?
>
> it can be manuscript, musical composition, movie, sculpture. should
> certain works be protected from any harm whatsoever regardless of who
> owns them, even if by the original artist?
What about if it is destroyed by another artist? Nothing could be
more relevent here then the story about the dada-ist who was first to
scribble a moustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa, and started the whole
drawing moutaches on photgraphs thing. In fact I would highly
reccomend getting a book on Dada-ist art. These issues are at it's
very core.
I would think history would play a role here as well. How long before
a work of art becomes a historical document? I would have no problems
with destroying newer art--but Michaelangelo's David? Da Vinci's
notebooks? that I don't think anyone has the right to destroy. Is it
because the respective authors are long dead, you think? Is death the
turning point?
If I owned a million dollar piece of art and the artist came to me and
said he wanted to spaypaint over parts of it, or slice it with a
razor, I believe I would let him, though it might really piss me off.
I think I too, however, after shelling out a million dollars I should
have the right to do whatever I want with it. I don't think an artist
can copyright an exact physical piece of art, or in other words a
particular canvas. What the artist controls is the use of the image,
which is an abstract idea, not very physical. I think when you buy a
painting it becomes legally yours, you can smash it all up just like
anything else you have bought and paid for. That doesn't mean you
control it's copyright, or that by destroying this one version you
stop the image from ever being reproduced.
Crowfoot
> you know, if someone went into an art museum and destroyed a priceless
> painting, he'd be in deep doo doo.
>
> now, what if a great painter created this super masterpiece. it's
> recognized by many critics as a great superduper work. the public at
> large thinks it's marvelous.
> let's say the work is still in possession of the artist. should he be
> allowed to destroy it if he wants to?
You might be ineterested in a book of mine called MY FATHER'S GHOST,
about a painter, which touches on this.
Suzy M Charnas
--
Crowfoot
ray
> painting, he'd be in deep doo doo.
>
> now, what if a great painter created this super masterpiece. it's
> recognized by many critics as a great superduper work. the public at
> large thinks it's marvelous.
> let's say the work is still in possession of the artist. should he be
> allowed to destroy it if he wants to?
>
> it can be manuscript, musical composition, movie, sculpture. should
> certain works be protected from any harm whatsoever regardless of who
> owns them, even if by the original artist?
>
> ----
>
> how about if a psycho rich guy bought a painting for 10 million just
> to destroy it. should he be allowed to destroy it?
>
Of course, we would not want him to destroy it. We would condemn him
if he destroyed it, but perhaps he could not be formally punished.
Works of art are like other aspects of creation, there is an analogy
with the natural world, suppose a nutcase tried to wipe out the last
remaining specimens of a certain type of wild flower. We think it is a
pity when things are destroyed in this way. The idea is that we are
custodians of works of art as well as objects in the natural world,
and have a responsibilty to look after them, even when they belong to
us, or technically belong to no-one.
But the scenario you describe is most unlikely, since people will
generally act in their self interest, so there is no need for laws to
stop someone destroying expensive works of art that belong to him. On
the other hand, there are laws to stop people doing work on their
house if it is a "listed" building, i.e. has some architectural or
historical significance. So if your idea became fashionable I dare say
that works of art would become "listed" and the owners would not have
the right to destroy them.
John Shaw
> I have a little piece of paper that I hand out with my sold work saying I retain
> the copyright on the work and will seek legal redress if it is deliberately
> damaged or destroyed.
>
> -- Gary Oblock
Have you checked with a lawyer to see if that is enforceble? Does
copyright law give you the ability to prevent such acts?
John
Dr.Matt
According to my reading of http://www.copyright.gov/, the copyright
owner--the original creator or their heir or assignee--retains the
exclusive right to reproduce, derive new works from, distribute
copies of, publicly perform, and transmit the work of creativity,
once the work is fixed in a physical medium. Protection of the
integrity of a particular physical manifestation of the work is
not directly addressed by copyright. But in the case of certain
kinds of work, such as one-of-a-kind paintings or sculptures,
where copy-making is prohibitively costly, the courts *might*
back you if you make physical integrity of the work a contractual
component of the bill of sale. In that case, contract law
probably trumps statuatory laws like copyright. Copyright
law doesn't say anything about the case of the guy who buys your
art for the purpose of burning it--at best you could try to
argue that the act of burning it was an act of performance art
incorporating your artwork without license to do so!
Some USA information: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria."
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Anita Richards
> I have a little piece of paper that I hand out with my sold work saying I retain
> the copyright on the work and will seek legal redress if it is deliberately
> damaged or destroyed.
That is not going to do much good. First, I don't know that the
copyright law gives you any power to prevent destruction to the work,
as long as it is not altered and then sold or publically displayed. It
might, but I don't know. An intellectual property attorney,
particularly one who works with art, could help you.
Handing out a little piece of paper with the work is a waste of paper.
With any copyright notice you need to inform the buyer, before they
purchase or agree to purchase the work that you are retaining the
copyright and that they agree not to destroy or damage the work. You
should obtain something in writing from the buyer to show that the
buyer agreed to the terms.
Simple contract law may be your best protection. The buyer, as part of
the sale (all sales are contracts) agrees not to damage, deface, or
destroy the work and agrees to some remedy if they violate that
agreement. That _might_ work. Or, rather than a sale, it could be an
indefinate rental for as long as they want it, with the no damage or
destroy terms.
If this is important to you, a short meeting with an attorney may be a
good idea.
Nita
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
In the musical "An American in Paris", Jerry Mulligan (Gene Kelly), a
struggling American painter, explains how it is different for the
painter, sculptor and the like than the musician or writer. The painter
creates a one of a kind work and when he sells it, it is gone. The
writer can make endless copies, the musician endless recordings. This
difference should be something that the artist can protect, I think.
Dr.Matt
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>
>John Shaw wrote:
>>
>> Gary Oblock <mw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:<40FDDAD1...@earthlink.net>...
>>
>> > I have a little piece of paper that I hand out with my sold work
>saying I retain
>> > the copyright on the work and will seek legal redress if it is deliberately
>> > damaged or destroyed.
>> >
>> > -- Gary Oblock
>>
>> Have you checked with a lawyer to see if that is enforceble? Does
>> copyright law give you the ability to prevent such acts?
>>
>In the musical "An American in Paris", Jerry Mulligan (Gene Kelly), a
>struggling American painter, explains how it is different for the
>painter, sculptor and the like than the musician or writer. The painter
>creates a one of a kind work and when he sells it, it is gone. The
>writer can make endless copies, the musician endless recordings. This
>difference should be something that the artist can protect, I think.
>
This turns out to be a fallacy. The painter or sculptor retains ownership
of the image.
During the anthrax scare, I hand delibered a copyright registration to
the US Register of Copyrights (it's next door to the Capitol
building). In front of me in line, a fellow was asking the clerk what
steps he would need to take if he wanted to make a collage of
photographs of other people's paintings, while the painters were still
alive, and then give away copies of the collage for free. The clerk
very patiently but firmly replied that he would need to get written
permission from each and every painter, otherwise he would be
committing a theft and a tort. Painters retain ownership of their
images exactly as other creators do. If you want to buy the right to
publish photographs of a painting, buying the painting to hang on your wall
won't cut it--you need to license that right as well.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Don't you think this is slowing down the dissemination of material? As
it is, many books are out of print but still protected by copyright and
therefore utterly unavailable. Many books aren't available online so
even though technology allows easy searching, there is no way to do it
in actuality.
hollowayd
The owner of the individual work is free to destroy the copy in his
possession. This has nothing to do with copyright. He isn't
destroying anybodies right to reproduce and sell the image, and unless
he has purchased that right he has no right to reproduce and sell the
image, manuscript, music, etc..... this happens frequently in the book
world where somebody buys a manuscript as a collector with the intent
of publishing, only to find that the heirs of the author still own the
copyright and will not allow publication.
As far as destroying original art goes.... A wealthy Japanese
businessman purchased a Van Gogh painting for more than $70,000,000
dollars and told everyone that he would have the painting burned and
buried with him. He died and now the painting is missing....
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/portrait.htm