1. Posted September 20, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    The “back off” is surely to say “you destroyed our artwork, this is partway to a remedy, lucky we don’t sue you for the original, and that we are treating this as a way of paying off the damages”

  2. Posted September 20, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    I am just hoping she gets into enough trouble to prevent “copycats” doing similar things to better artworks (one can imagine “irreperably improving” the Mona Lisa would be a great way to achieve fame and maybe later, derivative fortune.

    Now, it’s one thing “doing a Mr Bean to Whistler’s mother”, it would be another if Salvador Dali had run into the Louvre and painted his moustache on the ACTUAL Mona Lisa (he did a painting along those lines), where the vandalism would have had artistic merit, and, unless it was the Mona Lisa, the vandalism by a great modern artist to a so-so work by a professional but forgettable artist could actually be /more/ valuable in art auction rooms than the original.

  3. kvd
    Posted September 21, 2012 at 3:25 am | Permalink

    LE are there any examples you can think of where the ‘derogatory treatment’ clause was invoked? That’s an interesting concept.

  4. kvd
    Posted September 21, 2012 at 4:00 am | Permalink

    Mind you, if Robert Rauschenberg was still alive, you could get him to rub it out, and then it would be worth even more. Just think of the endless philosophical insights one might draw (pun) from that!

  5. kvd
    Posted September 21, 2012 at 5:42 am | Permalink

    Check out Daubism. Particularly one Driller Jet Armstrong.

  6. Posted September 21, 2012 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    Hmm… on the debasement matter, Lt. Ricketts, who wrote “Colonel Bogey”, would have one helluva case against whoever came up with the lyrics: “Hitler has only gone one ball… etc”

    As for the old crone’s family claiming royalties as a consequence of her “improving” the ..er… monkey painting…. I’m speechless. How brass faced can people be? They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.

    There’d be no royalties, or anything else, were I on the jury.

  7. kvd
    Posted September 21, 2012 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    [email protected] thanks. On another subject entirely, the “kvd” in [email protected] is not my good self – however appropriate.

  8. Posted September 23, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    I suspect it’s rather mean, but I find this whole thing very funny. I find the purported ‘artist’ even funnier… and now it’s become a tourist attraction.

    Every time I say to myself ‘I’ve seen everything’, something comes up and proves me wrong. Always.

  9. Posted September 23, 2012 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    If I understand correctly, the …er… restoration was unsolicited and conducted in a surreptitious manner.
    Perhaps the claimant for royalties could begin by proving that the artwork was hers.

    Unless I am mistaken (as until this thread I’d given this topic a entire two seconds of study) the church initially was considering criminal charges, or at the very least, civil action against the restorative artist perp.

  10. driller jet armstrong
    Posted October 27, 2012 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    firstly it was Duchamp not Dali who pencilled a moustache and goatee on the postcard of the mona lisa. secondly, there are many examples throughout art history of artists appropriating the work of other artists for their own purposes. English artist Colin Self, the late Enrico Baj, and most recently the winner of the inaugural howard arkey prize jake walker won with a daubist style artwork. I continue to make daubist work to this day and am very happy and highly equipped to defend myself in court should any artist wish to take me on.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *