Brady is basically correct. Usually, works of art made by an artist are fully financed by the artist so that means no actual coerced changes. Architecture and plays, even books (Cheerskep is an editor!) involve people besides the artist. They pay for the work up front and so they get to influence the final work, at least as friendly collaborators.
Works of visual art, like commissioned paintings and sculpture become subject to the influence of the payer depending on the status of the artist. The more status, the less influence. Usually for commissioned artworks, the artist gets a contracted fee up front (1/3 to 1/2) with the balance upon completion. The buyer can opt out, losing 1/2 of the fee and the rejected artist also loses 1/2. I have done several commissions that involve contracts. Public art is usually contracted for with a proposal sketch and some allowances for changes in composition. Individual commissions are trickier. I generally refuse them unless I have total control. I don't accept up front fees and simply give the buyer first refusal on the finished work. I have done 2 works for the commission and let the buyer choose but hold them to the contract to buy one of them, no matter what I do. I always say I don't know beforehand I'll do for a commissioned piece except to do my best. For me, total freedom is essential. Before the advent of modernism and the notion of the artist as full creator, not simply an artisan, very specific contracts were common, stipulating even the types and choices of colors, subjects, etc., etc. And the owner obtained full rights to the work, including the right to alter it in any way at all. Thus a huge number of artworks before 1850 have been cut down, added to, repainted with different subjects, you name it. A specialty of art scholarship is devoted to just that topic (as it affects market value and sometimes even the author artist). In recent years some artists have successfully sued owners who altered their work. A famous case involved, if I recall properly, a refrigerator painted by Andy Warhol. The owner cut up the refrigerator to sell panels containing Warhol's images. He lost the suit. If some owner chops up your artwork to sell it in pieces or alters it you can probably sue and win. WC --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Is art sacred? > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 1:27 PM > On Oct 15, 2008, at 1:48 PM, GEOFF CREALOCK wrote: > > > Is it instrucitive that paintings and sculpture are > not to be > > tampered with, whereas plays are > "workshopped' and re-written and > > architectural plans revised? > > If you're working on a commission, don't be > surprised to be asked to > submit sketches or a couple of macquettes, and if > you're painting a > portrait, be prepared to reshape a chin or ear or three. > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
