William: Oh dear. Although I'm responsible for bringing the word "sacred" to
the question, it was not my intention to invoke metaphysics. It was my
casual way of referring to what (quite possibly, in my naivete) was my
understanding of an aspect of different forms of art. The implication was
not "sacred' as in the Holy Family but rather in the sense of untouchable or
unalterable.
I'm not debating whether Bacon is still alive or not, just offering my guess
as to work which would surely now be far above any tampering by
clients/patrons or anyone else. And yes, now that you mention it, I do
recall that the pope of the time "hassled' Michelangelo re completion and
contents of his painting of the ceiling in the chapel. In fact, I had
forgotten about commissioning of paintings during that period and
expectations patrons had of influencing content, if not style.
I do recognize the position you and Mando have taken that you are not
interested/willing to have your work altered. What did I miss?
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is art sacred?
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
In spite of my comments? You must have mistaken what I said. And Mr. Bacon
is dead, at least he was. Again, architecture and plays involve many
payers and investors and they get to have a say. This is not the case with
most artworks where the artist makes the full investment. If the artist
wants to work with other investors then some contractual agreement must be
established. Period. In previous eras, many artists did work only by
contractual agreements. And sometimes they had to make changes. You may
recall that this became a contentious issue for Michelangelo when he was
working on the Sistine Ceiling.
WC
Note: Yes, art is sacred, but for metaphysical reasons not economical
reasons.
--- On Thu, 10/16/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Is art sacred?
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, October 16, 2008, 6:03 PM
> All (who responded): Thanks. In spite of William's
> comments (and in line
> with those of Chris), I doubt that Francis Bacon would
> accept changes to one
> of his portraits. But then, probably few of us would
> anticipate a flattering
> portrait from him.
> My conclusion at the moment is that if you're dead,
> your work is probably
> safe; if you're sufficiently exalted in the art world,
> you probably
> shouldn't expect to alter much; if you're
> determined (as is William) not to
> alter a work, the work will be safe; I still view
> architects and playwrites
> (playwrights?)
> as vulnerable to expectations of revisons.
> Geoff C
>
>
> >From: "Chris Miller"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: Is art sacred?
> >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:04:57 GMT
> >
> >What was the most recently completed commissioned
> painting or sculpture you
> >saw in an art museum?
> >
> >I remember a portrait that Hockney did 40 years ago -
> but I really doubt
> >that
> >the Weisman's had much to say about changing the
> eyes or ears.
> >
> >And regarding sculpture -- I can't think of
> anything other than what a
> >museum
> >commissioned for itself - and that would take us back
> to 1960 - and again,
> >I
> >doubt that the famous sculptor (Jacques Lipchitz) was
> asked to make any
> >changes.
> >
> >So yes, "art is sacred", as Geoff put it.
> >
> >The people who mostly make things on commission today
> are not recognized as
> >the kind of artists worthy of museum display.
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >Click to become a master chef, own a restaurant and
> make millions.
>
>http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmPlSMPOWaIE6J98FIGijKPE
> >XDQvLWSecMIRXyEGYuz6U1F6/
