Hard News: Art and the Big Guy
143 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
merc: Add Len Lye to the list of unappreciated artists. I understand the reason he bequethed the whole of his personal collection to the Govett-Brewster because they were the first New Zealand gallery to showcase his work.
That would make the tantrum they threw down in Christchurch, demanding the Govett-Brewster give them the Lye collection down south forever ("he was born here!"), even more precious than it sounded otherwise.
As an aside, I find it a bit bizarre the number of Kiwis that go to play union in England. Really. You could make damn near as much money playing in France, and many of their top clubs are in the south. South of France vs England? No contest!
-
I still remain to be convinced, however, that artists have any more entitlement to an 'artists' resale royalty', than New Zealand writers have to a cut if their books start appreciating in the market for modern first editions.
Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Analogy police, sir. We've had reports of a terrible analogy in this thread!
There's a pretty big difference there. People buy books in bulk, and people don't tend to buy paintings in the same way. Your analogy would be valid if artists wanted to renegotiate their arrangement for mass-market prints, or authors personally wrote every copy of every book they ever sold by hand, and were limited to a few hundred items in their lifetime.
-
And as a totally irrelevant sidebar, has anyone else seen Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie's sublime graphic novel l__Lost Girls__? I never thought I'd say this, but I was enormously moved and provoked in the best sense of the word by what the creators themselves unapologetically call a work of p**nography. (Chucked the asterisks in for those readers who should be working.)
Interesting to read this:
On June 23, 2006, officials for Great Ormond Street Hospital -- which was given the copyright to Peter Pan in J.M. Barrie's will -- asserted Moore would need their permission to publish the book in the UK. Moore indicated that he would not be seeking their licence, claiming that he hadn't expected his work to be banned and that the hospital only holds the rights to performances of the work, not to the individual characters. On 11th October 2006, Top Shelf signed an agreement with GOSH that, while not conceding copyright infringement, they would not publish Lost Girls in the UK until after the copyright lapses at the end of 2007.Which opens a whole other can of worms, I guess.
-
However I'm struggling to reconcile my position on the artist's royalty with my stance on intellectual property rights, of which I think the likes of copyright & patents provide too much protection.
It seems to me that you could really only have your cake and eat it if the government paid artists a living wage.
-
If I work hard at what I'm gifted at and decide to try and make a living at it, I think it's morally right to get paid for it. Should I, though, expect to get paid for the work I did years ago when I was new at it and inexperienced and unknown? Probably not. The compensation I received then was what it was worth then. If I am now famous and still producing then I get paid accordingly for what my work is worth now. Does an architect ask for payment for his first drawings because he's now well known?
-
"Should I, though, expect to get paid for the work I did years ago when I was new at it and inexperienced and unknown?"
Fair enough, but if the owners of your early work onsold it tomorrow for 25 times what you sold it for then, should you as the original creator get a slice of that increased market value?
-
Rodgerd:
Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Analogy police, sir. We've had reports of a terrible analogy in this thread!There's a pretty big difference there. People buy books in bulk, and people don't tend to buy paintings in the same way.
Cough... Perhaps I'm running in the wrong circles, but I don't know anyone who buys rare and antiquarian books by the truckload either. I can't for the life of me see why as recently as last November I saw a signed first edition copy Stephen King's Carrie sold for over NS$7,500. I've even seen first editions of the the Lord of the Rings trilogy (and we're not talking first impressions in fine or near-mint condition) offered for upwards of NZ$20,000.
Somehow, I don't think Mr. King or the Tolkien Estate are getting their cut from the inflated (some might say ridiculously over-hyped) market in their work. Whether they should is quite another question, though I'd suggest it's not an argument that would get a particularly sympathetic hearing.
-
If this is just for dealers and auctioneers then it sounds reasonable. They make an on-going living out of selling one-offs.
Should I, though, expect to get paid for the work I did years ago when I was new at it and inexperienced and unknown?
People pay lots of money for paintings not necessarily because of their artistic merit. Reminds me of a certain film.
-
/looks over shoulder for analogy police
"if the owners of your early work onsold it tomorrow for 25 times what you sold it for then, should you as the original creator get a slice of that increased market value?"
If the purchasers of your early vintages onsold them tomorrow for 25 times what you sold them for then, should you as the original winemaker get a slice of that increased market value?
-
"Fair enough, but if the owners of your early work onsold it tomorrow for 25 times what you sold it for then, should you as the original creator get a slice of that increased market value?"
I would love to, but to expect it is another issue. I sold it being unknown with only faint dreams of fame! I accepted a contract to buy and sell at the time and need to be content with that...easier said then done!
-
"If the purchasers of your early vintages onsold them tomorrow for 25 times what you sold them for then, should you as the original winemaker get a slice of that increased market value?"
Heh - should at least get a taste :)
-
If those wines were considered "art". Has this, defining what is art, been a contentious issue in countries where there is resale royalties? I assume this is determined at the initial sale.
-
Is Anton Oliver's butt art???
-
oops..see Kit's' post
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=000E209E-0C93-155B-9BD583027AF1014B
-
I don't know about art, but I do have to wonder what's the going rate to give those sweet cheeks a lascivious pat... :)
-
but I do have to wonder what's the going rate to give those sweet cheeks a lascivious pat... :)
There you go - and should ANton get a cut if you decide to onsell that butt pat?
-
Or the Patter licence his/her 'patting' technique for future generations..
-
I think I can recall reading an article by or about Dick Frizzell who spoke out against the artist's royalty in the Listener a couple of years back, which surprised me.
It doesn't surprise me. Dick was one of the first, and still one of relatively few, painters to work out early how to earn well from his work. In part that's because he's never been squeamish about taking commissioned work, and perhaps the royalty shouldn't apply the same way in cases of commissioned works, where the customer could be seen to be literally buying the rights.
Actually, "buying the rights" in the motion picture sense is also an interest case. I'm presuming that if I have some interesting life experience that Hollywood wants to make a movie of, and pays me a sum for the pleasure, it's acting on a moral, rather than a legal right. Anyone else know? Can I copyright my life story?
However I'm struggling to reconcile my position on the artist's royalty with my stance on intellectual property rights, of which I think the likes of copyright & patents provide too much protection.
Yes. Nat's points were well made. If there was to be a new right created it would have to be tightly drawn.
-
I don't know about art, but I do have to wonder what's the going rate to give those sweet cheeks a lascivious pat... :)
I'm sure something could be arranged for charity ...
-
I sold a work of art in Mt Eden 3 years ago for half a million. Now its worth $700k. I'm all in favour of a 5% going back to the original artist and I hope it's back dated (as long as I don't have to share it with the builder or architect)
-
3410,
I'm presuming that if I have some interesting life experience that Hollywood wants to make a movie of, and pays me a sum for the pleasure, it's acting on a moral, rather than a legal right. Anyone else know? Can I copyright my life story?
-
I sold a work of art in Mt Eden 3 years ago for half a million. Now its worth $700k. I'm all in favour of a 5% going back to the original artist and I hope it's back dated (as long as I don't have to share it with the builder or architect)
I get the point. It's not very consistent to have artists as a special case with extra legislative rights that otherwise ordinary members of society do not have unless they're creating art.
Which brings the thread to the often considered question "What is art?"
Suspect these are slippery slopes for legislators and people making comments alike.
-
Russell,
'immersiveness'???? Shudder.
But you're right.
Grizz Wyllie played fewer tests in his entire four year career (11) than the ABs will play this year.
-
"Which brings the thread to the often considered question "What is art?""
And just as importantly from the commercial/financial perspective, 'who is the artist'?
To torture the sports analogy a little more, while professional sports organisations seem to have cracked a market solution to future value, its usually to the benefit of the clubs, not the player (who I would consider the 'artist')
-
Yes. Nat's points were well made. If there was to be a new right created it would have to be tightly drawn.
I agree that the right would have to be tightly drawn, but in some cases we are seeing legislation being applied or interepreted in ways that are consistent with the original intent, but because of the impact of change, the interepretation now seems invalid or to cause more harm than good. eg Sedition or the Kiwishare obligation. I guess to some extent we need to have faith that the legislators of the day will have time to repeal or amend law that has become outdated, so we shouldn't get too hung up attempting to forsee what we cannot forsee....Though this is not a valid reason for a our legislators to avoid being reasonably thoughtful.
I was having a think about the legislative impacts of regulation last year and came across an excellent site & article doing exactly this for the Telco industry, which I'd recommend to people who are interested in DRM, intellectual property rights and the whole broadband infrastructure/Telco regulation topic.
To cut a long story short and using the broadest of brushes, regulation tends to distort market forces. Distortion of market forces tends to lead to inefficiency and inefficiency tends to create opportunity for exploitation, which seems to require more intervention.
Whilst I think the concept of an artist's royalty is worth supporting, there's part of me that shudders when considering how to enforce in an effective manner. To a large degree when attempting to consider other (potential) changes to intellectual property rights I find myself getting stuck on just this point.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.