On 22 Feb, 15:57, John B
johnband.org> wrote:> On 22 Feb, 15:43, MIG
doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I wasn't aware that he painted over a load of existing soup tins with
>> his own design. Â I am talking about someone changing a specific wall/
>> train/painting/whatever that someone has designed, however badly in
>> one's opinion.
>
> Sorry, misunderstood. Does that apply to prints as well, or just
> originals?
Hmm. I suppose not, depending on whether one is thinking of the
original work or the displaying of it in a particular way by someone
who has purchased it.
>
>> If I don't like the Mona Lisa and paint a moustache on it without
>> permission, I am imposing something on someone else's design when I
>> have no business to do so.
>
> So you're not a fan of the Chapmans,
then?http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2003/chapman.htm
>
> [I still don't really see where you're coming from here - it seems
> you're conflating artistic merit and morality, which can't be right.
> Even if the paint in the Mona Lisa were made from the blood of
> children Da Vinci had murdered, it would still be an artwork and he an
> artist - he'd just *also* be a child-murderer. Or, to put it less
> sensationally, what if he'd nicked a lesser artist's painting and used
> it as the canvass for the the Mona Lisa?]
Really, I'm just trying to get at the idea that the objection to
graffiti that makes it "vandalism" need not be influenced by the
artistic merit. Taking someone else's design and imposing one's own
improvements on it is generally frowned on (and the possibility of
changing copies while leaving the original unharmed complicates the
picture [no pun intended]).
No doubt there are cases where the artistic merit transcends such
considerations, eg Da Vinci using an old canvass when he has run out
might not be the same as imposing his improvements on what he
considers to be a poor painting.
