From: Mike Rosing[SMTP:eresrch@eskimo.com]
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Lucky Green wrote:
The other half of the shears cutting away at the public's right to entertain themselves with the artwork they purchased in any way they please is represented by parts of the art culture of significant political clout, in particular in Europe. Bills are pending or have already passed, that make it illegal for a buyer of a work of art to simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without compensation, of course.
the american artists are also trying to get this kind of "right" in place for themselves. The perspective isn't so much copyright as it is "leave it alone forever". But it amounts to the same thing.
As an example, consider the Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc', a 12 foot high, 120 foot long, 70 ton slab of rusty (and usually grafitti covered) steel which blocked the entrance to the main Federal building in lower Manhatten for several years. After about a zillion complaints, it was moved, and Serra sued the GSA for $30million, on the grounds that the piece was "site specific", and that by moving it the GSA had destroyed it. http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/tilted_arc.htm I frequently walked by the Arc, and it was a powerful presence, but once it ceased to be a suprise, it was mainly an irritating obstacle. One of Serra's arguments was that the Arc echoed the staircase of a courthouse across the street. I wonder if he'd have sued them for altering that building? http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/WkngPprs_101-25/123.WL.VARA.pdf discusses the 'Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, which is highly relevant to this topic. Peter Trei