When Does An Artwork Cease To Be Original?

Richard,

Nice blog or magazine.

Question: When does a derivative become original?

Dave
Post Modern Artist

Thank you, Dave.
Now that's an interesting question, too. I guess to some extent it has been addressed in the courts with rulings in favor of Richard Prince... ;-)

~Richard
Inspiring Imagery

Are you sort of asking if the Sistine Chapel, now that Michelangelo's paintings have been cleaned - and touched up - they are no longer his original work?

Some foul person smashed the fingers on his Pieta - it was repaired - no longer his original work.?

Michelangelo's paintings where never purely his paintings in the first place.
Michelangelo was a company headed by Michelangelo. It was a large company and Michelangelo became extremely wealthy because of this company of artists. I'm talking Mick Jagger wealthy!
Most likely, he touched more of his sculptures than the paintings.

What are we to do? Let masterpieces flake off and fall to the floor so that the detritus can be viewed and admired?

Drew, not finding that about Michelangelo. He hired a group of painters to help him on the Sistine Chapel but they did not last long due to disagreements. He had a few apprentices to help with plaster and paint mixing but mostly painted the ceiling himself. He was not easy to get along with and so had very little help on most of his projects in comparison to the majority of artist of his times. If this information is not correct let me know what the source is for your information, thanks!

I did a few derivatives of either Vincent Van Gogh or Franz Marc. I signed them but also put on "After Van Gogh" or "After Marc." I never really considered them originals, even though I tried to do them my way. But then I have seen a Franz Marc painting that was clearly derived from an old frieze of some donkeys...so it is hard to say. I would only use another artist's painting if it is considered in the public domain as the copyright has expired due to the passing of 75 years after the artist's death, but would still give the proper credit to the other artist...like remaking a song. But then if I were to do a painting of the earth from outer space, unless I build my own rocket and take my own photo from space, I must rely on someone else's photo, so is that still considered derivative or infringement, or can I call that painting original?

You might want to consider this account. He definitely didn't paint it by himself. Maybe not an army of help But help nonetheless.
https://www.ilariamarsilirometours.com/blog/michelangelos-assistants-in-the-sistine-ceiling.
Here is an interesting documentary I saw a few years back. Very interesting!

"Are you sort of asking if the Sistine Chapel, now that Michelangelo's paintings have been cleaned - and touched up - they are no longer his original work?
Some foul person smashed the fingers on his Pieta - it was repaired - no longer his original work.?"

Yes, I am asking that question, RD. As I wrote in the blog post... it's like the the hackneyed "old broom" story... or many derivatives thereof... "I've had this same broom since I started 'ere 30 years ago. It's had 3 handles and six different heads..."

;-)

~Richard
Art For Burning Eyes

Sounds a lot like my first computer, within a few years not a single piece of the original computer remained but I hadn't bought a new one. Automotive restorers are faced with the same question all the time. There are many claims of "all original" cars but if the car had ever been driven any significant number of miles how could it be "all original", some parts would had to have been replaced. The big problem is when you see an obviously restored car and the owner exclaims that it's "all original" when probably 25%-50% of the thing had been replaced with new parts, paint, upholstery and more.

There is a period in art history where several artists used other artists to do or help with their work that was solely credited to the one with the famous name. Restorers do their best to stay true to technique and materials. I apprenticed in stained art and a studio was set up at the Cleveland Musesum of Art where my boss did restoration. He researched extensively before ever touching anything. I believe these people have the utmost respect for the work they are restoring and try their best to stay true to all intentions.

"I believe these people have the utmost respect for the work they are restoring and try their best to stay true to all intentions."

Absolutely agree, Marlene but once a painting has been retouched so many times that the original brushwork and pigments are covered can it really be held to be the original? I don't know the answer, it was just a naive question that popped into my head when I saw Chagall's, “A Wheatfield on a Summer’s Afternoon.” being retouched at the PMA and then that Duchamp's “50cc of Paris Air” had been “broken and later restored.”

~Richard
It's a loop..

Most restoration isn’t over a whole piece of art...they are fixing a small portion.
In the case of the Pieta, it would have been a crime to leave it broken...and the big bonus was they discovered the artists initials!
As long as it is restoration, IMO, it is a good deed and absolutely still the original.

"Most restoration isn’t over a whole piece of art...they are fixing a small portion."

Yes, I agree that a little bit of repair/restoration is one thing, but there must come a point when a piece has been restored and then restored again over many years, by different people perhaps using different techniques and even materials, that it loses the authenticity of the original?

~Richard
Ohm

Richard only if done very poorly. Most restorations are done with the idea they can be undone back to the original in need be. This was not always the case but is the current train of thought.

"Most restorations are done with the idea they can be undone back to the original in need be."

That is very interesting. I was unaware of that, Ronald.

I have seen restorers clean areas then cover them with varnish. Then paint on top of the varnish so that said areas can be distinguished from the original.
I believe the idea is that paint remover will not remove varnish and varnish remover will not remove paint.

Thanks Drew, I think that is correct, I could not remember how that worked.

Yes, that does make sense. Although if the whole painting is redone, then what are we really looking at - certainly not the 200 year old original image which is underneath.

You are still looking at the original image, just not the original materials with which that image was created