artforum
A Danish court has issued an injunction against watchmakers Arne Leivsgard and Dann Thorleifsson to prevent them from cutting up the painting Paris Chic, 2017, by artist Tal R and including pieces of the canvas in the decorative faces of their newest line of designer wristwatches. According to The Guardian, the duo bought Tal R’s work, which is from the artist’s “Sexshops” series, for $91,000 from Victoria Miro Gallery in London in August.
While Tal R, whose multidisciplinary practice encompasses painting, sculpture, and installations, acknowledged that anyone who bought one of his works had the right to destroy it, he pursued legal action against Leivsgard and Thorleifsson—cofounders of the brands Kanske and Letho—when he learned in October that they were going to use fragments of Paris Chic to sell some three hundred Letho watches for about $1,500 each. More
So the word “sold” no longer means “no longer yours.” I wonder how much further European civilization can fall before it rips itself apart.
I’m left staring at the image trying to imagine which watch sized circle out of 300 would command $1500. I got nothing.
Punch a hole in the center and turn it into an expensive wall clock. It’s not cut up, right?
Watch….. like in;
Watch this stupid idea pass into oblivion.
So basically even if you rightfully buy something if the seller decides they have regrets on the usage they can use courts to prevent you from determining how YOUR property would be used? Outrageous and dangerous. Get over it, if you wanted to control the use you should have kept it or contracted to sell it with stipulations and let the buyer decide what that was worth. Not what they got, that is for sure,
They need to file a lawsuit to make the artist pay for the housing of the painting.
The owners don’t own it. But they are giving it space to exist in.
The owner should pay for that right. say $19,000 a month. sounds fair. yep.
Other than another tranny wreck — who did the same thing (THE HORROR!) — who’d believe you paid fifteen-hundred (United States) dollars for a Letho watch?
Reminds me of Banksy and the shredder. It seems like the modern artiste mocks his patron with his creation and makes a gimmick of its destruction.
I think at issue here is the right to make money from some one else’s original work. The watch makers bought the painting for 91,000 ($, Euros – I don’t remember) and were going to sell watches for $1,500 a piece.
Imagine all the watches they were going sell decorated with a small chunk of the original painting. I doubt the wearer could identify what piece of the painting they received, but they could still claim to have a piece of the artist’s work. As an artist this isn’t good, it infringes on the original intention and the artist reputation, with out the originator’s permission to make money on a work that was never intended to be viewed or used this way. It has the potential to hurt the artist and undercuts that person’s ability to sell their workin in the future.
The owners commented on just burning the painting now that they’re plans to boost the price of their watches was foiled. No court can stop them from doing that, but it might stop them for selling tickets and pay-per-view to profit from the original artist work / reputation etc.
The watch makers should have cut a deal with the artist to participate directly – though many artist would pass on the opportunity to make a quick buck on their name / reputation like this.
The real story here is that someone actually paid $91,000 for that crap.
Modern art is junk anyway. Cut it up.
Is that the same guy who made the famous “Turd in a jar” piece?