Hard News: Art and the Big Guy
143 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Rats. Too slow.
-
I actually kept a few copies of the early Propellers and the other Propeller distributed stuff (Gordons, Steroids, Mockers etc), but time diffused them. The big earners are the Suburban Reptiles though....$505 for Sat Night on Trade me and US$300 for the Megaton 12" on a collectors site...damn it all. only 500 of each pressed.
Woo! I have 'Saturday Night Stay at Home', but not 'Megaton'.
Who's paying these prices, BTW? European collectors?
The rarest NZ vinyl I have is the Six Impossible Things EP (Bill Direen and friends) - only 100 pressed.
-
merc,
Times were rough for Colin and his wife and family, insanely so (he did get a small inheritance through his wife and so could buy a little place at Muriwai), however it was the total rejection of his work in local terms (he was discovered by Australia) that fully embittered him. He has been called one of the greatest artists of modern times, in Germany. The quotes of those who derided him are very similar to those of Tom's.
I know John Gow, he is a good guy, I don't need an agent or patronage, but there are those who do, so let's discuss this as you said RB, it has merit, art has merit, hell if only to piss off those who would live like donkey's and count their empty days 'til coffin time.
BTW, NZ is littered with outrageous talent that has been derided, James K springs to mind, but artists like Philip Clairemont, Tony Fommison all suffered the same fate (suicide), not because of the prices, because of those who just refuse to even contemplate that for some the act of creation is...pure. -
If this is just an expansion of the regime currently benefiting other copyright creators (therefore a fairness issue) then I guess I support it.
If it has proved workable in other jurisdictions then I'd probably support it.
If it puts power in the hands of the artist, rather than making them dependant on say the government then I'd support this.
But for 50 or 70 years? Either are far too long, and I'm reluctant to support anything that further entrenches or extends the period of copyright.
-
I concur with Russell that the comparison with the music industry is only useful to see that a collection method is possible. The media and nature of the copyrighted materials are so different that the question of whether it should be done isn't comparable.
Artists can often get money from commercial use of their work - we have occasion to use artworks in advertising, and because we're a university, we normally get to do so for simply a credit, but commercial institutions are much more likely to be shelling out. That copyright doesn't disappear once the artist or gallery sells the artwork - the rights are retained no matter where the actual artwork goes.
Whether or not it should be done...? I can't see any logical reason for it, except that it's a way of returning more money to artists and encouraging art production. I guess it's really then up to people who buy art, and people who sell it - one or both of whom will be paying in some way. As long as they don't mind, I'm never planning to buy a McCahon, so it's no skin off my nose.
-
Times were rough for Colin and his wife and family, insanely so (he did get a small inheritance through his wife and so could buy a little place at Muriwai), however it was the total rejection of his work in local terms (he was discovered by Australia) that fully embittered him. He has been called one of the greatest artists of modern times, in Germany. The quotes of those who derided him are very similar to those of Tom's.
The documentary that screened on TV One a couple of a year ago was illuminating in that regard. He wasn't just ignored - he was reviled. His kids had stones thrown at them on their way to school!
-
Whether or not it should be done...? I can't see any logical reason for it, except that it's a way of returning more money to artists and encouraging art production.
Which is precisely the rationale for copyright itself.
As long as they don't mind, I'm never planning to buy a McCahon, so it's no skin off my nose.
Actually, we have a reproduction of 'As there is a constant flow of light ...' on the wall of our lounge. I love that painting - the only time I've seen the original I actually cried.
But I recall that there was a reproduction right implicit in the price. Do I recall correctly? Anyone know how that works? Who grants the right and who gets the money?
-
But seriously, I think comparisons with music have limits, other than to suggest that a collection system is viable. You're selling copies of works, not the originals.
And that's true..my tongue was firmly placed....but there was, and still is, a move afoot in the US to license secondhand CD retailers, exactly because of the issue raised by Craig. Various country acts some years sued a second hand chain for depriving them of royalty income..with little success to date, but I don't think the concept has gone away.
However it could also be argued that the intrinsic value in the recorded artform exists in the sale of the copies of the original, whereas the value in the visual artifact lies with original.
-
merc,
Depends, OZ or NZ, NZ is infamous for using quotes (Sun Alliance building foyer) or reproducing works (posater, cover art) and not worrying about it, especially seeing as we have the worlds strangest coyright laws pertaining to photographic rights, thank Ms Tizard!
When I was first published everyone I vaguely knew and my family (bless em) all wanted a copy...for free...whadarya.
Well I'm human and it would nice to eat. -
Speaking of which: have to agree with the prognosis for NZ rugby. The All Blacks- and NZ rugby in general- have not yet recovered from/fully adapted to the all-consuming Super 10-12-14 competition. Despite making money out of it myself :-) and enjoying a lot of the great rugby it's produced, it's crammed the season and disrupted the other games and teams in ways that are as easy to identify as they are hard to hard to quantify.
I think the problem isn't that people go overseas to chase the dollar, the problem is that the best competition in the world is so far behind the dollar amounts. Players can make twice or three times as much heading over to England and playing in a decidedly average competition, when they only play half as much.
I think administrators need to think outside the square more. Why don't Super 14 teams have to play one home game away from home every season? Crusaders vs Bulls at Twickenham. Blues vs Brumbies in Tokyo. Force vs Cheetahs in Paris. You could tag them next to the byes so travel time wasn't such an issue.
Super 14 is based in three countries with small populations and therefore small sponsorship and other commercial markets. You take it to other countries where rugby is big, and populations are big, then you open it up to a lot more money. Baseball did this a while ago, two teams flew to Japan (which is a massive baseball market) and played their game there for the season opener. The NRL does it as well - Bulldogs play home games in Christchurch against the Warriors.
Do we really want our players heading to Europe to play in a B grade competition and then come back to front up for the All Blacks? They should be playing here because this is the best competition for them.
If they want to go overseas for 'something different' and to 'live elsewhere' that's a different story. Good on them. But they shouldn't be allowed in the black jersey while they're there. That'll hurt local competitions too much.
-
But I recall that there was a reproduction right implicit in the price. Do I recall correctly? Anyone know how that works? Who grants the right and who gets the money?
My understanding is that purchasing an artwork, does not give you the right to reproduce the artwork and sell it. Artists retain rights over reproduction. I'm sure however that it's often done and artists either don't know or don't do anything about it.
If you were to make posters of an artwork, you would have to contact the artist, the owner of the artwork, and the photographer (or other means of capturing it) and get their permission, and negotiate with all of them any fees.
-
But I recall that there was a reproduction right implicit in the price. Do I recall correctly? Anyone know how that works? Who grants the right and who gets the money?
My understanding is that the Family Trust in Colin's case has control over the name and the reproduction rights. Te Papa administers the web site (which is excellent) on behalf of the family.
My wife was given a piece by Colin as a child, which we, with the family's blessing, put on the market a few years back. The attitude of the art mafia as such to this was incredible...the number of people out there who felt they had some proprietary rights over the sale of his work was depressing. It really bought out the worst in some people who will remain unnamed.
Who's paying these prices, BTW? European collectors?
Sat Night was an NZ collector..the rest..European, Japanese and Americans pay big money for NZ's musical past.
Russell, you must've met Ron Kane over the years (via Murray)....
-
there was, and still is, a move afoot in the US to license secondhand CD retailers, exactly because of the issue raised by Craig. Various country acts some years sued a second hand chain for depriving them of royalty income..with little success to date, but I don't think the concept has gone away.
Which is where Microsoft does very well with its licenses - you don't buy a copy of the product, per se, but a license to use that product. Hmm, wouldn't it be nice to have something like that for music... you have the right to access this song ... in whatever format.
-
The opening of the rprofessional ugby market for players is an interesting - some would suggest inevitable - trend.
If one was to compare with football (soccer for any heathens out there) then the global open market often has little impact on the national game (take Brazil for example, virtually every single national team player plys their trade offshore and Brazil is still the strongest - shudder - 'brand') yet domestic competitions around the world become a survival of the richest.
Domestic football competitions survive for different reasons however, not always financial - the UK is not the richest country in Europe by a long shot yet currently has the strongest comp. Maybe prospective investors in sport (the budding Abramovich's) are attracted by the heritage and history and glamour as much as by dollars.
Oh, and by television rights and viewing figures. And shirt sales. And size of the potential market ...... (what comes first, the quality of the 'product' or the investment in dollars that enables us to compete with global market)
Hmmmm, OK, maybe the future may be a little bleak for NZ domestic comps.
Sorry to see the Big Guy go, hopefully he'll come back a better player in time for the 2011 World Cup.
-
Russell says that the comparisons between music and art are limited, because art sales are of originals whereas music sales are of reproductions. There's a lot of art reproductions sold--would they also be subject to the royalty? But, more importantly, the Commerce Select Committee don't seem at all receptive to the idea that digital should be treated differently from analog except to the extent that digital makes infringement easier therefore control needs to be tighter and penalties higher. Brownlee actually asked me flat out, "why should we treat online any different?"
I can't argue against the "resale right" for artists--it's nearly impossible to make money creating art these days, whether physical art, dance, music, or movies. I worry, however, that these rights are digging into the doctrine of first sale--the idea that your ability to control what I do with something stops when you sell it to me. Without the doctrine of first sale (or it's NZ equivalent) we end up with everything subject to an infinite complexity of utility-limiting clickwrap-license-like EULAs governing our interactions with the objects we "own".
I find it hard to see how the government could avoid RIANZ arguing "hey, artists have a resale royalty--where's ours?" Then movies, books, clothes, furniture, ... there's a long list of possible hands to come out here.
At some point you balance fairness for the artist against an onerous burden on the marketplace. I'd be more comfortable with the art resale royalty if I felt Government would stand in the way of further hands shooting out. But they won't. My brief glimpse into the legal process when I made a submission to the Commerce Select Committee on the Copyright Bill was enough to show me that they don't give a fuck about what's right, they don't care about what's just, they don't even care about the artists or the consumers. They just care about being elected. So they'll do whatever they're asked, so long as it won't piss a big group of organized people off. That suggests we'll see a lot of rights creep.
No point, just a whole lot of curmudgeonly grump :)
-
merc,
Not at all Nat, you're right. For me it's not about the money, I like going to work work, and the issue is so complex, I don't think about it anymore. Let the agents worry, and the old adage applies, be careful who you're patron is. There are afterall commentators and creators, just know which one you are.
As for Gerry Brownlee, is he Sheriff Wigham or what? -
There have been instances, such as Wildenstein's treatment of the estate of Mark Rothko, of outright fraud committed by dealers against the artists they represent. The government's proposed scheme will at least ensure that artists get a fair cut.
Um, a fair cut of what? First, I think the majority of art dealers and dealer gallery owners would (quite properly) take as severe exception as anyone else to being lumped in with the lowest common denominators of their field. And, sorry, you know something the art market is driven by fashion, hype and plain old changing tastes. Now, as I understand it, for years Michael Smither has been selling his work with a caveat that he receives a cut of any resale incomes. Very smart cookie, and good on him. By and large, he's not really my cup of green tea but it looks like many others disagree. 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.
-
Actually Craig, this is the point where the two separate strands of RB's post do converge, the professional sporting market has long used contracts that allow for a slice of 'future earnings' to be factored in.
Its a market driven response to the same sort of issue, if a club invests all the time and sweat into developing a youg athlete who goes on to bigger and better things, then under the terms of most football contracts the original club gets a cut of any future transactions.
I don't know Michael Smithiers work, but the idea of artists or their families getting a slice of the future value of their own work seems a similar principle.
-
3410,
a big, posh artist type who has certain refined lifestyle expectations
Tom, this is nonsense. You have exposed your ignorance about art and artists in New Zealand quite thoroughly. Most all artists in NZ make almost nothing from their work. In the similar feild of music publishing, Mike Chunn reports that more than 90% of APRA's 5000 members make less than $100 per year from music.
One wonders where you picked up such a silly idea.
-
3410,
Should read: "Most artists..."
-
And, lacking for the moment a tidy segue involving Anton Oliver, I'll just push on into the day's other item of business
There couldn't be a better segue between art and rugby than the man that posed naked for a recent piece of modern art!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=000E209E-0C93-155B-9BD583027AF1014B
-
merc,
I agree Craig. When an English guy bought 15 copies of one of my books purely as a punt on it maybe appreciating as a first edition, I didn't care, that's his punt.
you know something the art market is driven by fashion, hype and plain old changing tastes
Totally, we all got out of our garrets years ago.
-
Yeah Tom. Let's starve those big posh artists - we don't need paintings and novels and poems and things - kulcha and kapitalism? What do they share except the letter K? Let it all burn, I say.
-
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.
Whilst I agree with Tom's sentiment that no-one is owed a living, I'd suggest that the artist's royalty conceptually is decent and a step in the right direction if thoughfully implemented.
I doubt few people are faced with the decision of the like, should I buy that Colin McCahon or should I put dinner on the table? Accordingly having a small percent go the artist that created the work is really no skin off my nose and unlikely to cause significant pain to anyone purchasing significant artworks.
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.
-
I think the whole idea of copyright/intellectual property rights is a fascinating one -- and it's perhaps inevitable that legislators are always going to be one step behind technology and how real people actually behave. Or as one wag put it, "folks writing Gutenberg laws for a Google world."
BTW, remember the flap a while back about the Herald columnists who weren't getting paid for their stuff being reproduced on-line? Gee, I hope they've gotten a lot smarter about signing away their electronic reproduction rights. :) I know it's often easier said than done when you're faced with the hard reality of paying the bills, feeding and watering a family etc., but I also think artists, writers, musicians etc. need to just be smart about business and well-informed activists when it comes to defending not only their economic self-interests but their artistic and intellectual property rights.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.