>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Roseau wrote: > >> Besides, why shouldn't an artist sniff around for clients? - everyone else >> does. Is an artist above all that? Is he owed a living? I think not. > >Interesting that this point should be raised now, as my art history >students and I had a lengthy discussion of the patron/artist relationship >last Friday. We were reading about Veronese and the Inquisition. The >Inquisitors objected to some of his secular portions of the Last Supper, >which they, though not Veronese, felt to be disrespectful. > >So the students and I discussed under what circumstances a patron might >have the right to dictate specifics to an artist, and how does one decide >whether something is appropriate or not. One of the contemporary people >in Veronese's picture is picking his teeth. When I asked the students if >the patron would have the right to require Veronese to change that as >disrespectful, most of the students vigorously defended an artist's right >to decide on interpretation. But when I asked if their opinion would >change if Veronese had depicted Jesus as the figure picking his teeth, >most of them (as you are probably not surprised to read) said that would >be disrespectful and objectionable. So we got into a heated debate over >who gets to decide what is objectionable and under what circumstances. >There was no overall consensus at the end, except for the suggestion that >all artists and patrons should have a good lawyer writing the commission >contract if he/she may have strong opinions on what is to be depicted! > >Any comments I should pass on to my students from the list? > >--Carla
Thanks for the thoughtful question - and interesting one it is, too!
I will have to get back to you because I am on deadline and need to satisfy
MY patron. He is about as flexible as the Inquisition. Amazing how
insistant people can be when they lay out the long green!