A slight play about an incident in which an artwork was destroyed and the artist sued for destruction of his copyright. He won, a judgement I do agree with.
The play was about this theme, but also about spending your life doing what is important to you.
Good cast and good peformances and a very effective set. But not really worth the trouble.
Okay, we have a play about rights to artwork and about a family.
ReplyDeleteIf the apparent rules that apply to physical artwork apply to other art forms, then every time you change a play's presentation you have a problem - which I guess was the reason the D"Oyly Carte company kept control of the Gilbert & Sullivan works, and ossified them.
I think when you buy artwork, it should be yours and the creator's rights should be like a scriptwriter who doesn't like what has been done to her script in the final movie - her name comes off the credits.
However, I accept that doesn't seem to be the law. If we ever buy any serious(ly expensive) artwork (unlikely), I'll require the copyright or contract rights.
So, did this play illuminate this situation? The only possibility I can see is that the author (Anthony Black) doesn't like the copyright situation and is likening the deterioration of Homage (the piece of art) to human deterioration to death.
However, the author's notes indicate he was more concerned with a biography of the sculptor and his family. Which makes me wonder why some facts were changed. Concern about slander/libel?
I guess the play is okay, but slight. The acting and production were good, though.