April 25, 2008
Artist Disappointed With Sculpture's New Look
A large sculpture that was removed from its 150 N. Michigan location three years ago was quietly put back up last month, but the artist is pissed.
The piece, a 43-foot stainless steel structure titled Communication X9, was taken down by the owners of the property -- and sculpture -- so that it could be restored. The “restoration,” however, led to a complete makeover. Yaacov Agam, the artist who contributed the piece in 1983, believes it can no longer be considered his work. According to him, "The public should know that this is not a real Agam. It is an unauthorized copy."
Jones Lang LaSalle, the real estate firm that represents building ownership, is happy with the results, but since Agam is not-so-much, he’ll be visiting Chicago again next month to meet with his attorney. [Trib]
|
Is there a link to some before and after shots?
i work a few doors down from from this and think it's better off somewhere else ...its not that i don't like the piece in its current or previous form, but i think its in an awkward location.
If anyone has a good link to before and after shots, please shout it out. Slim pickins out there.
What is different about it? Is the above picture the old sculpture or the revamped? This is an interesting story I wish there were more details.
The photo is of the way the sculpture looks now. There has been nothing there for the last three years which has made a "before" picture hard to come by, even though it was erected in 1983. But again if anyone has a link let us know!
Is that a giant Lite-brite game?
that's a really great picture.
;-D
Given the dateline, the pic in this Reader story is presumably the "before".
why would this guy come here to meet with an attorney? does this mean that architects can now sue building owners who want to remodel the buildings they designed
I think it just means that an artist can sue to have his or her name disassociated from a piece that has been altered, since it is no longer represents their vision. If a building were dramatically renovated in a similar way, I see know reason why an architect couldn't do the same...
all i know is that the scultures along the 'boeing gallery' in millenium park is some of the worst public art i've ever seen excepting the stuff along indianoplis' outer belt highway.
Looking at the "after" shot as compared to the picture in the Reader... Unless the "before" is an absolutely TERRIBLE photograph, the colours are completely different from what I see on a daily basis. Since colour is so important to this piece, I couldn't possibly call it a restoration. I would have to agree that this is a derivative work (it's certainly not different enough to qualify as an original), in which case Agam has a point, and the building needs to take the piece down completely if he demands it. Removing the signature does not remedy the situation. Agam owns the copyright to the piece (at least, I presume -- I don't know why it wouldn't be the case), and derivative works are prohibited without permission of the copyright owner. Reasonable or not, that's not for us to judge. It's his prerogative to control his intellectual property in any way that is compatible with the law. If Agam, for whatever reason, feels that the "restoration" is different enough that his vision has been altered, we need to respect that.
Aside from all of that, I definitely agree that the location is HORRIBLE for the sculpture. You can't view it properly without standing in the middle of traffic...