Chicagoist: Artist Disappointed With Sculpture's New Look

Lintilla

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:09:29 -0600

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...

dayofthedaleks

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:41:29 -0600

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.

Pinko

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:14:16 -0600

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just means that an artist can sue to have his or her name disassociated from a piece that has been altered, since it is no longer represents their vision.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...

magilla gorilla

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:55:50 -0600

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

Prescott Carlson

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:53:27 -0600

Given the dateline, the pic in this Reader story is presumably the "before".

Jacy Wojcik

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:26:55 -0600

that's a really great picture. ;-D

Mycubehas3sides

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:08:18 -0600

Is that a giant Lite-brite game?

Ali Trachta

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:12:40 -0600

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!

GordonTramesko

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:48:41 -0600

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.

Ali Trachta

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:15:05 -0600

If anyone has a good link to before and after shots, please shout it out. Slim pickins out there.

peteypants

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:02:38 -0600

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.

Slaphappy

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:01:42 -0600

Is there a link to some before and after shots?