If you write a book and it is published and does well you get royalties, same with a film, play, music etc. But as a painter or sculptor once you have sold your work of art for £500; that’s it. When the buyer sells it on for £50,000 a couple of years later the painter/ sculptor gets zero. Is that fair?
The basic idea of Droit de Suite is that an artist should get a share of any increase in value that occurs after the sale of an artwork.
This is discussed here:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/05/unfair-in-end.html
and in great depth here: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/documents/publications/325.pdf
Any comments?
Robert I agree with you. Recently the famous concept-art shark has been resold for many times the amount the seller paid when he bought it. I find this art not real “art” but I agree with the principle. It’s immoral to enrich oneself by trading art without letting the artist share in the increasing value of his/her work.
This reminds me of the story of poor Ralph Blakelock .
The emotional strain of poverty eventually drove him nuts and he spent over a decade in the madhouse.
During his incarceration, journalists made him something of an icon for the “crazy artist” – and upon his release, his paintings were selling for record-breaking sums.
The only problem was — he didn’t make a dime off those sales — and he was too nuts to make any more paintings — so he became something of a charity case.
(we’ve got one of his “palettes” hanging above the mantle at our art club — such things had been donated by his long-suffering wife to organizations that had helped her raise money for the family)
What a very sad story Chris, though I doubt he was the only one before or since. I hope the palettes bring your club more luck than they did him!