contemporary monkey

Needing to know more about Cy Twombly - who he was and his creative influences - I discovered an “incident” that occurred in France to one of his paintings.  A fan was so taken with Twombly’s triptych “Phaedrus” that she kissed one of the panels (the mark is more like a grope in the back of the bus).  Eventually a French court found her guilty of “voluntary degradation of a work of art”, and given a fine along with community service.  Moving beyond destruction versus adoration, let’s assume her intent was honorable.  What would you do if someone fell in love with a product of your imagination, inspiration and love, and changed the results of your labour to reflect their grateful, albeit selfish, approval?  Does the art achieve a bigger story because of the affair?

Cy Twombly's "Phaedrus": after, and before

The woman, Rindy Sam, was eventually fined €1000 to the painting’s owner, €500 to the gallery showing it, and only one euro to the artist.  It’s not a lot of money considering the significance of the act and one could imagine the €1501 penalty being used to clean the thing back to its original state.  This made me think about who owns the art, and where value lies.

Most art is produced through inspiration, but you and I wouldn’t know what that inspiration was unless the artist told us.  Not often having this direct access, the substitute is that we love the painting for reasons other than the original intention.  This alternative generates a story of its own, building in two meanings to one piece of work.  Can art be shared peacefully like that?  Or does it produce a Palestinian/Israeli type conflict of property ownership?

That the artist received only a euro in this episode seems to imply penalty as only a gesture of contrition.  A small “sorry about that” from an overzealous (or absurd) fan.  That the painting’s owner received the largest percentage of the fine demonstrates an individual’s compensatory need for money, and not a longing for the original idea.  This would suggest the owner has changed the meaning of the original intent.  Shouldn’t the owner then be fined for their action of purchase?  To me, this suggests that a work of art occurs at the time an artist is in full battle with the piece.  Anything after that is mere fetish; for reasons monetary, amorous, or psychological.  It’s all the same to me - changing the original intent.

The most important, and, for that reason, the greatest relationship with a work of art, is one between artist and creation.  In order for others to gain even a small fraction of that initial moment, would be to know the artist’s story at first incident.  Supplemental to that event, the outcome is really appropriation.