Alexander Calder's grandson dismayed as another artist uses sculpture for his own art

[MADem]

62. The derivative artist had permission from the city, though, according to the article.

If they're so worried about their franchise and their integrity, they should have been part of the selection process, and/or they should have kept a sufficiently tight rein on the use of the thing so this could never have happened in the first place. Frankly, if they don't want people to mess with it, maybe they should regard Grampa's art as "art," and not a business.

I think the huffy folks are the Calder Foundation clowns. I think the derivative artist's comments are probably closer to the mark, and I think all that "abomination" stuff sounds very "fundamentalist" and "assholish" frankly.

Works of art don't have their own integrity when they become part and parcel of pop culture. Frankly, though I know people regard it as "iconic," I think that sculpture is fug-LEEE, and the stupid little seventies-style flowers improve the thing--if only for a brief moment in time!

In any event, they're going to leave it up long enough for the artist's child to see it: http://www.mlive.com/artprize/index.ssf/2013/09/why_calder_flowers_now_will_stay_into_artprizes_final_week.html#incart_river_default

Examples of art that have entered the larger cultural mindset, and no longer have their own integrity (and no one asked permission or even cared what the artist's descendants might think, either):