4 ms·
I was wondering if there was some practical, legalese reason for this "pushback." It seems that whenever someone tries to faithfully deliver on some other artis
by ryandrake 2y ago
I was wondering if there was some practical, legalese reason for this "pushback." It seems that whenever someone tries to faithfully deliver on some other artist's vision, the original artist's foundation or estate or representatives will always chime in to say something like "Well, we disavow this work and it has nothing to do with the actual artist!" No matter how much love, care, and attention to detail in the derivative work. Happens a lot when a movie is based on a book. The adaptation is never good enough.
- brudgers 2y agoTypically this type of organization exists to protect the “brand” in the interests of heirs…for example, https://shop.franklloydwright.org/?_gl=1*fsfezc*_gcl_au*NTk1MzgyMzQ2LjE3NDQwNzM0MDI.*_ga*MjA1MDI5MzYzMC4xNzQ0MDczNDAy*_ga_1JHHHKBZRC*MTc0NDA3MzQwMS4xLjEuMTc0NDA3MzUxNy4wLjAuMA..*_ga_PJ7M7TDSH5*MTc0NDA3MzQwMS4xLjEuMTc0NDA3MzUxNy4wLjAuMA https://shop.franklloydwright.org/?_gl=1*fsfezc*_gcl_au*NTk1.....
- dfxm12 2y agowhenever someone tries to faithfully deliver on some other artist's vision "Trying" is not a meaningful bar to clear. Love or care doesn't matter, either. According to the article, the foundation says that the building is simply not built to Wright's spec, which is an objective measure. The owners don't outright deny this, using a handful of of qualifiers in response: "true to Wright's plan, intent and spirit while also ensuring that the home would meet current building regulations." Saying your house was designed by a famous architect, especially one the stature of Wright brings a value and prestige that is worth claiming, like any other brand. On the flip side, if you own the brand, it is worth protecting from knock offs.
- brudgers 2y agomeet current building regulations This is a synonym for “the worst construction allowed by law.” If it wasn’t designed to meet current building regulations, the construction would be illegal.
- gavinsyancey 2y agoThat said, building code changes over time, and even if Wright's original design met building code at the time it was designed, it likely doesn't meet current building regulations. I.e. it would be illegal to build exactly to the original design, or at least if you did it would be illegal to use the building.
- brudgers 2y agoIf it doesn’t meet code, it is not architecture.
- sollewitt 2y agoSteady, we’re taking things like having outlets every three feet of countertop in kitchens.
- yowzadave 2y agoUnhinged comment. Is the Parthenon not architecture because it’s not ADA-accessible? If someone installs an elevator does it become architecture again?
- brudgers 2y agoI used “architecture” to refer to the discipline not as a synonym for “a building.