Rarely
does the role of the amateur restorer achieve such notoriety as that of
octogenarian Cecilia Gimenez. In fact I cannot remember a so called '
conservation story ' ( well it involves conservators or likely will do
somewhere along the line) making headlines to this extent in the mainstream
press.
The basic facts are that Cecilia decided to retouch the 'Ecce Homo"
( Behold the Man) fresco in the Spanish church of Santurario de Misericordia
near Zaragoza, by the late nineteenth century Spanish artist Elias Garcia
Martinez, as she was concerned by its deterioration.
Unfortunately
her efforts left Jesus looking like a very hairy monkey in an ill fitting
tunic, hence its new name, 'Ecce Mono' (Behold the Monkey).
The
result of all this coverage is that 1,000 people a day are turning up at said
church to view the simian look alike, the crowds being such that the
entrepreneurial church elders have decided to charge 1 Euro per visitor.
And
this is where it gets interesting! Where does the money go? Cecilia
is claiming copyright as people are coming to see her work, and wants the money to go
to charity to support muscular dystrophy from which her son suffers. The
sixteen grandchildren of the artist have different ideas, on the basis they own
the copyright.
I'm
not sure what the Spanish law will decide, but in Australia I have recently
discovered that conservators can in certain instances actually claim copyright
over the works they have treated. Although this has yet to be tested in court ,
it is clear from existing copyright judgements that where the conservator is
bringing to the treatment of the artwork their own artistic ability in
terms of independent skill and judgement, then copyright belongs to them.
And
it is a principle of copyright law that once the copyright is deemed to be
vested in the part of the artwork that has been treated, then the whole work
and not just the treated parts become subject to copyright. Clearly
for most of our work as conservators this is not relevant. But when we undertake
a major inpainting project or the complete repatination of a sculpture, then it
would appear that copyright belongs to the conservator.
Given
that Ecce Homo falls into this bracket, it would appear therefore that
copyright does belong to Cecilia ( along with the a share of the income from
visitors, mousepads, t-shirts, puzzles, travel mugs, mobile phone cases etc
etc).
I don't suppose you could link to a couple of Australian examples of where curators have come across this, or where Australian academics have argued this - in either direction?
ReplyDeleteHi Liam,
ReplyDeleteWe have a current project where this issue threatens to get litigious which is why I know about it. You could contact me direct and I could point you towards a similar case.
She destroyed the original painting beyond repair, giving her money would create incentives for more of these "restorations" to appear. You gotta admit it looks cool on a tshirt though: http://goo.gl/nNNmP
ReplyDelete