Suggestions and Comments From the Group

[Heather]

We can keep the polls up there for at least a week before the decision is made so that everyone can have a chance to vote. I made a comment in my poll telling everyone to vote for both polls.

[Monica]

Please add Bruneleschi's Dome to my poll.
Add the remaining books to yours.
Put it up 3 more times.
We can each vote for our top 5.

I hope I'm making sense

[Ruth]

Here's Ruth. Is it too late to throw in another suggestion? How about a short one? Still Life With Oysters and Lemon: On Objects and Intimacy
by Mark Doty Only 80 pages.

I'd call it a love song to seeing and painting. Mark Doty is one of the finest writers around. This is truly a gem.

[Heather]

Monica, I can't get into your poll. Plus, I can't even edit my own. Sorry, Ruth, I can't add your book, it looks good, though. Bruneleschi's Dome is in my poll, if people want that one, they can vote for it in mine. If I put it up 3 more times, I think people will feel inundated with these poll invitations. I think we will leave it how it is. I have 4 votes from 4 different people for 4 different books! This is going to be difficult.

[Monica]

I can't get into my poll either!
Oysters sounds good.

[Heather]

I figured out how to edit mine so I added Ruth's book suggestion. But I don't know what other books need to be added to mine because I can't see yours :( Let's just hope for the best.

[Monica]

If you click on "polls" its right before yours. same here 4 votes / 4 different books!

We can still go through a process of elimination.

[Carol]

What is the deadline date to select a book?

[Heather]

I would say September 11th, next Saturday.

[Patty]

Ruth wrote: "Here's Ruth. Is it too late to throw in another suggestion? How about a short one? Still Life With Oysters and Lemon: On Objects and Intimacy
by Mark Doty Only 80 pages.

I'd call it a love so..."

Oysters & Lemons sounds good.(short is good too) also Agony and the Esctasy(which is quite long)

[Patty]

Ruth wrote: "Here's Ruth. Is it too late to throw in another suggestion? How about a short one? Still Life With Oysters and Lemon: On Objects and Intimacy
by Mark Doty Only 80 pages.

I'd call it a love so..."

Like this idea of this one. and the fact that it's not so long. my other vote is Agony and Ectacy

[Patty]

I posted twice I think. couldn't find the first one so did it again. Well, they both say the same thing so you only need to read one of them

[Carol]

Ruth wrote: "Here's Ruth. Is it too late to throw in another suggestion? How about a short one? Still Life With Oysters and Lemon: On Objects and Intimacy by Mark Doty Only 80 pages."

Ruth, This book looks great. I'm ordering it from the library.

[AC]

I emailed goodreads and was told there's no way to set up a poll for anything but a single vote --

If there hasn't been a lot of participation yet, one possibility is to clear the deck and start (the voting) again -- and for us to set up 5 identical poll. I would certainly vote a bit differently now (having thought about it) than I did originally.

It might then be good to either announce the winner or have a second vote on the top 5.

Or not... Not trying to cause complications -- just thinking aloud.

[Monica]

This morning I sent a tally of both polls to Heather. Even though it was not on both polls (Don't know why:-) / operator error) Brunelleschi's Dome is the winner.

If I can retrieve the tally I'll post it to everyone.

[Carol]

I would prefer to start Brunelleschi's Dome in October because I have a lot of reading to finish by the end of this month. Since it's only 194 pp., how many chapters are we reading each week? (I think it has 19 chapters.)

[Heather]

I think we should all read about 50pgs/wk or to the end of that chapter. There will be a new thread started for this particular book. It will be in the folder "Monthly Book Challenge". In that thread we can discuss at the end of the week what we read. That way we can all be reading the same thing at the same time and (hopefully) there won't be any spoilers.

[Monica]

Thanks, Heather. Thanks everyone...
Personally I'm glad were starting with something not very daunting!!!

[Robin]

What was the final consensus? What book,etc.

[Monica]

Robin, we just started Brunelleschi's Dome. pg 50 by Fri Oct 8

[Robin]

Thanks, Monica. Page 50/194 pgs.

[Nora]

I highly reccommend Steve Martin's new book "An Object of Beauty" a must read for all art lovers!

[Anna]

Nora wrote: "I highly reccommend Steve Martin's new book "An Object of Beauty" a must read for all art lovers!"

Waiting for it. On hold at the library. So glad you give it thumbs up!

[Rick-Founder JM CM BOOK CLUB]

I would love to see a thread for painters who had great influence- but passed away before they had the opportunity to gain great fame- Bazille is a great examply- a pioneer of Impressionalism, helped finacially support Monet and Renoir- Killed in Battle just before the movement took off

[Ed]

How about Franz Marc, not exactly an unknown, but killed in WWI...

[Monica]

Rick, Ed and whomever knows about these topics my knowledge is slim and I'd like to learn more. Go ahead and discuss!

[Heather]

There is now a new thread in the Art History folder dedicated to this topic. Great idea!

[Rick-Founder JM CM BOOK CLUB]

Heather wrote: "There is now a new thread in the Art History folder dedicated to this topic. Great idea!"

thanks I will do my Bazille-ing there!

[Ike]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for a Copyright question.

I apologize in advance if it isn't.

Since I am considering self-publishing something, and might like to try my hand at the cover (I am a decent graphic artist), I was wondering if anyone knows about the copyright laws concerning works of art.

If an unknown artist sells me a paint, sketch, or sculpture, who owns the publication rights of that work – the artist or the owner? Can I crop it from “landscape” shape to “portrait” and add words to make a book cover out of it? I am not talking about a well known work by a well known artist, or a copy or “interpretation” made by another artist.

Notice that I left out art-prints (the numbered sort) – I assume that since s/he made multiple copies, the rights to that are retained by the artist. The same would be true of a work purchased via some online art website like http://www.deviantart.com/ where the rights are usually retained by the artist, although usually under Common Commons. The copyright of art purchased directly online from the artist's website – I know that I'd have to talk to the artist there.

I'm talking about art I bought years ago at street fairs, or that were gifts to me from friends (sometimes the artist) or even abandoned in the basement of my apartment building when a tenant passed away and “recycled”.

I also am wondering about folk-art, like handmade quilts or pottery.

Any copyright lawyers here? Or knowledgeable artists?

[Ruth]

I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an expert in copyright by any means. I have sold my own art both through a gallery and from my studio, though. My understanding is that although I may sell a painting, I continue to own the rights to reproduction. Also, although older artists may be dead, photographers own the rights to any photos they've made of their work.

[Ike]

Clarification, please:
"Also, although older artists may be dead, photographers own the rights to any photos they've made of their work."
I assume you are speaking that photographers keep the rights to their photos after death?
I know that's not true. I've sen articles in the last few years when famous photos by famous artist (signed copies) have been auctioned in galleries, and the photographer had heirs who were NOT selling the photo.

[Ruth]

I meant that if a photographer takes a picture of the Mona Lisa, he owns the rights to that particular photograph. Or if a photographer working for the Met takes a picture of a their Bronzino, the rights to that particular photo belong to the Met. That's my understanding anyway. No idea what happens after death of anybody.

[Ike]

Not really - If he [publishes that photo - the Louvre would have something to say about that.

[Ruth]

Ike wrote: "Not really - If he [publishes that photo - the Louvre would have something to say about that."

That's where I'm not sure what goes on. I assume he'd have to have permission from the Louvre to photograph. But do museums own the reproduction rights to all the objects in their collections? Probably, but I don't know.

[Monica]

I know about this. These days you must do your best to get permission or you're asking for trouble. In the business since the 70s I've contracted Illustrators and photographers for years and without doubt they maintain the right to their work unless they sign away their rights. Clients always think they own photography and illustrations they "pay for" but they certainly do not.

[Ike]

I'm almost sure that museums own the reproduction rights- they sure limit access to the items. Perhaps a photo or copy made before the museum acquired the work???

I was asking specifically about a piece of inexpensive artwork i purchased from the artist for under $200 at an artshow at a park, or from a small gallary specializing in cheap artwork - under $200 - I paid $20 for the painting, and there were 4 similar ones by the same artist with different colors in the background (portrait of a child)

Some were gifts to me by the artist, who has passed away, or who I no longer have contact with.

Not photos, but oils or watercolors.

Not fancy stuff But items I own.

So do I have the same rights the museum does?

[Ruth]

No. Reproduction rights stay with the artist.

[Jonathan]

Repro rights belong to the artist and his/her heirs throughout the artist's lifetime and for a period of 70 years after death. This right is absolute and does not have to be actively claimed by labeling an artwork "copyright John Doe 2011, all rights reserved" or anything like that.

An artist can assign (that is, sell) his copyright to a third party. Andy Wyeth did this with his Helga paintings and made a lot of money in the process.

Even for works covered by copyright, there is a limited exemption for the owner of the work in the event that the owner wishes to advertise the work for sale--for instance, in an auction catalogue. There is also a limited exemption for museums that own a work and wish to publish it in an educational context (like an exhibition catalogue) or to advertise a specific public exhibition of the work.

With regard to Old Masters, museums do claim copyright in their photographs of these objects and do sometimes claim copyright on the object itself. The latter claim is completely indefensible and has failed when challenged in court; the former is more nebulous and the case law, at present, contradictory.

[Ike]

That sounds like the voice of knowledge.

OK, so I'll stick to the artwork of my nephew, a graduate of Pratt.
IF I can get the lazy so-and-so to do something for me.

[Jonathan]

Keep after him. The encouragement might do him some good.

[Ike]

At least we're proud of his "day job" - working for a charity with the homeless which he volunteered with as a teenager (the whole family volunteered)His fiance is a ceramacist, also a Pratt grad, and deathly allergic to - you guessed it - Danny's preferred medium, oil paints! So he not only can't work at home - he has to change clothes before coming home when he does paint.
I had hopes my youngest nephew would be an artist, but he's applying to other colleges.

[Ruth]

Jonathan wrote: "Repro rights belong to the artist and his/her heirs throughout the artist's lifetime and for a period of 70 years after death. This right is absolute and does not have to be actively claimed by lab..."

Thanks, Jonathan. Nice to see you here.

[John]

Doesn't "But Is It Art?" sound a little ... on the easy side for most people in this group? I've found that when the word "introduction" is in the subtitle, they're usually not kidding. I'm sure most people that participate regularly are probably already familiar with the rudiments of art theory, and may prefer something more challenging. Then again, perhaps not, who knows.

[Heather]

Good point, John. Thanks for bringing that up. I haven't personally seen the book itself. Maybe I should go check it out? I was just going on what the poll suggested but it only had 7 votes. Hmmm.

If anyone else is familiar with the book and would know of this being a concern, please post the suggestions and comments here or send me a message.

Thanks, John.
Oh, and if, per chance, we should need to vote on a different book, anyone can start suggesting up to 5 books for the next selection. Please post these book suggestions under the Book Challenge Folder Question and Answer Section. Thanks!

[John]

You can look at it using the "Table of Contents" function on the book's Amazon page, Heather.

If members insist on art theory, I've always found "Art Theory: An Historical Introduction, Second Edition" very serviceable (even though there's "introduction" in the title again). I've found it to be a very good mid-level book, which wouldn't bore anyone, and from which most people would probably learn a bit, too.

Here are a few other ideas if no one is stuck on theory:

"Visual Shock: A History of Controversial Art in America" by Michael Kammen

"About Looking" by John Berger

"The Private Lives of Impressionists" by Sue Roe

"Three Essays on Style" by Erwin Panofsky

"Art and Illusion" or "The Story of Art" by Ernst Gombrich

"Tiepolo Pink" by Roberto Calasso

[Ruth]

I've read the Berger, the Panofsky and the Gombrich books. I have no desire to read B or P again. It was a slog.

Gombrich's "Story of Art" is imminently readable. Delightfully so, in fact. But it's little more than a history of art in a very condensed form. No heavy duty art theory there, but that's fine.

[John]

For anyone interested in a graduate education in art history, we could always read http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36...

It even has an article on Johann Winckelmann. How could you say no?

[Heather]

John wrote: "For anyone interested in a graduate education in art history, we could always read http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36...

It even has an article on Johann Winckelmann. ..."

It does have good reviews...

I think we will do another poll. I will include your suggestions, John. Everyone else is welcome to suggest additional books on which we can vote. Since we don't have too terribly much time to decide and vote on a book before April, we need to have those book suggestions in by next Wednesday, March 9. This way we can have time to get our hands on the chosen book.

Please post those book suggestions in the Question and Answer Section under the Monthly Book Challenge folder. I will send out a message tomorrow.

[Kelley]

I would love to read Gombrich's Story of Art with the group. I recently picked it up in a used book store. I read his Art and Illusion as an undergrad and enjoyed it.

I would also be up for a bit of Robert Hughes--anything by him, but especially American Visions: The Epic History of Art in America

[Judi]

I'm very new to this group, and I am getting the feeling that this group is intended for advanced art and art history professionals. Is there a group that is not so "well read" for people interested in learning about art?