Not everything family is holy and must be saved. It is the job of her parents to store it for her if they want it or think she will. Why not offer them a 3-month deadline to decide if they want to pay for shipping, after which you can do what you want with it. Give it to Goodwill. Use it as an art project. Have it copied onto a tshirt. Make a tote bag. Why should you have the burden of a painting you don't want? If others want you to keep it then they can store it for you.
Overall Rating: votes
-
Posted 12 months ago #
-
@djk in response to "If others want you to keep it then they can store it for you."
applause applause applause
Posted 12 months ago # -
Post a picture of the thing so we can take a vote!
You know, back when the communists took over in China, they had a "cultural revolution" where the young people were given the task of destroying all the old junk they could find. Ming vases, 5000 years of history. Clutter problem solved.
This painiting is flat, and should be able to be stored forever in the back of a closet without causing too much stress. It really belongs to the 9 yr old little girl, who may not get over this decision as easily as the rest of the grown-ups in her world. The child doesn't have any mother issues with her dead grandmother, but she might have issues about taking the decision out of her hands.
Throw out something that doesn't matter if you haven't reached your quota for the week.
Posted 12 months ago # -
@Amy, I enjoyed reading your post (and the clever way you made your point using the cultural revolution) and agree with you; especially the suggestion that the picture be posted so we can take a vote. I'm curious as to how it looks! But you know people hated Van Gogh's paintings at the time and the impressionists were shut out of the Salon.
Here's how to post (thank you susanintexas):
A left-pointing arrow (next to the M on my keyboard)
followed by IMG SRC="http://url.com/filename.jpg"
Followed by a right-pointing arrowPosted 12 months ago # -
I'm sorry that I can't offer any solutions, just a couple of thoughts...
For a few years, I worked in museum conservation, so I know the difficulties of storing and preserving works of art. In the case of a painting, the best storage is ALWAYS hanging on the wall oriented as it was intended (the back wall of a closet is fine for this, as long as there is no problem of dampness in there or other objects pressing against the painting).
My mother saved my first signed drawing (age 4), but after two decades the paper was crumbling away to powder. Bless her heart, she had the image photographically transferred onto a tile and mounted on the lid of a small wooden box, and gave it to me on my 24th birthday. I have treasured it ever since. But I'll tell you, if I had been offered that drawing at age 9, I wouldn't have wanted it at all.
Posted 12 months ago # -
I don't get the suggestion that you take a picture of the art and make smaller art out of it. Either it's well-done and worth keeping, at least until your niece can make the decision about it, or it's not worth keeping and you might as well not keep it.
Posted 11 months ago # -
@Vivace - when it's something made by a family member, it's also about sentimental value. If it was just about are/aren't we keeping some piece of art, Ellen wouldn't likely be spending so much effort to make a decision. That kind of sentimental value can make the most die-hard minimalists among us hesitate to declutter something.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Here's something else to consider on the link below. I think it may only apply to certain covered artists so it may or may not apply to the portrait here. If you are in California they have a law governing the destruction or alteration of artwork so I'd check it if you live there.
http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/basics-of-moral-rights/the-right-to-destroy-artwork.htm
Posted 11 months ago # -
California's law only gives the public the right to object to a publicly displayed artwork being destroyed.
There is a US federal law called the Visual Artists Rights Act. It is a law that prevents someone from defaming the artist's character by destroying or altering artwork. - For example, a public announcement of a destruction of an artwork because the art was "horrible", or displaying an altered artwork as a commentary on the artist's ability or character - like smearing it with blood or excrement. Only artwork made for exhibition is covered. The rights are extinguished with the artist's death.
So, no, not a consideration for this case. Interesting history, though - check out the story of Graham Sutherland's portrait of Winston Churchill.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Forgive me, but how is the kid to know that the painting wasn't kept? How is this going to come up in conversation in ten years?
Posted 11 months ago # -
personally ... my own grandmother was a gifted artist. She made a terracotta head of me or my sister that was extremely well executed. I always hated it and would never have wanted it in my home. Her terracotta hippopotamus, however, lives on; it's perched on my subwoofer.
My nana's watercolors were mostly uninspiring, but I have one of her collages and a big bold oil painting. We weren't really close, but I consider myself fortunate that she was part of my life well into my thirties, and I would have been sad to not have the opportunity to choose for myself which of her creations I could keep.
So ... long story short ... if the in-laws don't want to deal with it, just stash the painting somewhere until the niece is old enough to have an opinion. As others have said, it's not that big, especially if it's not framed.
Posted 11 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post. If you do not already have an account, you can register here.
