I agree with Nicholas F. on profit sharing. For decades I have thought that sales of art works (after the initial sale by the artists) should earn a commission to the artist, based on a percentage of the increase in value, for example 10% or 20%. Other art, such as music composition and performance, television and film, and written work, often gives the artist a financial interest in future display, performance, publication, etc.
4
Not a mention about sharing that profit with the artist.
1
The dimensions are 9 ft. 6 in. × 13 ft. (289.6 × 396.2 cm). I did not see this mentioned in the article.
3
Will the Illinois taxpayers get any of that money back?
1
art is the most valuable asset we have
I find the idea that great art should only be displayed in museums and such quite troubling. Great art at unexpected places, places where the general public does not go specifically to view art, is badly needed.
7
I agree that art should be more accessible to all. Especially when the admission price to most museums is way out of reach for a working class family.
3
The Authority should ask (and be granted) permission to make a life-size printed mural copy of the artwork to hang in the place where the painting used to be so that the local people can still view the work.
18
Excellent! Mr. Marshall's work is fantastic, but it should be in protected conditions with good environmental control and protection. And the money received goes to a good cause. Win win.
14
Wow!
Someone was super smart
to spot a masterpiece early on.
I saw his show in LA last year
at MOCA.
He is a phenomenal artist.
So glad he is getting well
deserved recognition.
19
Proof that sometimes the "Percent for Art" ordinance Chicago's city council enacted back in the late 1970s pays off in unexpected ways, though I'll guarantee the $18 million won't go toward the "capital maintenance projects," given Chicago's penchant for finding specious ways of distributing money.
15