Viewing page 8 of 49

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

2A) - Some of the most curious & arbitrary decisions were in the field of sculpture. The law is, as a matter of fact, very definite about what constitutes sculpture. In the first place, the object must be by a "professional." The differentiation between "professional" & "amateur" [[strikethrough]] has [[/strikethrough]] stumps many a critic these days, but the law quite simply cuts the Gordian knot [[strikethrough]] with [[/strikethrough]] by means of a mimeographed questionnaire whereby it is determined that a "professional" is one who has attended schools or academies, produced statuary for sale, exhibited in mus. &, desirably, received awards of merit. No need to flounder either in distinguishing between artisan & sculptor. According to a TD, "one copies, & the other, in a sense, creates & originates." Volumes have been written about whether an object [[strikethrough]] created [[/strikethrough]] made for everyday use can be a work of art and curators in museums rest comfortably secure in the belief that a Greek drinking vase or a medieval vessel used to pour water for hand-washing deserve their eminent glass-encased statuses. But the law is adamant: no modern "article of utility" can be a sculpture. [[strikethrough]] If Cellini, for instance, were to make his Rospiglio fabulous drinking vessel for more modern Rospigliosi family it is fashionable whether it would be "an article of utility or a work of art. [[/strikethrough]] And only a recent ruling, admitting that simply as a useful tray, a Picasso ceramic would be worth about $100 but as a tray with his ptg. on it it is worth $425 and is not designed mainly for use - or for reproduction or other use

[[left margin]] NO [[/left margin]]

Transcription Notes:
That cup was a 19th C forgery https://lostinthelouvre.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/famous-fake-friday-the-rospigliosi-cup/