Respecting An Artist's Wishes After Death

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
Steve Ditko's Mr. A. Will Be Collected Against His Wishes

For the first time comic book artist Steve Ditko's Mr. A stories will be collected into multiple hard cover volumes. Sadly, this is not something Steve Ditko wanted. This is a decision Ditko's estate is making after his death.

What do you guys think of not just this situation but the general idea of how we should treat an artistic work after the artist dies? Sometimes artist want their work destroyed. Should we honor requests that might rob the world of amazing works of art? How much should am artist's desires matter after they're dead?
 

shard38

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Posts
773
Media
24
Likes
1,983
Points
523
Location
The Hague (South Holland, Netherlands)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I think any artist putting out work, especially commercial work, should be ok with their works entering the public domain after your death. It will inevitably happen after 75 years, so why bother about those 75 years when you are not around anymore to witness it (or make a decent living out of it).
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Steve Ditko's Mr. A. Will Be Collected Against His Wishes

For the first time comic book artist Steve Ditko's Mr. A stories will be collected into multiple hard cover volumes. Sadly, this is not something Steve Ditko wanted. This is a decision Ditko's estate is making after his death.

What do you guys think of not just this situation but the general idea of how we should treat an artistic work after the artist dies? Sometimes artist want their work destroyed. Should we honor requests that might rob the world of amazing works of art? How much should am artist's desires matter after they're dead?

I doubt his bones care too much.

If one felt strongly enough about it in life they could make legal arrangements to cover it.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
I think any artist putting out work, especially commercial work, should be ok with their works entering the public domain after your death. It will inevitably happen after 75 years, so why bother about those 75 years when you are not around anymore to witness it (or make a decent living out of it).

But before it reaches the public domain shouldn't the estate do their best to follow the wishes of the original creator? Isn't that their responsibility? A basic cash grab like this just feels disrespectful to me.

I doubt his bones care too much.

If one felt strongly enough about it in life they could make legal arrangements to cover it.

He didn't make any arrangements, but we do have letters stating that he didn't want his Mr. A stories collected. Shouldn't that be respected?

With someone like Steve Ditko, who valued his principles more than money, I think his estate should follow his lead. It just feels very disrespectful. I know that might be a silly reaction to a simple cash grab, but with an artist like Ditko who routinely left money on the table using his most personal work as a cash grab just feels wrong.
 

shard38

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Posts
773
Media
24
Likes
1,983
Points
523
Location
The Hague (South Holland, Netherlands)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I don’t know if this is a real cash grab by his family (I don’t know the artist btw). Seems more like they want to present his works to a larger audience.

If an artists feels very strongly about his legacy then he should take precautions. I always think if you put out your art into the world it becomes part of the world. With admiration comes commenting, following, parody, adaptation, etc. You put your art out as a way of expressing yourself. If you don’t want the follow-up, keep it to yourself.

Of course things get complicated where money is involved. Would you feel different when his family donated all the profits from this collection to one of Ditko’s favourite charities?
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
But before it reaches the public domain shouldn't the estate do their best to follow the wishes of the original creator?

Maybe? I mean, the Mary Poppins movie, as beloved as it is, shit all over a lot of the objections of its creator, and she wasn't even dead, she was alive at the time.

Isn't that their responsibility?

Nah, I have enough responsibilities, thanks.

A basic cash grab like this just feels disrespectful to me.

Could be a cash grab. Could be an attempt to expose more people to the artist's work who might not otherwise have seen it.

Some people bag on AGT, but if AGT didn't exist, I would be exposed to maybe 0.5% of those acts.



He didn't make any arrangements, but we do have letters stating that he didn't want his Mr. A stories collected. Shouldn't that be respected?

That's not how the world works. I don't even think that's how it should work. Legal arrangements clarify the wishes.

With someone like Steve Ditko, who valued his principles more than money, I think his estate should follow his lead. It just feels very disrespectful. I know that might be a silly reaction to a simple cash grab, but with an artist like Ditko who routinely left money on the table using his most personal work as a cash grab just feels wrong.

Third time in one post you've called it a cash grab. You have no idea if it's a cash grab. You don't know his brother. You don't know the motives. You're assuming it's a cash grab.

I never even heard of Mr A before this post. It's every bit as possible his brother just loves his brother's work and wants more people to see it.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
I don’t know if this is a real cash grab by his family (I don’t know the artist btw). Seems more like they want to present his works to a larger audience.

If an artists feels very strongly about his legacy then he should take precautions. I always think if you put out your art into the world it becomes part of the world. With admiration comes commenting, following, parody, adaptation, etc. You put your art out as a way of expressing yourself. If you don’t want the follow-up, keep it to yourself.

Of course things get complicated where money is involved. Would you feel different when his family donated all the profits from this collection to one of Ditko’s favourite charities?

Hmm that would change things a bit because t wouldn't be a simple cash grab. But my basic objection would still be the same. He didn't want them collected.

With something like Mr. A, which was probably his most personal work, it just feels wrong to not follow his wishes.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
Maybe? I mean, the Mary Poppins movie, as beloved as it is, shit all over a lot of the objections of its creator, and she wasn't even dead, she was alive at the time.



Nah, I have enough responsibilities, thanks.



Could be a cash grab. Could be an attempt to expose more people to the artist's work who might not otherwise have seen it.

Some people bag on AGT, but if AGT didn't exist, I would be exposed to maybe 0.5% of those acts.





That's not how the world works. I don't even think that's how it should work. Legal arrangements clarify the wishes.



Third time in one post you've called it a cash grab. You have no idea if it's a cash grab. You don't know his brother. You don't know the motives. You're assuming it's a cash grab.

I never even heard of Mr A before this post. It's every bit as possible his brother just loves his brother's work and wants more people to see it.

The Mary Poppins movie is its own can of worms. It is kind of sad that an adaptation has supplanted the source material to begin with, it's heart breaking that the original author hated the adaptation.

You're right, I don't know for sure if it is a cash grab. But if the intention is to get Mr. A out there to more people is a hardcover collection really the best way to do that? Let's be honest, a hardcover collection is something more appealing to people like me who are already fans of Steve Ditko who want something to put on their bookshelf than someone who has never heard of Ditko or Mr. A. If they were putting his work on Comixology, I could see your point, but a hardcover collection? I just don't see it.
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You're right, I don't know for sure if it is a cash grab. But if the intention is to get Mr. A out there to more people is a hardcover collection really the best way to do that?

It's not, but it's just not something I lose sleep over.

How many films are pitch perfect and then get remade? How often does the remake hold a candle to the original? It can happen (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), but much much MUCH more often than not, the remake is way worse than if they had just done a theatrical re-release of the original. But studios want their money, so we get what we get... but none of that keeps me up at night. It doesn't cause me anxiety or distress.

I'm a huge fan of original Miracle on 34th Street. I find the remakes to be almost offensively bad. But I'm not like "Oh, poor George Seaton, he would be so saddened if he was alive today to see what the sheer travesty of what they did with his story, yadda yadda".

It's more that if I'm going to put the movie on for the kids, I put the original on and not one of the newer remakes, etc.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
It's not, but it's just not something I lose sleep over.

How many films are pitch perfect and then get remade? How often does the remake hold a candle to the original? It can happen (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), but much much MUCH more often than not, the remake is way worse than if they had just done a theatrical re-release of the original. But studios want their money, so we get what we get... but none of that keeps me up at night. It doesn't cause me anxiety or distress.

I'm a huge fan of original Miracle on 34th Street. I find the remakes to be almost offensively bad. But I'm not like "Oh, poor George Seaton, he would be so saddened if he was alive today to see what the sheer travesty of what they did with his story, yadda yadda".

It's more that if I'm going to put the movie on for the kids, I put the original on and not one of the newer remakes, etc.

I'm not saying anyone should lose sleep over this situation. I'm a big fan of Steve Ditko and even I'm not that bothered by this.
 

Beedie Tijii

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 12, 2016
Posts
642
Media
1
Likes
1,827
Points
263
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I think it's the responsibility of the estate to obey the law, but beyond that... there is a personal stake, but it's not a legal issue.

As texan pointed out, there are too many publishers and corporations out there fucking with artists' work while they are still alive to worry specially about the wishes of the deceased.