Woman Demands Royalties on Destroyed Jesus Fresco

[MeChaNiZ3D]

...really? When I first heard about this I got the impression of an old lady who didn't know what she was doing but had good intentions, and would now be deeply sorry for her actions. But asking for royalties on donations centred around something that was an ill-advised and stupid thing to do is just too much. Especially considering she got a slap on the wrist for destroying the fresco in the first place.

 

[PurePareidolia]

People are willing to pay to see the terribly monkey drawing she scrawled over a perfectly good painting, and the church is charging money for it. The destroyed the painting by drawing her own picture over the top of it that means the church is quite literally profiting off her (amazingly bad) artwork. So, if they aren't planning on using the profits to restore it, write it off as a loss, and once the value of the original painting is repaid, start paying her royalties. Otherwise you're displaying her painting in your church, charging people to see it and giving her nothing. The only question is if she donated her painting to the church when she gave it back, or if she merely returned the original, which happened to be beneath her alterations. If the latter, the church is holding her property (in the form of the paint she used) and profiting off it without her permission.

Which basically makes this the most goddamn hilarious art-theft/vandalism case I've ever seen.

 

[Yopaz]

The fact that she decided to "restore" it without the permission of the owners makes this clear as glass that she does not deserve it. She ruined a painting without permission and now she demands to get a share of a donation. Demanding to get a cut of charity is low. I hope she wont win this.

 

[Spambot 3000]

Yes but what would Jesus do...

Swing from a tree whilst eating a banana

OT: Funniest thing I've ever seen but she deserves no money for it, because from what I gathered, it was illegal. Hilarious (in my opinion), but illegal.

 

[The Cheshire]

Wow wow, people, most of you are waaaay misinformed about this. I live in Spain, in fact I don't live far away from Borja, and over here the perspective on this news is... well, different. So let me set a few points.

1. The original painting was not a priceless, valuable or fantastic work of art. It was a third rate academic painting from the late 19th century. In this country we have so many paintings like that... geez, I could go to the church in the corner of my street and find at least five or six pieces of art with more value than the original Ecce Homo. It was not very valuable, it was not done by a famous painter, it wasn't even that old: it was just another religious work made by the village's painter at the time. None of his works sell at Sothebys.

2. Cecilia did not steal the painting, as the Ecce Homo is a fresco, meaning: it was painted on a column. The only way you can remove that painting is by complicated chemistry works or by ninja-kicking the column out and running away with a ton-heavy piece of stone. What really happened is she entered the church and worked on the painting, and the priest in charge never stopped her. And he knew she was working on it.

3. This is the Church we are talking about. The Church in Spain. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, yes? These are not a bunch of peace-loving philantropists, the Church is an organ of power over here. They're rich, they have political influence and they don't pay taxes. This a humble 80 year old woman asking for her cut to a big organization.

And finally...

4. The new painting is faaaar more valuable than the original. From an obscure third-rate Jesus painting to an internationally famous pop symbol. It's ironic, it's unintentional, and it's a good reflection of the internet age. It's a masterpiece of pop art! Ugly? It's shit ugly! But it's relevant and far more important than any academic religious work you can find in any regular town church.

 

[Revolutionary]

Spoiler: Is she for real? She is lucky she wasn't put in prison or something.

Seriously What?

 

[MammothBlade]

It's funny, but also tragic just how people can turn into greedy monsters the moment they see a bit of fame and fortune.

 

[Wesley Brannock]

Let me get this straight she ruined " PRICELESS ART " and wants to get paid for it since people want to see the DAMAGE she did.

 

[Mike Kayatta]

One - Don't yell at me, don't swear at me. It's rude.

I'd say that so is to report something as true using a faulty translation without bothering to check up.

Oh, and if you're volunteering for future translation duties, let me know. I'll be more than happy to take advantage.

Hah, no.

The church has forgone voluntary donations for forced donations at the door. Admissions/donations in this context are different only in the way they're collected, not in what pool of money the lady is asking to be cut into. There's a large difference between screaming at someone for misreporting a distinction crucial to the story, and screaming at someone for using a contextual synonym just because you happen to be fluent in the source language. More important than any of that, though, is that you don't scream at anyone at all. Please remain civil in our forums.

 

[Britisheagle]

They should have it restored and bill her instead then. How greedy..

 

[Space Spoons]

Putting aside all questions of artistic integrity and such, she is directly responsible for this economic windfall. She's entitled to compensation.

 

[DeathQuaker]

Wow wow, people, most of you are waaaay misinformed about this. I live in Spain, in fact I don't live far away from Borja, and over here the perspective on this news is... well, different. So let me set a few points.

1. The original painting was not a priceless, valuable or fantastic work of art. It was a third rate academic painting from the late 19th century. In this country we have so many paintings like that... geez, I could go to the church in the corner of my street and find at least five or six pieces of art with more value than the original Ecce Homo. It was not very valuable, it was not done by a famous painter, it wasn't even that old: it was just another religious work made by the village's painter at the time. None of his works sell at Sothebys.

2. Cecilia did not steal the painting, as the Ecce Homo is a fresco, meaning: it was painted on a column. The only way you can remove that painting is by complicated chemistry works or by ninja-kicking the column out and running away with a ton-heavy piece of stone. What really happened is she entered the church and worked on the painting, and the priest in charge never stopped her. And he knew she was working on it.

3. This is the Church we are talking about. The Church in Spain. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, yes? These are not a bunch of peace-loving philantropists, the Church is an organ of power over here. They're rich, they have political influence and they don't pay taxes. This a humble 80 year old woman asking for her cut to a big organization.

And finally...

4. The new painting is faaaar more valuable than the original. From an obscure third-rate Jesus painting to an internationally famous pop symbol. It's ironic, it's unintentional, and it's a good reflection of the internet age. It's a masterpiece of pop art! Ugly? It's shit ugly! But it's relevant and far more important than any academic religious work you can find in any regular town church.

Thanks so much for clarifying several of these issues. I'd been seeing this woman accused of vandalism and from looking at primary sources I could not see where she had snuck in and intentionally wrecked something, which is what vandalism is. She tried to fix a painting with the church's knowledge and consent. That she did a poor job, aesthetically, is a different matter and a very unfortunate one, but she is not a vandal. The original was also not a work of art as was clearly indicated in the primary sources as well.

I'm sure I will be reprimanded for "screaming" (i.e., offering criticism) but I expect better journalism from the Escapist -- there was little to no fact checking in any of Chalk's articles on this subject, and an obviously skewed representation of what happened. That this clearly biased and poorly researched editorial has been presented as reportage is in my opinion as morally questionable as... well, a church or an individual trying to make money off a messed up art restoration job.

 

[Andy Chalk]

To further clarify the issue, the fresco wasn't "priceless" or particularly valuable at all, beyond local sentimental value. It was, as far as these things go, fairly generic.

The original article (Google translated, as you've probably heard by now) also points out that it's Gimenez "and her family" who brought in the lawyers, suggesting that the woman herself, who was reportedly devastated by her destruction of the painting, is more of a bystander in the whole mess than the driving force behind it. We don't know that either way.

But regardless of the details, it's the principle that I think is what's fascinating here. There's no question that she destroyed something of value; does she have a right to be rewarded for what she created in the process?

I say no. If nothing else, she undertook her "restoration" without permission, so earning anything off it would essentially be enjoying the proceeds of a crime. We don't allow convicted kidnappers and murderers to write books and get rich from inside their prison walls; why would we allow this woman to profit from her vandalism?

 

[regalphantom]

The church should charge her with vandalism and sue her for the cost of the original piece of artwork which she destroyed, which would cost... I don't know... maybe two, no three, definitely three hundred thousand dollars, including the cost of anguish it caused to the the church.

 

[Vivi22]

Doesn't she need to pay them back for destroying a piece of art like that? And now she's demanding cash? Holy crack, wtf.

That's my thoughts. She destroyed this piece of art with her ignorance. The church was lucky in that it's become such a laughable curiosity people are willing to pay to see it. She should be thankful they didn't have it restored and sue her to recover the cost and leave it at that.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Thanks so much for clarifying several of these issues. I'd been seeing this woman accused of vandalism and from looking at primary sources I could not see where she had snuck in and intentionally wrecked something, which is what vandalism is. She tried to fix a painting with the church's knowledge and consent.

The church has asserted from beginning that she did not have permission. In fact, just prior to the destruction of the painting, the artist's granddaughter made a donation to cover the cost of having it restore professionally.

 

[Rauten]

There's a large difference between screaming at someone for misreporting a distinction crucial to the story, and screaming at someone for using a contextual synonym just because you happen to be fluent in the source language. More important than any of that, though, is that you don't scream at anyone at all. Please remain civil in our forums.

I don't "happen" to be fluent. It's my bloody MOTHER TONGUE. Born in Spain to a Spanish family, living in Spain my entire life, and my brother buys the goddamn El Correo every stupid single day as it's his newspaper of choice.
English is the other language I'm fluent in, my "second" language.

It's not mandatory donation, they're CHARGING for entry.

 

[samahain]

This is a great movie script in the making. Oscar runner-up in 2020. I call it.