An artist’s work is that artist’s exercise of self expression, his or her exercise of freedom of speech as guaranteed in this country by the First Amendment.

Along with the freedom to express themselves and their ideas, artists also have to be prepared to defend their works and the ideas they express.

Whether the work is visual, written, or performance, far more goes into it than the final product.

Before pen is put to paper, chisel to stone, oils to canvas, there is the matter of conceptualization, that long period before production that involves conceiving an idea, mentally modifying and fine tuning it, sketching out a rough version, producing the work along with changes as it progresses, and then revising or editing it if the artist sees that it needs improvement.

The final product is the artist’s well thought out self expression, whether or not the viewer agrees with it, that came at the end of a long process, the majority of which goes unseen.

Regardless if the opinion of the audience is pro or con, the art should stand as it is while comments and discussion about it are welcome.

But to alter a work that is signed, so that it indicates whose work and statement it is, in order to express another’s opinion is inappropriate especially if the person making the alteration does not make it known that what is now presented is not the original work nor the opinion of the artist whose name is on the work.

When this happens, the artist is saddled with the obligation to  reclaim and defend the veracity of the original work, and him or herself from those who do not agree with that which is passed off as their work.

I have been informed that once a work of art is produced, it becomes communal property that can be altered by anyone who finds a need to do that for his or her own purposes.

I strongly disagree.

Yes it is communal, but only insofar as it is viewed by many and produces discussion among them. But to alter the expression of the artist is not part of that communal experience.

It would not be acceptable on my part to smash the Penis off Michelangelo’s David because I want to express my opinion about nudity, or paint an obvious smile on the Mona Lisa because the smile that is there is just too enigmatic.

I cannot rewrite an editorial to reflect my opinion while leaving the original author’s name intact.

The communal experience ends when the viewer decides to alter the art as the work represents more than just a picture, but the artist as well.

Recently I drew a cartoon about the Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado Springs, and within hours of its publication began seeing an altered version being posted on the internet that had words and phrases added that changed the message while still bearing my signature as if the modifications were part of the original work.

On pages where the cartoon from my blog was reposted on the internet as drawn, discussion centered on the message I had crafted, i.e. messages  based on lies could influence someone to commit a wrongful act with dire consequences because they believe those lies, and those who passed on the lies have some responsibility for that subsequent act.
If you are suffering from erectile dysfunction then buy line viagra you won’t be able to enjoy much. For most of the men, thinking about sex initiates early, a lot prior puberty age & endures side effects of viagra until their final days on this world. The tensed people now search blindly buy cheap cialis a way out of this awesome condition. Agreeably, in some cases such things can show some promise but at the same time, you are over here cialis purchase prone to penile deformations, you have problems with retina, etc.
Someone decided that they would use the cartoon to promote their message, not by simply commenting on the cartoon and including their own interpretation along with it, but by adding labels that characterized the people in the cartoon as representatives of a limited group and widening the responsibility beyond those I had placed it on by adding a label about Christian Fundamentalists.

In contrast to those whose comments on the original cartoon dealt with the matter at hand and the actual message, those who commented on the altered cartoon got involved in arguments about religion without dealing with the message about the consequences of people in leadership positions passing on known lies as if true.

And, I, as the artist whose name was still on the altered art, found my assigned message and myself being attacked for doing the very thing the original cartoon had spoken against. I was being accused of lying to make a biased point.

This could, obviously, have a negative effect on my future work, as my credibility had been damaged in the eyes of many who assumed the alterations were in my original work.

As I am sure many artists will agree, there seems to be an attitude toward art that borders on the dismissive and disrespectful.

Where one would never think of asking a plumber or a carpenter, for example, to do any necessary work free of charge for the sake of exposure, it is often done with artists.

When a person brings a car to the mechanic, that person is not only willing to pay for the time the mechanic takes to analyze the problem before actually doing any work, but for the time it takes to actually do the work and for the parts necessary to get it done.

And few, if any, after leaving the garage, would open the hood and alter the work that was done while putting the responsibility for whatever happens as a result of that onto the mechanic.

People are surprised, however, and are very quick to express their disapproval if an artist adds the time it took to conceptualize the work and for the time and material it took to produce it.

When an artist signs a work, he or she is putting themselves behind that work.

No one should assume to usurp the work or the artist’s expression, or to freely disrespect and dismiss the artist as a person or the artist’s statement.

A public display of a work does no throw the artist’s production or expression of opinion up for modification by that public. The work may spark discussion or thought, but it should not be modified to change it.

Many years ago, as a boy scout, I went to Washington DC with my troop, and when we were wandering through the national art museum a bust entitled “The Medici” caught my eye. I had seen it in books, and even standing in front of it, I could not tell if it was wood or painted bronze. I foolishly tapped on it to see which it was, and a guard came from nowhere and growled, “We do no touch the Medici”.

I feel that that same admonition should apply to the work of an artist.

Unless the work is yours, “We do not touch the artwork.”

We should respect both the work and the artist who created it.