ok so i have a hypothetical for ya...lets say i have the money, i buy starry night by van gogh...its mine...i own it now...NOW i paint over it...but i make it photo realistic instead of the swirly van gogh style...its the same painting...but i "MADE IT BETTER" and then i present it to the art loving public...

after the beatings from many an art lover and the wholesale kick in the ass from the over all art community (which, lets be honest, is a dwindling community) i would be ostracised, tagged a hater of art...an imbecile...BUT you know damn well there will be at least five people who like mine better than van gogh's...

was it worth me doing that to van goghs painting to get everybody to see the atrocity that i have wrecked to van goughs painting plus the five new people that have come on board and the revenue that would accrue?

Or should i have just spent the money to take it one tour or at least promote the life of van gogh and hope that would inspire people to go in search for other van gogh paintings...

this is the question i ask myself when i see big hollywood buy the rights to Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Let the Right One In or any other foreign cinema and re cast it with prettier actors, shove in more action and strip away character development and take anything that was worthy about that piece of Art and McDonalds that fucker up for american audiences...

Smoke 'em if you got 'em -

Klein