Ecce Homo ‘restorer’ wants a slice of the royalties

0

Cecilia Giménez, who made a painting of Jesus look like a very hairy monkey, wants economic compensation


Some painters die penniless, their work unappreciated. So it seems only fair after her artwork attracted global attention that Cecilia Giménez make some money – even if she did make Jesus look like a very hairy monkey.

The 80-year-old Spanish parishioner became a worldwide laughing stock earlier this year after her botched restoration of a 19-century fresco of Christ with a crown of thorns became an internet sensation. Millions were reduced to tears of laughter, even as some hailed it as a masterpiece in its own right.

Crowds have since swarmed to Giménez's handiwork, paying the Sanctuary of Mercy Church in Borja, near Zaragoza, €4 (£3) each to marvel or mock. And now Giménez wants a slice of the action.

"She just wants the church to conform to the law," said Enrique Trebolle, the lawyer hired by Giménez. "If this means economic compensation she wants it to be for charitable purposes."

Written By: Barry Neild
continue to source article at theguardian.com

NO COMMENTS

  1. She may have botched it:on the other hand she may be making a profound statement viz.lighten up, folks, if Jesus existed he evolved like everybody else.

    Well what do you know, the church is making money out of that, too !Boy do they serve Mammon!

    • In reply to #6 by Roedy:

      That is not by any definition a restoration. It is a new painting on top of the old. The church should sue to undo the damage.

      I agree, they should sue doG for letting it happen!

  2. I almost wet my pants laughing when I first saw that painting. It reminds me of the scene in the Mr. Bean movie in which he accidentally sneezes on the famous painting “Whistler’s Mother” and tries to fix it but ends up fudging it up badly. The hair looks like one of those helmet shaped fur hats that girls used to wear back in the late 60′s and early 70′s.

    • In reply to #7 by NearlyNakedApe:

      I almost wet my pants laughing when I first saw that painting. It reminds me of the scene in the Mr. Bean movie in which he accidentally sneezes on the famous painting “Whistler’s Mother” and tries to fix it but ends up fudging it up badly. The hair looks like one of those helmet shaped fur hats tha…

      Haha that’s totally it !

      That “restoration” is absolutely hilarious. I don’t know how much it’s possible to screw up that much, but come on, the original painting is banal, there are thousands like that. The complete failure of the restoration made it famous and made the church a lot of money, a service in the end. Come on, give the woman a cut, it’s thanks to her they’ve gotten the money in the first place.

    • In agreement with #10 by Martin_C:

      If she wants to “conform to the law” she should be charged with vandalism and pay a fine.

      Absolutely, She tried to restore an original, In that she has not only failed but destroyed the original. She admits she made a mess of it, But to ask for royalties! If I were to throw a bucket of paint on top of her “restoration” would I be entiteled to charge her money to look at my paint? This is greed pure and simple.

  3. But, she didn’t get an agreement to be paid before she did the work (she “took it upon herself”, as the article makes clear), so why on earth would she think the law would require her to be paid for VOLUNTEERING?

    Imagine if she had flawlessly executed the restoration: would she be demanding payment then? No, because it wouldn’t have become an ironic tourist destination. If the money is to go to the church, one of the things they could spend it on might be, oh, I don’t know… a professional restoration of the damned picture, maybe?

  4. In my opinion the first one is not much better. What sappy, maudlin emotion is that look supposed to convey: “Gee, I wish the poor were better off than they are”?

    Or: “Aww, a kitten”.

    Or: “Yeah, I’m suffering, but it’s not so bad because it’s worth it in the end”.

    I think the interpretation of the restoration could be seen as a pure distillation of the original’s banality.

  5. They didn’t take any action against her for vandalism and are now using her vandalism for making money and that is an infringement of her ‘intellectual’ (heh heh) property rights. They cannot claim retrospectively that she devalued the fresco when they are making money from it. I reckon she wins hands down!

  6. This is hilarious…Its just so much like a script from ‘Father Ted’…or something….Old people and children – you cant blame them for trying….perhaps no one ever told her she was a terrible artist !!!

Leave a Reply