Entry Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Day 3, Entry #4 with Adrian Marmolejo discussing the Daniel Moore controversy with the University of Alabama.
I definitely agree with David.
Daniel Moore’s paintings celebrate Alabama football and don’t offer any kind of threat to the University. I couldn’t find it to properly quote it but, I have seen Daniel Moore himself say that it is a shame that the University has decided to treat the situation this way since he has devoted his work to something that he loves: Alabama football.
Obviously the situation is bad from his perspective, but I believe that he is a talented artist and he wouldn’t have started painting these scenes if he didn’t have some real connection to it. In all honesty, I have no interest in football or artwork that depicts it; however, I think he is completely justified in painting without the Universities permission. He is in no way taking anything from the University, as they claim, and the idea that they have chosen to treat the issue this way is very strange to me.
A lot of art is meant to be controversial and even the art that’s not is often put on trial. It’s hard to judge the intent for creating it, but it is usually pretty clear how it is used. In this case, the University sees Moore making money and, as they typically do, want to get a cut. I think if Moore had been a terrible artist and not making much money, then they would not have given him any thought at all. As I said in my previous statement, it’s all about setting an example.
Leave a Reply
