Eric wrote:Just seems... lazy.
ygmir wrote:I'd bet BM wants the rights, so others don't get them. Not to use, but to keep from being used.
Roundabout wrote:Although from reading the artist's somewhat rambling explanation I am cannot discern which point was the most critical in the benefactor's decision to instruct the artist to not sign the BM contract, it does seem to be a fair point that BM should be the financially responsible party for liability insurance on the Temple. The piece is central to the entire design and layout of the city and for many (not all) it is critically integral to the experience of the event. It certainly plays a central role in bm's marketing of the event. I think it is fair to expect BM.org (not the artist) to pay the insurance bill, as I am sure BM does for The Man and for Center Camp.
aserendipity wrote:too sophisticated now..for a D.B. perfectly wonderful temple ? ; and you are in Oregon !
some seeing eye wrote:I've heard that some things are changing with the new non-profit org. Did the insurance approach for art/ the temple change?
Perhaps they are kicking the temple back to BRAF, which would carry the insurance.
aserendipity wrote:the guardians tend to be somewhat officious also
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests