is the stance of the boy looking into the pool; it is SO accurate, combining curiosity with not wanting to get wet. Quite utterly brilliant.

the person actually swimming in the pool is an old friend of mine who I've been trying to track down for a year. He was on holiday at the house next door and agreed to keep swimming up and down while Hockney took endless photographs.

The boy peering at him is Hockney's old "muse" Peter Schlesinger who was with him for years until I introduced him to a new "muse" in New York 35 years ago. That "muse" thanked my by taking me to a NYEve party at the Pierre Hotel penthouse hosted by Paul Newman..he had been brought up in a house next door to Newman in Connecticut.

## Another Brush With Fame snippet from Diary of A Nobody (Probably with Dementia) .

### shame models in paintings don't get residuals. You would think artists should. When will a smart gallery owner dream up a scheme where artists get residuals on future sales of paintings?

When will they get residuals? Probably never. They belong to the people who buy it off them at the agreed price at the time. No one has a future steak in artwork they sell. Potters. Cabinet designers. Painters. Architects. If they sell such items they are sold as property. Property to the person they sold it to. No one would want an arictect to be entitled to a percentages of their house. Their property. Their asset. Noone would want a potter to still own a percentage of a vase. Noone wants a painter to have that either!

Casey Sarstards wrote:
When will they get residuals? Probably never. They belong to the people who buy it off them at the agreed price at the time. No one has a future steak in artwork they sell. Potters. Cabinet designers. Painters. Architects. If they sell such items they are sold as property. Property to the person they sold it to. No one would want an arictect to be entitled to a percentages of their house. Their property. Their asset. Noone would want a potter to still own a percentage of a vase. Noone wants a painter to have that either!

ahh but I see the flaw in your argument...art is art like a song or a recording and all those who contribute to music it get royalties.

In Hollywood residuals for films, commercials and so on are a multi-Billion $$ business with many actors living off them.

Of course a painting is an object but when you think someone like Vincent Van Gogh never sold a painting in his life (although his brother supported him and bought his paintings) his works sell for $100Ms.

I'm not alone..many artists think that when a work is sold by them for say $100 and they keep working and developing and eventually become really established and the painting they sold for that $100 may now change hands for $100,000 they believe they should get a royalty as it's they who create that new value !!!!

hedda wrote:
Casey Sarstards wrote:
When will they get residuals? Probably never. They belong to the people who buy it off them at the agreed price at the time. No one has a future steak in artwork they sell. Potters. Cabinet designers. Painters. Architects. If they sell such items they are sold as property. Property to the person they sold it to. No one would want an arictect to be entitled to a percentages of their house. Their property. Their asset. Noone would want a potter to still own a percentage of a vase. Noone wants a painter to have that either!

ahh but I see the flaw in your argument...art is art like a song or a recording and all those who contribute to music it get royalties.

In Hollywood residuals for films, commercials and so on are a multi-Billion $$ business with many actors living off them.

Of course a painting is an object but when you think someone like Vincent Van Gogh never sold a painting in his life (although his brother supported him and bought his paintings) his works sell for $100Ms.

I'm not alone..many artists think that when a work is sold by them for say $100 and they keep working and developing and eventually become really established and the painting they sold for that $100 may now change hands for $100,000 they believe they should get a royalty as it's they who create that new value !!!!

You say you see a flaw in my view, but then go on to acknowledge the flaw in your own. Art is indeed an object. An in this case an expensive object. A hugh cost investment. Yes, singers and actors (depending on agreement) get residuals but only from initial sales. They aren't getting a second payment from resales of CDs or DVDs. Also, spending millions on a painting at Sotherbys is not the same as popping into Sainsbury's and paying £4.99 on a DVD. The former is an evenings entertainment, the latter is a big investment purchase, thus more comparable to my original example of a house, or expensive vase. As for you stating artists being up for residuals from future sales why wouldn't they be? Who wouldn't want more money? Very few. I feel my employer should pay me more for my efforts. My employer clearly does not agree. They feel the same about it as many potential art buyers would feel anout handing out their money for something they would have to share with someone else should they resell and thus reducing their return on investment. You sell something for £100, and someone later sella their property they bought from you for £10 000. That's tough. You sold it for an agreed price. You are not a victim. It was not stolen. It goes in the file "too bad"
"

Casey Sarstards wrote:
When will they get residuals? Probably never. They belong to the people who buy it off them at the agreed price at the time. No one has a future steak in artwork they sell. Potters. Cabinet designers. Painters. Architects. If they sell such items they are sold as property. Property to the person they sold it to. No one would want an arictect to be entitled to a percentages of their house. Their property. Their asset. Noone would want a potter to still own a percentage of a vase. Noone wants a painter to have that either!

You are wrong. look

www.gov.uk/guidance/artists-resale-right

In a recent interview, David Hockney said that the extra money that has made him a rich man hadn't changed his life - "what am I going to do with it?". He loves most of all being in the studio.

www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/arts/design/d...stminster-abbey.html