----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Elizabeth Ohara ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
: ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
: While it is true that Keane and his wife did work on the paintings for
: many years together (and it turned into a veritable industry at one point
: making them quite rich) I believe that his wife's claims were more
: substantial than he "worked on some of her paintings". I believe she said
: that they were her paintings and he signed them and that this was agreed
: upon by them in the beginning of their collaboration - I think because
: they felt he had better name recognition at that juncture(?) - I don't
: remember that part. Additonally I believe that she claimed that he didn't
: have the training he had claimed he did - at any rate she got written off
: as a "disgruntlyed ex-wife" but I suspect there is more there than meets
: the eye!(No pun intended!)
: Elizabeth O'Hara
Right you are! Margaret won the eventual lawsuit and proved her
claim that she was the original genius behind the pathos-ridden
kiddies-- hubbie Walter claimed a "shoulder injury" made it
impossible for him to paint a sample tyke in the courtroom. Now
Margaret has her own gallery in San Francisco-- the Keane Eyes
Gallery-- which has just recently moved from its tony Market Street
location to (I believe) a new site in the Richmond District.
Since going out on her own, her work has become much happier and,
if possible, even more disturbing. She allegedly gets tens of
thousands of dollars for her paintings these days.
Kim Cooper
Libraraian, Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles
|