A wronged artist and a satisfied opera fan were among the readers who wrote to us this week.

A wronged artist and a satisfied opera fan were among the readers who wrote to us this week.

Someone touched “Touch (Ghost)”

First, I want to thank The Times for a positive review of my work in the Dec. 21, 2007, Ticket section (“Funny strange and funny ha-ha”).

However, I want to register frustration about the depiction of my piece “Touch (Ghost)” in the article.

    Most Read Stories

Sometime since I personally installed it, the arrangement of the piece has been altered (unbeknownst to me), thus changing its context and meaning.

When reviewed, the hands were in an outward position — or in “grope mode,” according to reviewer Sheila Farr. The way it is supposed to be viewed is with the palms of the hands facing the wall in a downward fashion. With the hands in the former position, it changes the meaning and context of the work — something that is of utmost consideration for me as an artist.

As the author of this work, I am very disturbed by this, and it troubles me that it was depicted in a manner that I, as the author, did not intend.

After speaking with gallery owner Francine Seders, I learned that the hands of the piece have been rearranged on more than one occasion during viewing hours and that she and her staff have had to return it back to its original position. Unfortunately, they have never caught the perpetrators.

I have since asked the gallery owner to place a sign by the piece that says “Do Not Touch.” The photo accompanying the article does not accurately represent the piece, and I am attaching an image of it as it was originally intended (pictured).

I understand that art is subjective and meanings can change with each individual. However, when someone other than the author (or artist) of a creative work intentionally rearranges and changes the work itself, it is no longer a matter of simple interpretation, but rather, willful misconduct. At the very least, it was ignorance on the part of a member of the art-viewing public to carelessly interfere with an artist’s work, causing unintended consequences.

— Erik Geschke, Portland

The Met met her expectations

About my Mercer Island neighbor’s report of the “less-than-acceptable showing” of the Metropolitan Opera’s simulcast of “Romèo et Juliette” [at the Regal Auburn Stadium 17] (Letters, Dec. 23, 2007).

Given, the glitches were slightly distracting and, yes, we noticed the rumblings from the next theater.

But despite these unfortunate details, the performance was gorgeous, (and) our new diva Anna Netrebko was spectacular! The entire performance was believable, moving and musically perfect. Imagine seeing the Metropolitan Opera without traveling to New York. With close-ups!

Digitally faithful sound! What a wonderful treat!

— Carmen Flak, Kent

Send letters to E&A, The Seattle Times, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111 or send an e-mail to ljacobson@seattletimes.com. Please include your name and city of residence. Letters become the property of The Seattle Times; we reserve the right to edit letters for length or content.