Saturday, January 12, 2013

Other than that, the story was accurate

There’s a really silly article regarding Richard Serra in the new Art Newspaper. Apparently it’s breaking news that one of his drawings needed some conservation in 2011. Really, that’s all there is to the story.  (Full disclosure: Serra is a longtime client of our firm.)

The headline and lede say Serra “threatened” to “withdraw” one of his drawings from the Broad Collection.  That’s not true at all; he simply objected to its being exhibited given its sub-optimal condition, which he had every right to do.

The story goes on to suggest that “historical accuracy” may have been compromised because … I’m not sure why, really.  The drawing was made in 1989.  It was damaged, and in 2011 he restored it. He left the date as 1989, and the suggestion of the story is that there was something wrong with that. But we don’t change the date of a work every time it’s restored.  There’s no “historical inaccuracy” involved.  It’s really a ridiculous story.