Story here. I've got to say I did not see that one coming.
From the opinion (reproduced here): "If not for Wolkoff's insolence, these damages would not have been assessed. ... Given the degree of difficulty in proving actual damages, a modest amount of statutory damages would probably have been more in order."
UPDATE: Brian Frye: "Thankfully, this is why we have appellate courts. VARA is a stupid law, but not even VARA is this stupid."
Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento: "[I]t wouldn’t surprise me if this case grabs Congress’s or the Trump Administration’s attention. Otherwise, my bet is that this case is appealed."
Monday, February 12, 2018
Saturday, February 10, 2018
"On Thursday, a New York Supreme Court judge dismissed the auction house’s request for a summary judgment against Anatole Shagalov, who the house claims ponied up a record-breaking bid for the work but then failed to pay up."
Friday, February 09, 2018
BREAKING: "Berkshire Museum Victory" (UPDATED 3X)
Andrew Russeth: "Berkshire Museum Victory: Massachusetts Attorney General Agrees to Art Sales, With Rockwell Going to Public Institution, Some Conditions."
More later.
UPDATE: Immediate reaction from Deaccession Police Headquarters: "Floodgates opened." "Once again, an attorney general has been a lapdog, not a watchdog." "An ethical travesty."
On the other side, Brian Frye tweets: "MA AG finally knuckles under & tacitly admits it has no legal authority to stop the Berkshire Museum from selling art."
UPDATE 2: Yale's Will Goetzmann, assuming that the buying public institution is Crystal Bridges, says: "A move from MA to AK makes both better off. Why not?"
Yeah, why not? Remember there are two ways to look at these situations. One is to weigh the actual costs and actual benefits and try to determine whether, on balance, all things considered, the sale is a good idea. The other is to take it as a given that the guidelines of certain professional organizations carry serious moral weight, such that their violation is an "ethical travesty." (And "pity" if you don't see it that way.)
Another example of the latter approach is San Francisco Chronicle art critic Charles Desmarais, who says the settlement "looks like complete capitulation to" the museum, and then adds: "I am sorry for your loss, Pittsfield." But why aren't we also happy for your gain, Bentonville, Arkansas, or Los Angeles, or wherever the Rockwell ends up? Why don't they cancel each other out? Why do only the losses count?
UPDATE 3: "Debacle."
More later.
UPDATE: Immediate reaction from Deaccession Police Headquarters: "Floodgates opened." "Once again, an attorney general has been a lapdog, not a watchdog." "An ethical travesty."
On the other side, Brian Frye tweets: "MA AG finally knuckles under & tacitly admits it has no legal authority to stop the Berkshire Museum from selling art."
UPDATE 2: Yale's Will Goetzmann, assuming that the buying public institution is Crystal Bridges, says: "A move from MA to AK makes both better off. Why not?"
Yeah, why not? Remember there are two ways to look at these situations. One is to weigh the actual costs and actual benefits and try to determine whether, on balance, all things considered, the sale is a good idea. The other is to take it as a given that the guidelines of certain professional organizations carry serious moral weight, such that their violation is an "ethical travesty." (And "pity" if you don't see it that way.)
Another example of the latter approach is San Francisco Chronicle art critic Charles Desmarais, who says the settlement "looks like complete capitulation to" the museum, and then adds: "I am sorry for your loss, Pittsfield." But why aren't we also happy for your gain, Bentonville, Arkansas, or Los Angeles, or wherever the Rockwell ends up? Why don't they cancel each other out? Why do only the losses count?
UPDATE 3: "Debacle."