Tuesday, May 29, 2018
"The day before Mr. Indiana died, Morgan Art Foundation, a company that says it has long held the rights to several of his best-known works, filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Mr. Thomas and a New York art publisher had isolated Mr. Indiana from the world and produced unauthorized or adulterated versions of his art."
Story here.
Still in the Public Trust (Part III)
The Berkshire Museum's Church is going to ... the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.
Oh the unethicality. When will it stop?
Even better, the museum is offering Berkshire County residents, as well as Berkshire Museum members, free admission in perpetuity. It's all so unethical. Stalinesque, actually.
The Berkshire Museum sale is looking more and more like one big application of the Ellis Rule.
Oh the unethicality. When will it stop?
Even better, the museum is offering Berkshire County residents, as well as Berkshire Museum members, free admission in perpetuity. It's all so unethical. Stalinesque, actually.
The Berkshire Museum sale is looking more and more like one big application of the Ellis Rule.
Saturday, May 19, 2018
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Still in the Public Trust
ARTnews: Lucas Museum to Begin Loan of ‘Shuffleton’s Barbershop’—Painting at Center of Berkshire Museum Firestorm—to Norman Rockwell Museum in June.
The loan runs until 2020.
It's so, so awful that this painting went from that one museum to this other museum down the road and then will go to another, new museum. That's such a totally unethical situation.
The loan runs until 2020.
It's so, so awful that this painting went from that one museum to this other museum down the road and then will go to another, new museum. That's such a totally unethical situation.
Saturday, May 12, 2018
Found One
I've mentioned a couple times that, so far as I was aware, no member of the Deaccession Police had had anything negative to say about the Baltimore Museum deaccessioning (to the point that I had to post my own tongue-in-cheek version of a response).
But according to this Hyperallergic post, there was one:
"Tyler Green, the producer and host of the Modern Art Notes Podcast, tweeted his concern that the BMA was not following AAM guidelines regarding deaccessioning, writing: 'It’s by a man, so we’ll sell it even tho it’s a great artwork.' A subsequent tweet read: 'I’d like to know where in AAM’s guidelines it says that deaccessioning motivated by gender is a best or even sanctioned practice.'"
But according to this Hyperallergic post, there was one:
"Tyler Green, the producer and host of the Modern Art Notes Podcast, tweeted his concern that the BMA was not following AAM guidelines regarding deaccessioning, writing: 'It’s by a man, so we’ll sell it even tho it’s a great artwork.' A subsequent tweet read: 'I’d like to know where in AAM’s guidelines it says that deaccessioning motivated by gender is a best or even sanctioned practice.'"
Wednesday, May 09, 2018
"Instead of being decided by judges and juries, cases will be heard by arbitrators who are seasoned lawyers familiar with industry practice and issues specific to art disputes."
The Art Newspaper: "A new body dedicated exclusively to resolving art disputes, the Court of Arbitration for Art (CAA), will be formally launched 7 June in the Hague."
Monday, May 07, 2018
Are dealers about to be regulated?
Eileen Kinsella reports that they might be.
Tim Schneider has some concerns:
"To be perfectly honest, I’m not that worried about whether the richest sellers have to implement some annoying bureaucratic compliance measures. For one thing, they have the resources. ... More importantly, they’re also the sellers that could realistically be used in money laundering schemes. Neither of the above is true for most galleries and dealers. They are already stretched too thin from a staff and expenses standpoint .... Having to bolt on a heavy, federally approved monitoring arm could tip some of these struggling small businesses over into the abyss."
This is something some people have been calling for for a long time.
Tim Schneider has some concerns:
"To be perfectly honest, I’m not that worried about whether the richest sellers have to implement some annoying bureaucratic compliance measures. For one thing, they have the resources. ... More importantly, they’re also the sellers that could realistically be used in money laundering schemes. Neither of the above is true for most galleries and dealers. They are already stretched too thin from a staff and expenses standpoint .... Having to bolt on a heavy, federally approved monitoring arm could tip some of these struggling small businesses over into the abyss."
This is something some people have been calling for for a long time.
Guilty Plea in Chowaiki Case
One count of wire fraud. "The prosecution and defense have agreed to ask the judge for a sentence of between four years and three months and five years and three months, which is what sentencing guidelines recommend."
The Art Market Monitor says the case "may continue to have consequences as the details and market histories of [the works involved] are better understood."
Background here.
The Art Market Monitor says the case "may continue to have consequences as the details and market histories of [the works involved] are better understood."
Background here.
"Never wear synthetic fibers while making a forgery."
Advice from Jamie Martin, profiled in the New York Times here.
Friday, May 04, 2018
"In the context of the grotesque harm that the law allows humans to inflict on numerous animals, there is something profoundly misguided—even perverse—about suing for the copyright royalties from a monkey selfie."
"Given PETA’s tendency to engage in (frequently misogynistic) publicity stunts, one cannot help but think that the point of the Naruto lawsuit—like the point of much PETA activity—was to call attention to PETA rather than to the plight of crested macaques and members of other free-living species whose habitat is threatened."
Cornell's Michael Dorf on the monkey selfie decision.
More Dorf here, on the judges' "speciesism."
Cornell's Michael Dorf on the monkey selfie decision.
More Dorf here, on the judges' "speciesism."
Thursday, May 03, 2018
A Highly Ethical Post
Since the Deaccession Police all seem to be on vacation or busy at the art fairs, I thought I would do them a favor and make the case against the Baltimore Museum's planned deaccessioning:
The museum's decision fails to consider the essential point of museum collections: once an object falls under the aegis of a museum, it is held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations. And the public’s trust is the coin of the realm for museums. It's also common sense. You don't cut out the heart to cure the patient. The director seems not to have understood his broader responsibility to care for all of the museum's assets. Instead of selling these works, the museum should have embraced furious fundraising. The sale also sends a terrible message to potential donors: why wouldn't somebody say, "Why should I give this to you? What guarantee do I have that you're not going to sell this tomorrow?"
Also keep in mind that the museum's permanent collection belongs to all of us. The public has paid for these works through the tax deductions given to private donors. And those donors bestow such works on the public expecting them to be valued for their aesthetic, not financial worth. If a museum doesn’t regard a particular gift as worthy of display or study, it shouldn’t accept the gift in the first place.
There you have it. Where do I pick up my badge?
The museum's decision fails to consider the essential point of museum collections: once an object falls under the aegis of a museum, it is held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations. And the public’s trust is the coin of the realm for museums. It's also common sense. You don't cut out the heart to cure the patient. The director seems not to have understood his broader responsibility to care for all of the museum's assets. Instead of selling these works, the museum should have embraced furious fundraising. The sale also sends a terrible message to potential donors: why wouldn't somebody say, "Why should I give this to you? What guarantee do I have that you're not going to sell this tomorrow?"
Also keep in mind that the museum's permanent collection belongs to all of us. The public has paid for these works through the tax deductions given to private donors. And those donors bestow such works on the public expecting them to be valued for their aesthetic, not financial worth. If a museum doesn’t regard a particular gift as worthy of display or study, it shouldn’t accept the gift in the first place.
There you have it. Where do I pick up my badge?
Tuesday, May 01, 2018
Another Koons-Gagosian Lawsuit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)