"According to court filings dated February 14th, investment firm State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) is claiming that the sculptor, Kristen Visbal, is 'weakening and adulterating the "Fearless Girl" message' by selling copies of the statue. The firm alleges that the artist has made at least three unauthorized reproductions of the statue so far: one for an Australian law firm, one for the owner of the Grand Hotel in Oslo, and a third that Visbal brought to this year’s Women’s March in Los Angeles."
Felix Salmon: "lolololol."
Nicholas O'Donnell: "For something that was commissioned as PR, this is an odd PR move."
Background: here.
Sunday, February 24, 2019
Monday, February 18, 2019
The Swizz Beatz Resale Royalty Solution
Mentioned in this NYT Style Magazine profile:
"Dean has proposed sidestepping the law entirely and instead introducing an option for collectors selling a work through an auction house or gallery to simply check a box — yes or no (he’s been referring to it unofficially as 'the Dean Choice') — to indicate whether they’d like to give a percentage of the sale to the artist. He suggests that 3 to 5 percent is a fair commission. …
"'If you’re really a patron,' he continues, 'and really a collector, you’re gonna say yes. And I feel that in the first year we introduce this option, 30 percent are gonna say yes. And then the year after that it will be 60 percent, and then it will just keep going up from there, and then we won’t even need a rule. It will just be the thing to do. People are gonna want to check yes because the artists will know if they don’t — if they didn’t do the right thing.'"
"Dean has proposed sidestepping the law entirely and instead introducing an option for collectors selling a work through an auction house or gallery to simply check a box — yes or no (he’s been referring to it unofficially as 'the Dean Choice') — to indicate whether they’d like to give a percentage of the sale to the artist. He suggests that 3 to 5 percent is a fair commission. …
"'If you’re really a patron,' he continues, 'and really a collector, you’re gonna say yes. And I feel that in the first year we introduce this option, 30 percent are gonna say yes. And then the year after that it will be 60 percent, and then it will just keep going up from there, and then we won’t even need a rule. It will just be the thing to do. People are gonna want to check yes because the artists will know if they don’t — if they didn’t do the right thing.'"
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Tell me again about the public trust (1960 Rothko edition)
SFMoMA is selling a 1960 Rothko painting at Sotheby's in May. It's expected to sell for $35-50 million.
Now, you may think this significant work by this significant artist, having fallen under the aegis of a museum, is held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations. But clearly: not the case.
And you may think potential future donors to the museum, upon hearing this news, might ask themselves "Why should I give this to you? What guarantee do I have that you're not going to sell this tomorrow?" But again: nope.
How hard would it be for people to just admit that all the "public trust" talk is a bunch of bullshit and replace it with a rule that says museums are permitted to sell work if but only if they have a good reason for doing so? (In this case, the good reason proffered is to diversify its holdings, to "address art historical gaps like works by women and people of color.")
Now, you may think this significant work by this significant artist, having fallen under the aegis of a museum, is held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations. But clearly: not the case.
And you may think potential future donors to the museum, upon hearing this news, might ask themselves "Why should I give this to you? What guarantee do I have that you're not going to sell this tomorrow?" But again: nope.
How hard would it be for people to just admit that all the "public trust" talk is a bunch of bullshit and replace it with a rule that says museums are permitted to sell work if but only if they have a good reason for doing so? (In this case, the good reason proffered is to diversify its holdings, to "address art historical gaps like works by women and people of color.")
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Thirty Months for Mary Boone (UPDATED 2X)
Story here. Background here.
UPDATE: Jerry Saltz still thinks she shouldn't have gotten any jail time: "You all know where I stood on this. Make her pay it all back. Sentence her. But not jail time. So for me it seems harsh." And Paddy Johnson still begs to differ.
And here is Nate Freeman on The Rise and Fall of Mary Boone.
UPDATE 2: She's closing her gallery.
UPDATE: Jerry Saltz still thinks she shouldn't have gotten any jail time: "You all know where I stood on this. Make her pay it all back. Sentence her. But not jail time. So for me it seems harsh." And Paddy Johnson still begs to differ.
And here is Nate Freeman on The Rise and Fall of Mary Boone.
UPDATE 2: She's closing her gallery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)