"Why is stealing a wallet not appropriation art?"

Joerg Colberg issues a challenge to the art world.

Without taking a position on any particular example of appropriation, let me answer his question with a question:

What if, after I took your wallet, you still had your wallet?

Would it change your view at all?  Would you still call it theft?

Concepcion Sentenced

My friend Jo Laird, who represents one of the victims, emails that dealer Giuseppe Concepcion was sentenced yesterday to 51 months in federal prison for selling fake art:  "Judge McMahon made clear that she intended the sentence to be severe both because she found Concepcion's actions to be 'despicable' and because she wanted to send a signal about this type of crime, which she described as a reprehensible betrayal of trust."

"A Brief History of Art Forgery"

A Noah Charney podcast.

On the Maine Mural Removal

I'm a little late getting to this story, but a federal judge ruled last week that it was not a First Amendment violation for the Governor of Maine to order the removal of a mural from a state Labor Department office:

"Elected state leaders ... have the right to decide what to say and what not to say, and by extension during their term in office, they are authorized to decide what the state of Maine says or does not say about itself. State of Maine Governor Paul LePage’s removal of a mural from the walls of a state office because he disagreed with its contents may strike some as state censorship; instead, it is a constitutionally permissible exercise of gubernatorial authority. Though his action provoked a storm of constitutionally-protected speech with a stark division between those who applauded his decision as rebalancing the state of Maine’s message to the business community and those who condemned his action as muzzling opposing viewpoints, the resolution of this vigorous debate must not rest with judicial authority of a federal court. It must rest instead with the ultimate authority of the people of the state of Maine to choose their leaders....

"It is not the business of the federal court to decide what messages the elected leaders of the state of Maine should send about the policies of the state, to tell a prior administration that its own artwork is too slanted to continue to hang on state office walls, to tell the current administration that it must not remove or replace a prior administration’s artwork, or to tell a future administration which piece of state art, the new or the old, must stay or go. The messages from the state-owned works of art are government speech and Maine’s political leaders, who are ultimately responsible to the electorate, are entitled to select the views they want to express."

Lawprof Eugene Volokh says that "sounds quite right."   News story here.  A question from Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento here.

"The News Media’s Misrepresentation of the Art Criminal"

A four-part series, from ARCA alum Katherine Ogden.

"Police Nab Europe's Most Notorious Art Thief — And His Mom, Too"

Story here.  Related post here.

"I didn’t speak up when they came for the appropriationists…"

Artist Brian Dupont on the Richard Prince decision. [via]

"There is little question that what constitutes fair use is still in the eye of the beholder after this decision."

Nicholas O'Donnell and Mitchell Stein of Sullivan & Worcester on the Richard Prince decision:

"What is clear after Cariou, however, is that artists, museums and galleries involved in any appropriative art are in a more precarious position than ever before.  ... [T]he potential for a chilling effect on such works is clear; the threat of damages of this sort may simply steer artists away from creating, and museums and galleries away from showing, anything close to the edge.  Would a gallery with the chance to exhibit the newly-created still lives and collages of Picasso showing Le Journal, or a museum with the chance to show the contemporary work of Duchamp and its appropriation of the Western canon, have taken the chance if privy to this decision?"

Fisk Appeal

The Tennessean's Jennifer Brooks has the latest on the appellate proceedings in the Fisk-O'Keeffe case.  Fisk filed its appellate brief on April 7.  The Tennessee Attorney General -- non-neutral Super Cooper -- has until May 9 to file a response, and then Fisk has until May 23 for its reply. Brooks says the initial brief argues that "the $20 million endowment [ordered by Judge Lyle] would generate $1 million a year, when it costs Fisk [only] $130,000 annually to care for the 110-piece collection."

Nadia Plesner's Day in Court

Her take on it here.

Rehearing En Banc Denied for Chapman Kelley (UPDATED 2X)

See here.  Background here.

UPDATE:  The Art Newspaper's Martha Lufkin has more, including that Kelley plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.

UPDATE 2:  The Council for Artists' Rights John Viramontes is not happy.

Space Invader Arrested

Ben Davis has the details.

"It will be a substantial cut, depending on the size of the organization."

The Washington Post:  "A number of Washington arts organizations are reeling because Congress cut the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs program by $7 million from $9.5 million in the last agreement for fiscal 2011."

"Mr. Wildenstein ... is enmeshed in at least a half-dozen lawsuits"

On the front page of today's New York Times:  Venerable Art Dealer Is Enmeshed in Lawsuits.

The Art Market Monitor says "the issue is that Wildenstein has acted as more than an art dealer for many clients. They stored art in the Wildenstein vaults and trusted to Guy to administer their affairs."

Piss Christ "attacked with hammers and destroyed"

In France.  ARTINFO has the details.  More here from the Guardian.

Ann Althouse offers 11 thoughts.

"Much of the money from that sale has been put toward a new $11.9 million reserve fund, one that the academy can turn to when operating income falls short of covering its $4.6 million budget."

The New York Times has a story on how the National Academy Museum is slowly coming back to life after being sanctioned by the AAMD for selling a couple of works three years ago.

The story explains that the sale "was controversial" because museums "are viewed" as "public trusts" since they "function as sanctuaries" for "cultural and historical artifacts."

No attempt is made, however, to reconcile that "view" with these others, also expressed in the Times, just a few months ago:

•  Deaccessioning is "a normal act," and to be "encouraged."
• "Deaccessioning is a healthy part of the management of any museum collection."
• Deaccessioning is "kind of a Humane Society. ... Maybe some of these works can be loved by someone else."

We'll have to await word from the Times as to whether this "is viewed" as an exercise in smoke and mirrors.

"The Village of Greenwood Lake has agreed to repeal a six-month ban on public displays of art that prompted a local artist to sue the village on First Amendment grounds."

"The repeal was a condition of a settlement between the village and ... Warwick resident Melanie Gold, who filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in February."

Moving the Barnes from Merion to Philadelphia is socialism or something

Michael Smerconish:  "The relocation of the Barnes will be the single greatest cultural enhancement to Philadelphia during our lifetimes," but it's still wrong.

Linkage (crimes and misdemeanors edition)

• Seven year prison sentence for mastermind behind massive Giacometti forgery ring.
• Gallery owner indicted for selling fake prints.
• Does street art violate unfair competition laws?
• 1,000 items stolen during Egypt uprising.

"Probably they can’t stop it, they won’t be able to stop it. And then in years to come people will get used to it."

Robert Redford on the Barnes move.

But will they ever get used to moving a work from a stairwell to its own room?  It's impossible to predict.