"Norman Rockwell’s Sons Sue Berkshire Museum, Seeking Halt to Sotheby’s Sale"

Story here.

Brian Frye rules:  "The plaintiffs lack standing & the complaint fails to state a viable cause of action. No written gift condition & 'public trust' is pure BS."

"The family of the late African-American artist Thornton Dial has charged in a new lawsuit that Dial’s artwork was wrongly acquired by the High Museum of Art."

"Filed this week in federal court by Dial’s estate and three of his children, the lawsuit charges that art dealer William S. Arnett or his foundation Souls Grown Deep sold or donated Dial’s artwork to the High Museum that Arnett didn’t rightfully own."

"More than a dozen artists packed into a federal courtroom on Wednesday to watch as lawyers debated whether the destruction of their murals was a violation of their rights."

Artnet's Eileen Kinsella has a report on the 5Pointz VARA trial, now underway in Brooklyn.

Most of the commentary focuses on the question whether these works are of "recognized stature," as VARA requires, but I've always been more interested in hearing the plaintiffs' damages theory.

All in the timing

Artnews reports that dealer Gary Nader will sell $100 million worth of works from his collection in order to fund a proposed museum in Florida to house said collection.

I assume no one could have a problem with this.  It's his work, and if that's what it takes to get the museum built, great.

But if he first donated the work to the museum ... and the museum sold the works to, say, raise money for construction of the building ... then the sale would suddenly become unethical and the Deaccession Police would be on to their usual carping.

But the end result is identical in the two cases.  How can one be totally noncontroversial and the other deeply unethical?

The trial in the 5Pointz VARA case is about to get underway (UPDATED)

Story here.  Background here.

UPDATE:  The New York Times on the first day of trial here.

"Threats of violence in response to controversial art are abhorrent."

"They can’t be allowed to dictate what art the public is allowed to see, lest a few deranged would-be saboteurs are encouraged to shut down exhibits at their whim. In an age of social-media campaigns that can reach millions in an instant, the problem is only going to get worse."

The New York Times editorial board:  The Guggenheim Surrenders on Free Expression.

Rules and Norms (UPDATED)

Felix Salmon, generally the most articulate defender of the anti-deaccessioning position, has a piece in The New Yorker on the Berkshire Museum controversy, which then led to a (short but) interesting discussion between him and Deaccessioning Hall of Fame scholar-in-residence Brian Frye on Twitter.

Salmon says "I would really love to see some of the anti-anti-deaccessioning crowd [are we a 'crowd'? -- dz] come out and say yes, this deaccessioning is bad."  To which Frye responds:  "I think you make a pretty good case this one is a bad decision on the merits. But I don't think [the AAMD] rules are an appropriate solution."

Not surprisingly, I'm with the scholar-in-residence on this one.  Most importantly, I think this is exactly how the conversation is supposed to go.  Salmon's basic position is:  this deaccessioning is a bad idea, the museum's financial condition is not so bad, they don't *need* to do this.  He may be right about that (I take no position on it) but the implication is that, if the facts were otherwise, if the museum's financial condition was sufficiently desperate or the need could be otherwise sufficiently demonstrated, then the deaccessioning would be justified.  That just is the position of those of us in the anti-anti-deaccessioning crowd.

Contrast Salmon's approach with that of a typical member of the Deaccessioning Police like Christopher Knight, who thinks that, no matter what -- no matter how bad the institution's financial condition, no matter how great the need -- deaccessioning is always wrong in every case.  Better to close the museum than sell any work.

UPDATE:  On cue, a member of the Deaccession Police comes along to remind Salmon that, at the end of the day, he is part of the anti-anti-deaccessioning crowd himself.

"Bank Behind Fearless Girl Statue Settles U.S. Gender Pay Dispute"

"The custody bank will pay $5 million to more than 300 women, following a U.S. Department of Labor audit."

Who will guard the guards?

The Daily Beast:  The Prison Guards Who Stole a Salvador Dalí Painting.

"The ‘Sociopath’ Scholar Who Made Films of His Crimes Tried to Confess to America’s Most Famous Art Heist"

Your art law headline of the day.