The Boston Globe's Geoff Edgers reports that a Leger painting "has been lost - perhaps unintentionally thrown out - by Wellesley College's Davis Museum and Cultural Center."
The school has already collected on an insurance claim for the work, "in the area" of $2.8 million.
Derek Fincham cuts to the chase: "Perhaps a little more care is required of multi-million dollar masterworks."
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
"The central legal issue, obviously, is who owns the work today"
Obviously.
This week's Village Voice has more on the Martín Ramirez lawsuits:
"The Ramirez family argues that because the artist had been institutionalized, he didn't have the capacity to administer his affairs, including giving away his work. And [Dr. Tarmo Pasto, the psychology professor who worked with Ramirez while he was institutionalized], they claim, had no right to act as he did. 'The position of the estate is that that person had no authority whatsoever to take any of those works for any purpose,' [the family's lawyer] says, 'and . . . the institution had no such authority either.'
"Hammond's lawyers recently moved to dismiss the New York case, arguing that it's properly a California dispute. And that's where things stand at the moment. Meanwhile, the 17 Ramirez paintings sit in a vault at Sotheby's, awaiting a final resolution."
(The article refers to the works throughout, I think mistakenly, as paintings. This earlier LA Times story says they are drawings.)
This week's Village Voice has more on the Martín Ramirez lawsuits:
"The Ramirez family argues that because the artist had been institutionalized, he didn't have the capacity to administer his affairs, including giving away his work. And [Dr. Tarmo Pasto, the psychology professor who worked with Ramirez while he was institutionalized], they claim, had no right to act as he did. 'The position of the estate is that that person had no authority whatsoever to take any of those works for any purpose,' [the family's lawyer] says, 'and . . . the institution had no such authority either.'
"Hammond's lawyers recently moved to dismiss the New York case, arguing that it's properly a California dispute. And that's where things stand at the moment. Meanwhile, the 17 Ramirez paintings sit in a vault at Sotheby's, awaiting a final resolution."
(The article refers to the works throughout, I think mistakenly, as paintings. This earlier LA Times story says they are drawings.)
Monday, August 25, 2008
Into the Woods
In today's New York Times, Nicolai Ouroussoff profiles architect Lebbeus Woods.
The article doesn't mention it, but Woods was involved in one of the more high profile copyright infringement lawsuits of recent years:
"Consider the case of Lebbeus Woods vs. Universal Studios, in which Woods ... alleged that the 1995 movie '12 Monkeys' had copied his drawing of a wall-mounted chair with a sphere suspended in front of it. A judge found the drawing’s resemblance to one of the movie’s props 'striking' and, though the movie had been in release for 29 days, issued a preliminary injunction barring further distribution. (The studio hastily settled with Woods for an undisclosed sum.)"
The article doesn't mention it, but Woods was involved in one of the more high profile copyright infringement lawsuits of recent years:
"Consider the case of Lebbeus Woods vs. Universal Studios, in which Woods ... alleged that the 1995 movie '12 Monkeys' had copied his drawing of a wall-mounted chair with a sphere suspended in front of it. A judge found the drawing’s resemblance to one of the movie’s props 'striking' and, though the movie had been in release for 29 days, issued a preliminary injunction barring further distribution. (The studio hastily settled with Woods for an undisclosed sum.)"
Friday, August 22, 2008
Bitter
I was flipping through the Fisk University appellate brief, and this passage caught my eye (p. 26):
"It is with bitter irony that Fisk notes that the proposal by Crystal Bridges, which the Chancellor found in September 2007 to be clearly superior to the pending settlement agreement ..., was, in February 2008, roundly condemned by the Chancellor ...."
Yeah, I never got that either.
"It is with bitter irony that Fisk notes that the proposal by Crystal Bridges, which the Chancellor found in September 2007 to be clearly superior to the pending settlement agreement ..., was, in February 2008, roundly condemned by the Chancellor ...."
Yeah, I never got that either.
Today's Iowa Pollock Commentary
Wall Street Journal leisure and arts page editor Eric Gibson in today's paper: "With luck, the chorus of condemnation will forestall any Pollock sale by the University of Iowa."
Lee Rosenbaum cheers him on.
Responding to this post of mine yesterday, Richard Lacayo agrees that "some sales are justifiable" -- but thinks this is not one of them. He adds: "For the record, I even proposed last year that, as a way to avoid the calamitous relocation of the Barnes collection to a new home in Philadelphia, the Barnes would be better off to take the otherwise unjustifiable step of selling off a major canvas, one that would bring in enough money to replenish its endowment." (For the record, I made a similar proposal in 2006.)
Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento is not impressed with Felix Salmon's argument in favor of a sale: "The problem with this perverse argument is that it rests not only on class-centrist notions of culture, access, and appreciation, but more so on an artwork's monetary value (not to mention a complete disavowal of a donor's intent)."
Sergio also announces the imminent launch of a new blog. Can't wait!
Lee Rosenbaum cheers him on.
Responding to this post of mine yesterday, Richard Lacayo agrees that "some sales are justifiable" -- but thinks this is not one of them. He adds: "For the record, I even proposed last year that, as a way to avoid the calamitous relocation of the Barnes collection to a new home in Philadelphia, the Barnes would be better off to take the otherwise unjustifiable step of selling off a major canvas, one that would bring in enough money to replenish its endowment." (For the record, I made a similar proposal in 2006.)
Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento is not impressed with Felix Salmon's argument in favor of a sale: "The problem with this perverse argument is that it rests not only on class-centrist notions of culture, access, and appreciation, but more so on an artwork's monetary value (not to mention a complete disavowal of a donor's intent)."
Sergio also announces the imminent launch of a new blog. Can't wait!
"To me, he is a living legend"
In today's Wall Street Journal, Kelly Crow profiles FBI undercover art-crime investigator Robert Wittman, who's retiring later this year after "two decades impersonating shady dealers and befriending thieves."
Dan Kois says "there's everything you need for a movie: guns, danger, sexy naked paintings, and institutional dismissal — the FBI apparently ignored Wittman's requests for more agents for years."
Dan Kois says "there's everything you need for a movie: guns, danger, sexy naked paintings, and institutional dismissal — the FBI apparently ignored Wittman's requests for more agents for years."
Don't Mention It
The Washington Post: "Managers of a downtown office building yanked a sculpture called 'Unmentionables . . . then and now' from an exhibition last week after tenants complained that the art was inappropriate. The offending art, by Joyce Zipperer, ... consists of 10 styles of women's underwear -- from old-fashioned bloomers to a skimpy thong -- all made out of metal and strung along a clothesline."
You can see images of the work at the link.
There doesn't seem to by any legal issue: the building owner apparently required participating artists to sign a contract which provides that "The work may be withdrawn from the exhibition by [the building owner] at its discretion at any time."
You can see images of the work at the link.
There doesn't seem to by any legal issue: the building owner apparently required participating artists to sign a contract which provides that "The work may be withdrawn from the exhibition by [the building owner] at its discretion at any time."
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Rule Utilitarianism in Iowa City
Responding to this Felix Salmon post, Richard Lacayo makes a more sophisticated case for the no-no-never position on deaccessioning:
"[T]he problem with selling the Pollock ... is that it would represent a further worsening of the (so far limited) trend by colleges to look at their campus art collections as assets that can be stripped and sold off to pay for other needs. If that practice ever becomes legitimized, no campus collection is safe. That is the main thing at issue in the fight to prevent the Pollock from being sold. ... And it trumps any and all other benefits that a sale might bring."
My question is: how do we know that? How do we know that it trumps all the other benefits a sale might bring without a close examination of what those benefits are? Imagine a case where a college has suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in flood damage that isn't covered by insurance (nor is there any FEMA aid available) and, if it doesn't figure out a way to come up with a hundred million dollars or two, it's going to have to cut lots of academic and sports programs, fire a bunch of employees, eliminate several scholarship programs for needy students, etc. And imagine too that there happens to be an art museum directly across the street that is willing to pay $200 million for the work, and to promise never to charge admission to members of the college community, and, for good measure, to agree that the work can be hung back in its original location for three months out of every year. Now, of course, in many ways this is a completely unrealistic example, but do we really want to say that, in those circumstances, it would still be wrong for the college to go ahead with the sale, because to do so would increase, in some vague, unquantifiable way, the odds that some other school with some other valuable painting would look to sell it?
The bottom line for me is that there is no way of avoiding the hard work of examining the specific circumstances of each individual proposed sale. How many people get to see the work now? Is the school able to properly maintain the work? What needs is the sale intended to address? What are the alternatives to a sale? Are there other sources of funds available? What would the consequences be of not selling? And on and on. It may well be that, after thinking about these questions, the great majority of proposed deaccessionings will seem to be a bad idea. But I don't think the questions can just be ignored.
"[T]he problem with selling the Pollock ... is that it would represent a further worsening of the (so far limited) trend by colleges to look at their campus art collections as assets that can be stripped and sold off to pay for other needs. If that practice ever becomes legitimized, no campus collection is safe. That is the main thing at issue in the fight to prevent the Pollock from being sold. ... And it trumps any and all other benefits that a sale might bring."
My question is: how do we know that? How do we know that it trumps all the other benefits a sale might bring without a close examination of what those benefits are? Imagine a case where a college has suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in flood damage that isn't covered by insurance (nor is there any FEMA aid available) and, if it doesn't figure out a way to come up with a hundred million dollars or two, it's going to have to cut lots of academic and sports programs, fire a bunch of employees, eliminate several scholarship programs for needy students, etc. And imagine too that there happens to be an art museum directly across the street that is willing to pay $200 million for the work, and to promise never to charge admission to members of the college community, and, for good measure, to agree that the work can be hung back in its original location for three months out of every year. Now, of course, in many ways this is a completely unrealistic example, but do we really want to say that, in those circumstances, it would still be wrong for the college to go ahead with the sale, because to do so would increase, in some vague, unquantifiable way, the odds that some other school with some other valuable painting would look to sell it?
The bottom line for me is that there is no way of avoiding the hard work of examining the specific circumstances of each individual proposed sale. How many people get to see the work now? Is the school able to properly maintain the work? What needs is the sale intended to address? What are the alternatives to a sale? Are there other sources of funds available? What would the consequences be of not selling? And on and on. It may well be that, after thinking about these questions, the great majority of proposed deaccessionings will seem to be a bad idea. But I don't think the questions can just be ignored.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
"The prospect of drilling in the lake requires more than the usual attention to the sensitivities of the site"
ARTINFO.com reports that "the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, & Mining has refused a request from the Pearl Montana Exploration company to drill for oil near Robert Smithson's earthwork sculpture Spiral Jetty, constructed in 1970. In a letter from the State of Utah's Department of Natural Resources to the company, obtained by the community group the Friends of Great Salt Lake, it states inadequacies in the application and notes, 'The prospect of drilling in the lake requires more than the usual attention to the sensitivities of the site.'"
If you're interested in this issue, a young man named Serge Paul runs a terrific blog called Spiral Jetty vs. Oilzilla. Kirk Johnson also wrote about the issue in the New York Times a few months ago.
(In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that Smithson's widow, Nancy Holt, is a client.)
If you're interested in this issue, a young man named Serge Paul runs a terrific blog called Spiral Jetty vs. Oilzilla. Kirk Johnson also wrote about the issue in the New York Times a few months ago.
(In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that Smithson's widow, Nancy Holt, is a client.)
Recovery
"Brazilian police have recovered the second of two Pablo Picasso works stolen from São Paulo's Pinacoteca do Estado museum on June 12."
"A terrible idea"
Richard Lacayo is back, and has some thoughts on the Iowa-Pollock controversy: "All the same, the Board of Regents is still going forward with its effort to determine the painting's market value. There's no deadline set for when it has to report back with the magic number, but we should all be watching. This attempt to 'monetize' a university collection should stop right where it started."
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Guilty (UPDATED)
Robert Mardirosian has been found guilty of possessing stolen property. "The 74-year-old Mardirosian faces a maximum of 10 years in prison at sentencing, scheduled for Nov. 18."
UPDATE: More from the Boston Globe here.
UPDATE: More from the Boston Globe here.
The View From London
The U.K. Independent had a story this weekend on the Barnes saga: "Horror at the move stretches far beyond Latch's Lane. To the New York Times's Nicolai Ouroussoff, it is 'a crime', while the New Republic critic Jed Perl describes the pro-Parkway regime as 'cultural commissars'. Outside the offices of Philadelphia's great and good – the very people Barnes set up his Foundation to defend against – you will be hard pressed to find anyone who approves it. But the move will go ahead, and much will be lost."
Monday, August 18, 2008
One Charge Dismissed
The Boston Globe reports that the judge has thrown out the "transportation of stolen property" charge against lawyer Robert Mardirosian. He still faces a charge of possessing or concealing stolen property. The case was scheduled to go to the jury today.
Political Question
Lee Rosenbaum cheers on PA Attorney General candidate John Morganelli.
You can read Morganelli's full statement about the Barnes situation here.
You can read Morganelli's full statement about the Barnes situation here.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Today's Iowa News (UPDATED)
The latest from the Des Moines Register on the possible Pollock deacessioning. Two interesting things, I thought:
1. U of I Regent Michael Gartner responds to Tyler Green's conflict of interest concerns: "Gartner called Green's blog post 'bizarre' and said he and his wife aren't conspiring to bring the Pollock painting to Des Moines. ... 'My wife, like probably 2.9 million other Iowans, didn't even know the university owned a $150 million painting (if that's what it's worth) until it was in the news in recent weeks.'"
2. The Director of the Des Moines Art Center says "the museum could not afford to buy 'Mural' even if it were for sale."
The paper also editorializes against the sale: "'Mural' belongs to the people of Iowa - those alive today and future generations. It's one of Iowa's gems, the same way public land, artifacts, monuments and rare documents are pieces of this state's history. Sure, museums and individuals would probably buy many of the rare items owned by the public. But Iowa leaders should recognize the value of these items and places - beyond what they could bring at an auction."
UPDATE: Tyler responds to Gartner's response here.
1. U of I Regent Michael Gartner responds to Tyler Green's conflict of interest concerns: "Gartner called Green's blog post 'bizarre' and said he and his wife aren't conspiring to bring the Pollock painting to Des Moines. ... 'My wife, like probably 2.9 million other Iowans, didn't even know the university owned a $150 million painting (if that's what it's worth) until it was in the news in recent weeks.'"
2. The Director of the Des Moines Art Center says "the museum could not afford to buy 'Mural' even if it were for sale."
The paper also editorializes against the sale: "'Mural' belongs to the people of Iowa - those alive today and future generations. It's one of Iowa's gems, the same way public land, artifacts, monuments and rare documents are pieces of this state's history. Sure, museums and individuals would probably buy many of the rare items owned by the public. But Iowa leaders should recognize the value of these items and places - beyond what they could bring at an auction."
UPDATE: Tyler responds to Gartner's response here.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Broken Glass
Yesterday I mentioned Noah Charney's four categories of art crime, the first of which is vandalism. Today's New York Times has news of a stained-glass window by Marc Chagall that was shattered by vandals in France over the weekend at the Saint-Étienne Cathedral.
More Iowa Reactions
Derek Fincham: "I find it very interesting that many of the calls for anti-deaccessioning are very contrary to the kind of art cosmopolitanism and sharing of art and culture that many have advocated, notably James Cuno."
The Art Market Monitor: "One of their proposals was a sale to another institution with rights to display the work. The art may end up being better served by this approach, or another one; civic pride might be enhanced by it too. They’ll never know until they explore the idea."
The Art Market Monitor: "One of their proposals was a sale to another institution with rights to display the work. The art may end up being better served by this approach, or another one; civic pride might be enhanced by it too. They’ll never know until they explore the idea."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)