"It costs a lot of money to defend against a suit, even if one wins."

Eileen Kinsella reports in ARTnews that "several art-authentication boards and artist-endowed foundations have decided that the risks and potential costs associated with determining authenticity are simply too high."

Resale Royalty Reply

The auction houses filed their reply brief this week in the California resale royalty lawsuit.  I remain most interested in the Commerce Clause argument.  The auction houses argue that "Plaintiffs' argument that the [statute] does not regulate conduct 'outside' California simply because it involves a California resident" "borders on the frivolous."  (I wondered about that argument too.)  They say "courts have consistently rejected state laws that project legislation into another state based on nothing more than the involvement of one of the legislating state's residents," that "the Supreme Court and lower courts have uniformly held that where ... a sales transaction occurs wholly outside the regulating state, the Commerce Clause precludes application of the regulating state's laws to that transaction even if a state resident is involved."

Bob Nickas on Prince-Cariou

Part one, part two.

"Lugo said simply, 'I'm sorry,' as a judge sentenced him to one to three years behind bars in New York ..."

". . . though he could be released in six months if he succeeds in a boot camp-style program."

New Issue of Journal of Art Crime

The Fall 2011 issue of ARCA's Journal of Art Crime is out.  I wrote about de Csepel v. Republic Of Hungary, regarding foreign sovereign immunity.

"Under the bill, 60 percent of the funds would go to State Need Grant program."

I've also been meaning to get to this story, which in some ways is similar to the Detroit story I mentioned yesterday.  A Washington State Senator has introduced a bill to "auction off works from the state art collection every two years," with "a goal of raising a minimum of $5 million each time."  Sixty percent of the sales proceeds would be used "to help the state's lowest-income undergraduate students pursue degrees, refine skills, and retrain for new careers" (boo!) and 40 percent would be used "to conserve, repair and acquire art" (yay!).  The Senator says "the State Need Grant program is terribly underfunded.  There were so many students who were turned away this year, who could not get a dime."

As with Detroit, we're not talking about sales by museums ("The state art collection is made up of artwork acquired through Washington's Art in Public Places program. The art is located at state agencies, public schools, colleges and universities and is bought through the state's capital construction budget").  This is not work held in the "public trust" but directly by the public.  The question this Senator is raising is whether the public would prefer to use a portion of those assets (about $1.5 million a year) to help poor kids go to college.  What the Deaccession Police want to do -- what they always want to do -- is make the very question off limits.  Selling any amount of art to fund scholarships is always repulsive, Stalinesque, beyond the pale.  They want a conversation stopper in favor of their preferred policy outcome.

"None of those repercussions would be automatically compelling to ... a mayor forced to choose between thousands of jobs and a Flemish masterpiece."

I've been meaning to mention this column from a couple of weeks ago raising the possibility of some art being sold to help stave off Detroit's bankruptcy (though it's quick to point out that "the city has no plans to sell art").  The interesting angle here is the city owns the works directly; they don't actually belong to the DIA.

That means two things.  First, there's no issue of donor intent:  "Many of the museum's greatest works were purchased directly by the city during the 1920s, when the city ran the museum as a department, paying staff salaries and budgeting for acquisitions. The city used its own dollars, not those of wealthy patrons who might have specified conditions for sale."

And second, the chief argument against selling in cases of this sort -- that the work is actually held "in trust" for the relevant public -- would seem to have little force here.  As a local museum historian says, "it takes the whole notion of public trust and makes it complicated and interesting."  In this case, the work seems not to be held "in trust" for the public; it's held by the public.  If they -- the public -- decide to sell to avoid bankruptcy, what's the argument against it?  "You, the public, cannot sell this work because it belongs to ... the public"?

Failing that, the Deaccession Police can always fall back on their favorite argument:  If you sell, we will sanction you.  Therefore, in order not to be sanctioned, you should not sell.  Can't beat that logic.

"Fairey pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of criminal contempt and faces as much as six months in jail on the charge."

He "admitted that he fabricated documents and lied during the discovery process in copyright litigation with the Associated Press."  Sentencing is July 16.  Background here.

"Any doubt that the thefts (and recoveries) of other versions increased its value?"

Derek Fincham notes that a version of Munch's "The Scream" is heading for sale at Sotheby’s in New York and "officials there estimate it could bring more than $80 million."

"The government is saying we want $35 million in tax but if you sell it to get the money we’ll put you in jail."

Forbes reports on a fascinating valuation dispute in the Ileana Sonnabend estate.

"Few cases in recent years have roiled the art market as much as this mystery of how an obscure art merchant could have discovered an astonishing number of unknown treasures by the titans of Abstract Expressionism."

The NYT's Patricia Cohen has the latest on the Knoedler mess.

"Three years ago, it mistakenly sold this work, valued at more than a million dollars, for $150 plus tax."

The New York Times on Cal Berkeley's "embarrassing loss."

"It is the very definition of as near as possible." (UPDATED)

Fisk has filed its response to the Tennessee Attorney General's request for permission to appeal.  There's a news story here.  I haven't been able to find a link online, but their brief makes a lot of the same points I've been making here.  For example, I think my absolute favorite part is that there is a whole section headed:  "Arkansas Is In The South."  (That's in response to the AG's bizarre argument that the Crystal Bridges deal "unabashedly eradicates Ms. O'Keeffe's requirements that the Collection ... be used for art education in Nashville and the South.")

In my most recent post on the subject, I asked:  "Wasn't it also part of her intent that Fisk own the works?  After all, she could have given them to anyone, but she chose Fisk.  Why do we assume the no sale part of her intent is more important than the Fisk part of her intent?"  The brief says "the simple fact is O'Keeffe intended for the Collection to be displayed at Fisk" and "O'Keeffe's choice of Fisk to display the Collection was part of her intent.  For Fisk to display the Collection, it must exist" (emphasis added).

They also take on the AG's argument that allowing the Crystal Bridges deal to go through "will chill charitable giving."  First, they point out that the AG's "own expert witness testified that museums do not now accept gifts with no-sale conditions on them"; he apparently testified that "there are two trends in art now," one of which is that "we don't promise ... that something will be kept in perpetuity."  And second, they argue that "if there is anything that would chill charitable giving, it is watching an institution that had been hand-picked by a charitable donor ... stripped of its charitable gift ... so that the gift can be handed off to someone of [the Attorney General's] choosing."

UPDATE:  Here's a link to the brief, courtesy of Lee Rosenbaum.

Authenticating Banksys

It's complicated.

"This seems to have been a carefully prepared swindle, we were all taken in."

"The French police force has opened an investigation into the possible forgery of early photographs."

"The idea has never gotten very far, in part due to strong opposition from charities."

The Chronicle of Philanthropy:  "President Obama on Monday proposed to limit the percentage of income that wealthy donors can write off for gifts to charity."

Twombly Tax Trouble

In Italy.  Story here.

"Exit the Deciders"

Barbara Guggenheim on what happens in a post-authentication committee world.

"Mr. Lugo’s lawyer ... has called him 'more like someone who was in the midst of a psychiatric episode' than a calculating art thief."

Wine steward/art thief Mark Lugo plead guilty to a grand larceny charge in New York this week and faces one to three years in prison when he is sentenced later this month.  His lawyer says he could be released in less than a year.  Turbo Paul calls it a slap on the wrist.

"What Reinharz does not regret is the principle that guided [the] decision."

Former Brandeis President Judah Reinharz is still repulsively defending his (failed) plan to sell some of the school's artwork:

"Reinharz was thinking about the economic security of the university’s staff ... [T]he school was facing the decision to lay off workers, ... employees who make less than $50,000 a year.  Imagine arriving home at the end of the day and saying to your spouse, Reinharz explained, 'I was fired today but it was a good day for Brandeis. Not a single painting was sold.'"

Can you believe that?  The repulsive unethicalness of it all.  What are people's livelihoods compared to the "ethical" guidelines of a voluntary organization of museum directors, Mr. Reinharz?  Don't you know there is no higher moral authority?  If they say it's wrong, it's wrong.  Who are you to question them?  I expect he will be duly sanctioned at the next AAMD meeting.