NYT: 2 van Gogh Paintings Stolen From Amsterdam Are Recovered in Italy.
UPDATE: Jonathan Jones: Gangsters' use of paintings as currency shows a profound belief in art.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Met lays off 34 employees (UPDATED)
Story here.
UPDATE: There's also this: "The museum also expects to reduce the number of annual exhibitions over the next few years, perhaps to 40 from 55." That's fine; just remember it's a choice.
UPDATE: There's also this: "The museum also expects to reduce the number of annual exhibitions over the next few years, perhaps to 40 from 55." That's fine; just remember it's a choice.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Michael Rushton on whether museums should provide free admission
Self-recommending (even without the interesting detour into deaccessioning).
Thursday, September 22, 2016
"Are museums for sale?"
A big thank you to the Art, Cultural Institutions and Heritage Law Committee of the International Bar Association for including me as a panelist in yesterday's session: Are museums for sale? The role of the private collector and corporate sponsor. (I was on Panel 1 -- "Will de-accessioning be the new normal?" To which my basic response was/is: isn't it already the new normal? Haven't we been told it shouldn't be such a touchy subject?)
Monday, September 19, 2016
"[Negishi] has intervened in some areas of my paintings, but the intellectual authorship of the works is mine."
Via Clancco, news of a co-authorship claim in Spain by a former studio assistant of the artist Antonio de Felipe. I don't know what the story is in Spain, but the problem with this sort of claim under U.S. law is that co-authorship requires that the parties intended to be recognized as co-authors, and that's obviously not the case in most artist-studio assistant situations.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Thursday, September 08, 2016
"Of course, I’m pleased by the verdict. But it was a horrible thing to go through.”
Peter Doig talks to The Globe and Mail about his recent trial: "It took up so much time and energy not to mention, of course, money."
He believes the "larger take-away" from the case is that "a living artist should be the first and last authenticator."
But what about the possibility that an artist might be mistaken, or dishonest?
"'Sometimes, of course, there may be an agenda' – a disputatious ex-lover, 'someone the artist had bad dealings with – and they may say, "I didn’t make that work." But that is so, so rare, I think.' Most people, Doig said, would 'just take it on the chin and say, "Yeah, I did do it."'"
Marie Dooley says the case "demonstrates that authentication, even by the living artist himself, can prove to be a costly endeavor for all parties involved." Exactly.
He believes the "larger take-away" from the case is that "a living artist should be the first and last authenticator."
But what about the possibility that an artist might be mistaken, or dishonest?
"'Sometimes, of course, there may be an agenda' – a disputatious ex-lover, 'someone the artist had bad dealings with – and they may say, "I didn’t make that work." But that is so, so rare, I think.' Most people, Doig said, would 'just take it on the chin and say, "Yeah, I did do it."'"
Marie Dooley says the case "demonstrates that authentication, even by the living artist himself, can prove to be a costly endeavor for all parties involved." Exactly.
"Art collector ... Michael Shvo has been indicted by the Manhattan District Attorney for tax evasion related to a scheme to avoid sales tax on expensive art purchases." (UPDATED)
Story here.
UPDATE: More details on the alleged scheme here. And here:
"The DA said that between 2010 and 2016, Shvo falsely told auction houses that purchases he made would be shipped to an out-of-state address in the Cayman Islands or other foreign countries, thus avoiding sales tax. Instead, they went to his offices and homes in New York state.... Two moving companies, Hedley’s Inc and Bestguy Moving, are also charged with participating in the scheme.They allegedly provided the auction houses and galleries with improper shipping documentation to conceal the delivery destinations. Shvo is even alleged to have fraudulently used New York Resale Certificates, which allow art dealers to purchase items exclusively for resale without paying tax."
UPDATE: More details on the alleged scheme here. And here:
"The DA said that between 2010 and 2016, Shvo falsely told auction houses that purchases he made would be shipped to an out-of-state address in the Cayman Islands or other foreign countries, thus avoiding sales tax. Instead, they went to his offices and homes in New York state.... Two moving companies, Hedley’s Inc and Bestguy Moving, are also charged with participating in the scheme.They allegedly provided the auction houses and galleries with improper shipping documentation to conceal the delivery destinations. Shvo is even alleged to have fraudulently used New York Resale Certificates, which allow art dealers to purchase items exclusively for resale without paying tax."
Wednesday, September 07, 2016
"Sentences handed down in high-profile case over Drouot thefts"
The Art Newspaper: "[T]he Paris Criminal Court convicted 38 of 49 defendants in a high-profile trial that opened in March over a complicated web of thefts within the [UCHV], the former art handlers’ union of the Hôtel Drouot in Paris. The group ... held a monopoly on art handling at the auction house from 1860 until 2010." Background here.
"If a living artist has to endure years of expensive litigation and a full-blown trial to defend their position on whether they authored a work of art, what hope do experts, who are usually brought in to opine on authorship once an artist has passed away and can no longer vouch for their work, have?"
Tuesday, September 06, 2016
"We might be sympathetic to a plaintiff in the case of a different set of facts."
So said Amy Adler in response to the recent Peter Doig case.
Hazel Rowland collects some examples of different sets of facts here.
Are we sympathetic?
Hazel Rowland collects some examples of different sets of facts here.
Are we sympathetic?
"It is impossible to talk about the case without making it sound ridiculous; indeed, it *is* ridiculous, as in 'an exceptionally easy target for ridicule.'"
America’s only known primatologist-turned-copyright-law-professor weighs in on the monkey selfie case:
"There are many reasons that copyright law does not and should not deem Naruto to be an 'author,' ranging from the purely practical (e.g., How do we know the monkey’s name is 'Naruto,' and that he was the one that snapped the photo? What if no human had been there to see him do so — is there still a copyright, and does he own it? Insofar as copyright in a work endures for the life of the author plus 70 years, who’s keeping track of this wild macaque’s lifespan, and how will we know when it’s over?) to the more abstract: Copyright’s fundamental rationale is that bestowing protection on works is a means of providing 'authors' with an incentive that they otherwise would not have to create those works in the first place; non-humans (and machines, for that matter) can’t be 'authors' because they won’t be and can’t be incentivized by the existence of copyright protection for their works."
"There are many reasons that copyright law does not and should not deem Naruto to be an 'author,' ranging from the purely practical (e.g., How do we know the monkey’s name is 'Naruto,' and that he was the one that snapped the photo? What if no human had been there to see him do so — is there still a copyright, and does he own it? Insofar as copyright in a work endures for the life of the author plus 70 years, who’s keeping track of this wild macaque’s lifespan, and how will we know when it’s over?) to the more abstract: Copyright’s fundamental rationale is that bestowing protection on works is a means of providing 'authors' with an incentive that they otherwise would not have to create those works in the first place; non-humans (and machines, for that matter) can’t be 'authors' because they won’t be and can’t be incentivized by the existence of copyright protection for their works."
California bans painting depicting Confederate flag from County Fair art show
The Center for Individual Rights objects. So does the LA Times editorial board.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
“[T]he move to the transformative analysis, thought by many to be the solution to fair use woes, has actually made things worse for the visual arts.”
Speaking of excellent points by Amy Adler (who by the way co-teaches the best art law seminar in the world), she has a terrific new law review article out: Fair Use and the Future of Art.
I’ve never thought the transformative test was remotely helpful either.
And one more interesting recent Adler piece here.
I’ve never thought the transformative test was remotely helpful either.
And one more interesting recent Adler piece here.
Another "what we learned from the Knoedler scandal" story
This one from Laura Gilbert in The Art Newspaper.
A previous example here.
I continue to think the answer is "not much."
A previous example here.
I continue to think the answer is "not much."
Monday, August 29, 2016
Weighing In
Artnet collects reactions to the Peter Doig case from various experts, all interesting and very much worth reading.
Amy Adler makes an excellent point here:
"[L]et’s say Doig had lied. I don’t think VARA gives you a right to disavow a work you actually created, unless it’s been significantly modified. In defense of the theory of the lawsuit, there may be circumstances where an artist does lie and could with one word wipe out $10 million of value; what recourse does an owner have under those circumstances? We might be sympathetic to a plaintiff in the case of a different set of facts."
Relatedly, there seems to be a sense, in some of these pieces and elsewhere, that the Judge in the Doig case set a bad precedent, or made life more difficult for artists going forward. I don't think that's quite right. All this case did was expose the risks to artists that were already there. Before the Doig case, an artist who denied the authenticity of his work faced the possibility of a lawsuit. After the Doig case, an artist who denies the authenticity of his work faces the possibility of a lawsuit. Nothing has changed. This was always dangerous territory, as Doig sadly found out.
Amy Adler makes an excellent point here:
"[L]et’s say Doig had lied. I don’t think VARA gives you a right to disavow a work you actually created, unless it’s been significantly modified. In defense of the theory of the lawsuit, there may be circumstances where an artist does lie and could with one word wipe out $10 million of value; what recourse does an owner have under those circumstances? We might be sympathetic to a plaintiff in the case of a different set of facts."
Relatedly, there seems to be a sense, in some of these pieces and elsewhere, that the Judge in the Doig case set a bad precedent, or made life more difficult for artists going forward. I don't think that's quite right. All this case did was expose the risks to artists that were already there. Before the Doig case, an artist who denied the authenticity of his work faced the possibility of a lawsuit. After the Doig case, an artist who denies the authenticity of his work faces the possibility of a lawsuit. Nothing has changed. This was always dangerous territory, as Doig sadly found out.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Another Richard Prince lawsuit
The Art Newspaper's Julia Halperin has the details, including that "[u]nlike the plaintiffs in the previous cases, Salazar—who posts to Instagram under the name @mynxiiwhite—is not a professional photographer. According to her website, she is a makeup artist who has toured with Kanye West and Kelly Clarkson as well as a model who has appeared on the cover of Elle Japan and Vogue Italia."
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
"As one of my former Corcoran colleagues said about the two case studies, ‘The Corcoran is dead. Delaware lives.'"
The Washington Post's Peggy McGlone had a story last week on the demise of the Corcoran Gallery: Homeless art, lost jobs and low enrollment: Two years later, Corcoran's breakup still stings.
Two years ago, when this was all going down, I asked: Did the Deaccession Police Kill the Corcoran?
It seems that's exactly what ended up happening, as Tim Schneider explains:
"I'm chiefly appalled by how the US's economically ludicrous museum standards factored in. Whether their fear was authentic or simply a smoke screen for what sounds suspiciously like an inside job, the trustees reportedly opted for this plan partly because they knew they could not sell any of the Corcoran's assets to raise money for operating expenses without being institutionally waterboarded by both the [AAM] and (although McGlone doesn't mention it) the [AAMD]. For the uninitiated, the sacred standards of these organizations decree that museum holdings can only be placed on the market to fund new acquisitions, not grubby terrestrial line items like, you know, staying solvent. Case in point: The AAM excommunicated the Delaware Art Museum in 2014 for selling select works from its collection to pay construction debts on a major architectural expansion, while the AAMD imposed major sanctions for the same supposed offense. But as Delaware's chief executive points out to McGlone, the DAM survived its exile and is now thriving. The Corcoran, on the other hand, effectively reduced itself to a zombie institution willingly serving up its limbs to scavengers. All of which underscores the American nonprofit sector's illogical orthodoxy on de-accessioning: Preserving the supposed sanctity of a museum's collection is meaningless if the institution has to die for the cause. And if you ask me, it's far more barbaric to give the public an honor killing than a museum where art and business are allowed to sensibly mix."
Well said. And speaking of Schneider, he, and friend of the blog Brian Frye, will be taking part in a panel discussion tomorrow night at WhiteBox in New York on the intersection between art, technology, and business.
Two years ago, when this was all going down, I asked: Did the Deaccession Police Kill the Corcoran?
It seems that's exactly what ended up happening, as Tim Schneider explains:
"I'm chiefly appalled by how the US's economically ludicrous museum standards factored in. Whether their fear was authentic or simply a smoke screen for what sounds suspiciously like an inside job, the trustees reportedly opted for this plan partly because they knew they could not sell any of the Corcoran's assets to raise money for operating expenses without being institutionally waterboarded by both the [AAM] and (although McGlone doesn't mention it) the [AAMD]. For the uninitiated, the sacred standards of these organizations decree that museum holdings can only be placed on the market to fund new acquisitions, not grubby terrestrial line items like, you know, staying solvent. Case in point: The AAM excommunicated the Delaware Art Museum in 2014 for selling select works from its collection to pay construction debts on a major architectural expansion, while the AAMD imposed major sanctions for the same supposed offense. But as Delaware's chief executive points out to McGlone, the DAM survived its exile and is now thriving. The Corcoran, on the other hand, effectively reduced itself to a zombie institution willingly serving up its limbs to scavengers. All of which underscores the American nonprofit sector's illogical orthodoxy on de-accessioning: Preserving the supposed sanctity of a museum's collection is meaningless if the institution has to die for the cause. And if you ask me, it's far more barbaric to give the public an honor killing than a museum where art and business are allowed to sensibly mix."
Well said. And speaking of Schneider, he, and friend of the blog Brian Frye, will be taking part in a panel discussion tomorrow night at WhiteBox in New York on the intersection between art, technology, and business.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
BREAKING: Doig Wins (UPDATED)
The New York Times: The Artist Peter Doig Wins a Case Involving a Painting's Attribution.
But of course, nobody really won here.
UPDATE: More here from artnet's Dushko Petrovich. He closes with a quote from one of Doig's dealers: "It is our hope that this verdict will have at least one good outcome—that artists maintain the unfettered right to authenticate their own work." Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case. If an artist had the unfettered right to authenticate his own work, the case would have been dismissed earlier; it would never have come to trial. Instead, what happened here is that the court treated the artist just as any third-party authenticator: the ruling was that he happened to be right about the facts in this instance (i.e., the painting was by Doige not Doig). But if he had been mistaken about that -- if he misremembered, or the status of the work was more ambiguous (say Doig had painted it while a teenager but he didn't regard it as a legitimate work) -- the outcome could have been different. So I don't think artists should be especially heartened by the decision. The case still stands as a warning that an artist who disclaims authorship of a work -- even on facts as ridiculous as these -- faces the possibility of thousands of hours of wasted working time and stress and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
But of course, nobody really won here.
UPDATE: More here from artnet's Dushko Petrovich. He closes with a quote from one of Doig's dealers: "It is our hope that this verdict will have at least one good outcome—that artists maintain the unfettered right to authenticate their own work." Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case. If an artist had the unfettered right to authenticate his own work, the case would have been dismissed earlier; it would never have come to trial. Instead, what happened here is that the court treated the artist just as any third-party authenticator: the ruling was that he happened to be right about the facts in this instance (i.e., the painting was by Doige not Doig). But if he had been mistaken about that -- if he misremembered, or the status of the work was more ambiguous (say Doig had painted it while a teenager but he didn't regard it as a legitimate work) -- the outcome could have been different. So I don't think artists should be especially heartened by the decision. The case still stands as a warning that an artist who disclaims authorship of a work -- even on facts as ridiculous as these -- faces the possibility of thousands of hours of wasted working time and stress and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)