"There was an opportunity to make collecting art something that everyone can do"

Online art gallery 20x200 has raised more than $825,000 in venture financing. New York Times story here.

"The issue highlights for me the futility of the entire regulatory process"

Peter Hirtle on the latest on deaccessioning from the NY Board of Regents:

"The Board of Regents and Education Department should stop trying to micromanage cultural institutions in the state and instead simply require that the governing boards of those institutions operate according to best professional practice and with the mission of the institution in mind."

"To 'Warholize' someone else's photo ... doesn't fall within an existing category of fair use"

Prompted by the latest in the Shepard Fairey-AP lawsuit, Columbia lawprof Tim Wu presents Fair Use 101 over at slate.com. It's useful overview, but, as I've said before, I don't think anyone has any idea whether Fairey's poster was a fair use. Take a look at Wu's piece and see if you disagree.

"The idea that I would steal from myself is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard"

The LA Times: "Richard L. Weisman, the noted art collector who made news recently when he decided to forgo a multimillion-dollar insurance policy for stolen art, had some critical words for the LAPD detectives investigating his case. 'Maybe if they would do their job … and spent some time looking for the art instead of being accusatory of the person who had it stolen, they might actually find it,' Weisman said."

"Fairey now seems to have committed himself to a version of events that could be taken to suggest he didn't spend much time on the poster"

Richard Lacayo on the latest twist in the Shepard Fairey-AP lawsuit:

"By claiming to have forgotten at first which photo he had worked from, did Fairey undercut his case in his own suit against AP? Fairey argues that he transformed the original image sufficiently to qualify for fair use protection .... But if the transformative process didn't leave enough of an impression on him for him to recall what picture he was working from, how transformative could it be? How long did it actually take? A few minutes? A few days? Surely if you work with a photo for a few days you remember it. But if the changes you made to the image only took a few easily forgotten minutes, or even an hour, then does that really qualify as a transformation?"

Putting the public back in "public trust"

An interesting approach to deaccessioning at University College London.

"Lawsuit against sports artist nears end"

Adam (Not Pacman) Jones of the Tuscaloosa News on the University of Alabama’s lawsuit against sports artist Daniel Moore.

File Under "Careful-What-You-Wish-For"

Lee Rosenbaum complains that revised (temporary) anti-deaccessioning rules from the NY Board of Regents are too restrictive.

The Fairey Latest

Daryl Lang of Photo District News has a good roundup of Shepard Fairey-AP lawsuit developments. The AP says Fairey "has now concocted another story." Fairey says the AP is "diverting the debate from the central question in this case, which is whether he transformed the Mannie Garcia image into a work of art, which he has."

"Is the corpse's former intent all we care about?"

I missed this post on the Barnes by Peter Friedman last week:

"Barnes’ original bequest might have forbidden the move, but the result of his restriction, 60 years after his death, was the closing off of a multi-billion dollar collection of art to the wider public, strife between the Foundation and its neighbors, and a threat to the very existence of the Foundation itself. Isn’t it at least arguable that satisfying much of Barnes’ obvious intent — precisely how the art is housed and shown — while making it accessible to the world in a location where it is welcome is a reasonable effort to accommodate what he would have wanted? And isn’t it appropriate that we have institutions like courts to decide [between] that reasonable argument [and] the opposing one (Barnes stated in his bequest the collection should never be moved, so it should never be moved, even if there are circumstances now that he did not anticipate and we could not predict his reaction to)?"

AP-Fairey News (UPDATED 2X)

The New York Times: "Lawyers for the visual artist who created the famous 'Hope' poster of Barack Obama have acknowledged that he lied about which photograph he based the poster on and that he fabricated evidence in an effort to bolster his lawsuit against The Associated Press, according to a statement released by The A.P. on Friday night" (emphasis added).

The AP's general counsel also says "Fairey’s counsel informed the AP that they intended to seek the Court's permission to withdraw as counsel for Fairey."

Remember that in their answer to Fairey's complaint, the AP argued that he "deliberately misrepresent[ed] the source of the Infringing Works in [the] Complaint" in a "misguided effort to argue that Fairey made more substantial changes to the photograph ... than he actually did." Related post here.

As Bruce Boyden said way back in February, when this issue first came up, "it just plain looks bad to have a misstatement like this in the complaint."

UPDATE: Boyden reacts here: "It looks even worse if you destroy evidence to cover it up. And it looks even worse than that if you manufacture evidence. All for very little benefit. Fairey’s behavior here reminds me of insider trading cases where some billionaire risks prison in order to avoid a loss of $20,000. It’s also too bad for us copyright professors who were interested in the doctrinal issues here. I can’t see this case going much farther, and even if it does, the chances we’ll get a clean holding on fair use, copyrightability, or substantial similarity seem thin."

Ann Althouse says: "The copyright issue itself should remain the same, and it's an important one indeed. It's a damned shame that the banner for expansive fair use is being carried by someone who was dishonest and who tried to play the legal system. Why is he admitting his deception now? Presumably, he knew the manipulations would come to light one way or the other, and it was a strategic decision to reveal it this way."

Jim Johnson: "I still think that Fairey - without the lies - might well have won the fair use case .... After all, it was not even clear that [the AP] controlled rights to the relevant image, since it was taken by a free-lance photographer. Maybe Fairey thought some bluster might keep the whole mess out of court. Who knows? The lesson? Don't try this at home. I suspect, and HOPE, that the judge in this case will throw the book at Fairey for his shenanigans."

Daryl Lang of Photo District News: "Fairey’s admission resolves one of the strangest elements in the suit. Despite obvious evidence to the contrary, Fairey repeatedly cited the wrong AP photo as the one he used ...."

UPDATE 2: Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento: "Aside from the fact that he only strengthened the image of artists as clowns and buffoons in the eyes of judges and lawyers, Fairey’s recent actions could earn him serious consequences."

Very carefully?

Time: "How Do Experts Authenticate Art?"

ARCA News

ARCA has started a new monthly newsletter. Sign up here.

"However attorneys representing the two sides disagree on the details"

Still not clear exactly what happened at yesterday's hearing in the Rose lawsuit. Greg Cook is on the case.

"... a gesture that acknowledges that this collection has moved, been shifted like a tectonic plate and thrust into a new future — of whatever kind"

Time's Richard Lacayo weighs in on the new Barnes design.

You mean deaccessioned works don't go in the shredder?

Lee Rosenbaum has another horror story involving a deaccessioned work, this one sold by the National Academy in 1994.

"These guys are still fighting!"

Rebecca Tushnet continues to do heroic work tracking the Renoir Wars. The latest: plaintiff's application for $340,000 in legal fees was denied. Says Tushnet: "Any bets on whether plaintiff will appeal? Any estimates on total cost of this litigation to the parties--merely an order of magnitude greater than the damages, or two orders?"

NPR on Finding Frida Kahlo

Paddy Johnson gives us the Cliffs Notes version of a recent KCRW piece on what she calls "the so-called new Frida-Kahlos." Her bottom line: "I suppose my deepest annoyance with this story is that it embodies the kind of false myths that create art world controversy where there is none. Resting one’s case on the fallacy of experts 'who haven’t seen the work in person' isn’t an argument for its legitimacy. It’s an argument meant to discredit the expert. But what kind of specialist flies to examine obviously fake documents? It’s like accusing an Anne Frank expert of malpractice for failing to fly to Germany to examine the long lost chapter about her iPod. There’s no point."

"The 'hottest' online art gallery in the world"

The Independent on the new Interpol stolen art database.

"The wilful Dr. Barnes has only himself to blame"

Witold Rybczynski in Slate.com:

"He had an excellent eye and a sharp mind, but unlike other private collectors who founded their own museums—Isabella Stewart Gardner, J. P. Morgan, Duncan Phillips—he was not a good institution builder. As a result, only 50 years after his death, the Barnes stood at the brink of insolvency. It was saved only by the intervention of the Philadelphia establishment ..., on the understanding that the collection, whose worth is estimated at more than $6 billion, would be moved to new premises in the city's museum district."

Philadelphia Inquirer culture reporter Stephan Salisbury told a similar story last week -- the Barnes was saved, not stolen.

Rose Lawsuit Update

A cryptic little report in the Boston Globe on yesterday's hearing on Brandeis's motion to dismiss the Rose lawsuit. The headline is "Brandeis agrees to delay sale of artwork," and the article notes that the motion was denied -- but then it goes on to say that "the university agreed it would not sell any of the artwork donated by the plaintiffs" (as opposed to all artwork at the museum) and "to give the attorney general a 30-day notice and an opportunity for review if it decides to sell any artwork donated by others" (which is something it would probably want to do in any event).

Warhol Theft Update

A development in last month's high-profile Los Angeles Warhol theft. The Seattle Times reports that the collector has canceled his $25 million insurance claim for the 10 pieces. He "realizes some people might view it as strange for him to walk away from so much money. But, he says, he simply couldn't stand the thought of insurance investigators poring through his personal records and interrogating his family and friends before he stood any chance of collecting."

"There have been untruthful and inconsistent statements presented to us by Mr. Amadio"

The Boston Globe has the latest twist in the (alleged) Pebble Beach art theft: "Investigators, who previously identified the alleged victims, Dr. Ralph Kennaugh and Angelo Benjamin Amadio, as suspects in the theft are considering the possibility the doctor was a victim of Amadio, a spokesman for the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office said yesterday."

The Art Market Monitor says that seems "unlikely": "Given what is known about the art, the theft and the behavior of the victims, it would seem logical to conclude that this was a fairly straightforward burglary that gained dimension in the telling and re-telling. We’re left with a stalemate as a face-saving measure."

Mark Durney sees a teachable moment.

"This is a tremendous thing the community has done tonight"

The Blanden Memorial Art Museum deaccessioning went forward this weekend. More than 300 pieces were sold. Judith Dobrzynski summarized the surrounding controversy.

Bonfire of the Vanity

As a follow up to Peter Friedman's excellent response below, here's a question for the folks who are outrageously outraged by the move of the Barnes (and I hasten to add that I thought the Barnes should stay put):

What if Barnes's Will had provided that the works were to be exhibited in Merion for exactly 50 years -- and then were to be burned in a big bonfire?

Should we honor donor intent in that case?

Or can we agree that sometimes the public interest trumps the donor's intent?

(The Art Market Monitor has been asking a version of this question for some time now.)

"How confident are you that Barnes intended his collection to stay where it was come what may, hell or highwater?"

In the comments to a post by Peter Friedman discussed here, Barnes-move-protester -- and one of the main talking heads in The Art of the Steal -- Nick Tinari says Friedman's "view of the law is naive at best." Friedman responds:

"I guess you want an utterly rigid interpretation, entirely void of context, of words written by a guy who died 60 years ago to control what’s to be done with several billion dollars worth of art even if that means serious restrictions on access to the art.

"Me? I’ll take a pragmatic solution that preserves a heck of a lot of Barnes’ stated desires, takes into account the interests of art lovers, the public, the neighbors of the Barnes Foundation, and the fact that it really isn’t entirely clear what the guy would’ve intended under present circumstances.

"And did I mention that the guy has maintained almost exclusive control from the grave of several billion dollars worth of the world’s culture that he’d keep people away from during his life by denying their requests to see the art with letters signed by his dog?"

"Meet the new Barnes Foundation museum, just like the old Barnes"

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board is thrilled with the new Barnes design:

"In a substantially larger building ..., the paintings of Renoir, Cézanne, Matisse, and other masters will be accessible to millions of visitors. That would be impossible at the Barnes' leafy suburban location, where visitors were limited by court orders resulting from battles with neighbors over traffic concerns.

"Since it was the Barnes' isolation that helped trigger money woes that led museum leaders to explore moving, the city location should bode well for the museum as a going concern.

" . . . At the same time, there is no mistaking the aim of architects Tod Williams and Billie Tsien to re-create Albert C. Barnes' former mansion. That's in keeping with pledges to preserve the unique artwork displays dictated by Barnes . . . .

"Will the design silence critics of the move, who objected to a Montgomery County judge's ruling in favor of a more flexible interpretation of Barnes' bequest? That's probably asking too much. But the plan's obvious respect for Barnes' legacy - for his idiosyncratic view of how art should be displayed and appreciated - should reassure supporters of the move."

Astor Guilty Verdict

Brooke Astor's son was convicted of stealing from her this afternoon. NYT story here. He was found guilty of 14 of the 16 counts against him. One of the two he was not found guilty of was a grand larceny charge stemming from the sale of a Childe Hassam painting.

"So why steal [art] at all?"

The National examines the question.

Cleveland Wins

The probate court has granted the Cleveland Museum of Art's request for deviation from the terms of four funds designated for the purchase of art.

This should come as no surprise. For background, see here and here.

Orphan Works Program

The Art Law and Copyright and Literary Property Committees of the New York City Bar Association, together with Columbia Law School's Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts, are presenting a program entitled "Lost and Found: A Practical Look at Orphan Works," Oct. 20, 6-8pm, at the Bar Association, 42 West 44th Street. Details here.

"This whole thing stinks"

The New York Times: "The sheriff’s office of Monterey County, Calif., said that a reported theft of millions of dollars’ worth of artworks from a home in Pebble Beach appears to be a scam perpetrated by the alleged victims."

You can watch the sheriff's press conference here.

Greg Allen asks "did I call it or what?" (He called it.)

"The forces leading to [the move] are far more human, contradictory, and mundane than any Manichean conspiracy theory would have it"

The Philadelphia Inquirer's excellent Stephan Salisbury has a piece in today's paper taking on the Barnes conspiracy theorists:

"Ultimately, it was Lincoln [University]'s control, not greedy city elites, that led to the fateful 1990 decision to install prominent attorney Richard Glanton as foundation president, which launched the series of events leading to the Parkway move. . . .

"By the late 1990s Glanton was out and the foundation was bleeding money. The trust indenture barred most investments; Glanton's litigious excesses took a spectacular toll on the dwindling endowment. The Barnes ... cast a wide net seeking solutions.

"Beginning in the Glanton era, when financial issues began to press sharply, casual talk of a possible move to Philadelphia ... was discussed by many interested parties. In early 2001, [Raymond] Perelman, then chair of the [Philadelphia] art museum, openly speculated about it in the New York Times and The Inquirer, as did former Mayor Ed Rendell - now Pennsylvania's governor - and others.

"That political and cultural leaders welcomed the notion of the Barnes in Philadelphia was no secret at all, and three major foundations, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Lenfest and Annenberg foundations, ultimately devised a plan to make it happen. Their proposal was announced in September 2002.

"Virtually simultaneously, the state legislature authorized use of up to $107 million in capital funds for move-related construction - if the state money ever became available, and if state lawmakers decided to spend any of it.

"At the time of the authorization, no Barnes move had been approved by the courts. But then again, no money was appropriated. The authorization/appropriation distinction seems lost on those whose criticism of supposedly secret funding has supplied grist for the conspiracy mill.

"Yet it was Barnes himself who set the highly restrictive terms of the trust indenture; who incorporated no penalties for the foundation should trustees violate the indenture's terms; who failed to resolve tension between a supposedly public facility and exclusionary admissions practices; who staffed the board and foundation with apostles to ensure his will in perpetuity.

"Instead, for nearly 20 years the Barnes has been the subject of rancorous dispute and litigation, leading to what some would call farce and others, tragedy. No conspiracy has been necessary."

"The architecture is that good" (UPDATED)

More from Philadelphia Inquirer architecture critic Inga Saffron on the new Barnes design:

"What has happened to the Barnes is a tragedy, and as with all tragedies, many deserve blame: the neighbors, Lower Merion Township, Lincoln University, the Barnes' management under Richard Glanton. Together this unlikely cabal drove the Barnes into insolvency, necessitating a rescue from Philadelphia's philanthropists.

"Is it any wonder that, when those donors agreed to bail out the Barnes, for the better part of $200 million, they demanded to call the shots?

"Shipping the entire collection to Philadelphia wasn't the only way to save the Barnes. But it was the way chosen by the people paying the freight. The public pay-off is that four times as many people - some 250,000 visitors a year are projected - will see the art because the gallery's hours will no longer be restricted.

"To their credit, the donors - the Pew, Annenberg and Lenfest foundations - recognize that the Barnes is greater than the sum of its paintings. The collection derives its power from the unusual, some might say nutty, system that Barnes devised for hanging paintings in the '20s. That arrangement will be replicated exactly in the Philadelphia galleries, with the notable exception of Matisse's 'Joy of Life,' which will be hung in its own alcove."

UPDATE: A different view from NYT architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff:

"[T]he biggest problem with the design is not the fault of the architects: it has to do with the public the museum will serve. Part of the beauty of the Barnes Foundation is that it is so far removed from the tourist economy that drives major cities today. To get to it, visitors have to make an appointment, then take a train or a car to Merion, a half-hour from Philadelphia. These steps put you in a certain frame of mind by the time you arrive: they build anticipation and demand a certain commitment. They also serve as a kind of screening system, discouraging the kind of visitors who are just looking for a way to kill time.

"The new Barnes is after a different kind of audience. Although museum officials say that the existing limits on crowd size will be kept (albeit with extended hours), it is clearly meant to draw bigger numbers and more tourist dollars. For most visitors the relationship to the art will feel less immediate.

"And this, alas, is a problem no architect could have solved."

Amazing Stories

The LAT's Mike Boehm has an update on Steven Spielberg's stolen Rockwell, which I last wrote about, more than two years ago, here. Boehm reports that the case (between the owner at the time the work was stolen in 1973 and the dealer who sold it to Spielberg in 1989) is scheduled to go to trial, in federal court in Las Vegas, in January.

Thieves!

"The Barnes Foundation's new Philadelphia home will be a gracious, golden-hued temple - modern in style, yet almost classical in its repose - set in a tree-shrouded enclave on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, according to documents that officials submitted to the Philadelphia Art Commission on Friday."

On purity

The Deaccessioning Blog points to an article in the Brandeis Hoot on the university's budget problems and sums it up:

"Possible solutions: dipping into its reserve fund, but that would only take the university through 2013. The other alternative: 'the sale of artwork from the Rose Art Museum.' According to The Hoot, even if Brandeis increases enrollment by 400 students (impacting class size and professorial teaching loads) and lays off 35 staff members, Brandeis will still face a budget gap."

This is another illustration of a point I've made here before, which is that it's all well and good to oppose the sale of art -- no one wants to see the art sold -- but anti-deaccessioning absolutists should acknowledge that there are costs to that stance. You can't sell the art and you can't raise admission fees and you can't move to Philadelphia. But something has to give.

So maybe you eliminate the volleyball team (or perhaps all athletic programs).

Or do you drop the philosophy department?

Or do a bunch of people lose their jobs?

Or maybe you close the museum another day each week.

Now it may be that keeping that 220th Eakins you have in storage is more important than any of those things. I'm not arguing here that it's not. I'm merely suggesting that you can't really evaluate whether a sale is justified until you fully come to grips with the costs of not selling.

"On death’s door, the victim of a financial shortfall"

The Claremont Museum of Art is closing.

"No one in their right mind brings a collection like that to a private home without security"

San Jose Mercury News columnist Scott Herold takes note of the art world's "odd reaction" to the Pebble Beach theft: "In my reporting, I've detected skepticism about aspects of the crime, particularly about the lack of insurance and the finding of a ransom note a few days after sheriff's deputies combed through the house."

Among those he talked to is Art Theft Central's Mark Durney, who says "says the experts he's talked with see a number of curious aspects to the case":

"Durney points out that it's unusual, though not inconceivable, that a collection worth as much as $80 million would have been as little known as this one was. He also notes that the Pollock ... has never been put up for auction or public sale, so it's hard to judge its value. And last, he joins ex-FBI agent McShane in noting that it wouldn't make sense for collectors of this caliber to go without insurance, particularly when they are moving art."

Greg Allen has some further thoughts (see also here).

Heade-less

The St. Augustine Record has an update on this summer's deaccessioning by the St. Augustine Historical Society, mentioned earlier here.

"If arming guards is too hotly contested a solution, then what can be done to thwart violent art thefts?"

Art Theft Central's Mark Durney considers the question: "One solution may lie in police response time .... In every art theft case mentioned in this post, the armed thieves easily escaped the scene of the crime. If the police had been able to respond quicker, then the thieves' getaways may have been spoiled. Would it be feasible for museum security directors to coordinate with local police to have a greater officer presence in the neighborhood during the hours when the institution is most vulnerable to theft (opening/lunch/closing times)? Hopefully, this would shorten response time and also be a deterrent to potential thieves."

"Nine years after the Barnes Foundation stunned the art world with a high-risk proposal to escape its litigious Merion neighbors ..."

"... by moving its renowned collection of Impressionist art to Philadelphia, it is getting ready to reveal its most closely guarded secret: what its new home will look like."

Philadelphia Inquirer architecture critic Inga Saffron previews this Wednesday's presentation to the Philadelphia Art Commission:

"People in art and architectural circles have been especially keen to know how the designers would resolve the challenging problem of re-creating the Barnes' distinctive gallery experience in a modern building in an urban setting. The sequence of the Barnes' Merion galleries and the arrangement for hanging the artwork have long been considered nearly as important as the artwork itself. They reflect the theories that the patent-medicine mogul Albert Barnes developed in the 1920s as he amassed the world's greatest assemblage of works by Cezanne, Matisse, and Renoir. Barnes considered the 'hang,' as museum experts call it, so fundamental that he stipulated in his will ... that the artwork could never be reorganized or moved. The foundation's battles with its Merion neighbors and the resulting financial insolvency caused the Barnes to reassess that clause. When foundation officials petitioned Montgomery County Orphans Court in 2004 to break Barnes' will and move the collection to Philadelphia, they did, however, promise to replicate the Merion building's floor plan and the hanging scheme."

"Every thing about the Pebble Beach heist is fishy or inconsistent or hilariously a lie"

So says Greg Allen.

"My immediate goal is that this auction be stopped"

A challenge to a planned deaccessioning by the Blanden Art Museum in Iowa. A local philanthropist isn't happy with how the sale is going down:

"That conviction centers on one specific thing: the absence of a list of items to be sold. When [the philanthropist] asked to see one, he reportedly was rebuffed. 'Miss Skove [the museum's Director] refused to tell me what was going to be sold,' he said. Skove responded Thursday: 'There is a list. It's 371 items exactly.' She said there is no reason to publish a list of the items being sold because her experience and education - she has a master's degree in art history - qualify her to make the culling decisions. 'The list will not be published before the auction,' she said."

"Then there's the snobbery problem" (UPDATED)

Benjamin Mercer on the "suprising[ly]" "uncomfortable" Q&A following Tuesday night's showing of The Art of the Steal at the New York Film Festival:

"But about halfway through the Q&A, many [in the audience] began to express their displeasure with the film. They saw a measure of condescension to, perhaps even contempt for, the museumgoing public in the film, which features a talking head referring to a Barnes Foundation relocated more centrally to Philadelphia as a 'McBarnes,' and another chastising a young man who spent only an hour amid the masterworks at the foundation once it was opened to the public."

And Howard Feinstein concedes that "the topic is so compelling," but says "formally, the film is nothing."

UPDATE: More on the "vibrant" Q&A from indieWIRE's Brian Brooks: "'If you want to be spoonfed your art, then that’s fine,' said executive producer Lenny Feinberg. 'But there’s something to be said about understanding and viewing art on a higher level.'"

Obscene

The New York Times: "The Richard Prince exhibition 'Spiritual America,' which was planned to open Thursday at the Tate Modern museum in London, was withdrawn Wednesday, following a warning from Scotland Yard that its inclusion of a nude photograph of Brooke Shields taken when she was 10 years could violate obscenity laws."

"Pebble Beach Theft Gets Weirder"

The Art Market Monitor has the details. A ransom note and death threats are involved. (Background here.)

4.62 miles

As I mentioned below, I got a chance, thanks to Friend of the Barnes Evelyn Yaari, to see The Art of the Steal last night at the New York Film Festival. I was pretty disappointed. It's basically a piece of agit-prop; it makes no effort to provide any sort of balance. (I guess I should have been tipped off by the title. No matter what you think of the decision, in what sense were the Barnes works "stolen"? The movie keeps emphasizing that they are moving less than five miles away. Shouldn't it have been called The Art of the Move a Few Miles Up the Road?) I'm sure there will be lots to say about this as it goes out into wider distribution, but for now some initial thoughts:

1. As I've mentioned before, to my mind one of the overarching lessons of the story is the perils of anti-deaccessioning absolutism. The movie mentions that the Barnes art is worth between $25-30 billion. Whether you think the financial troubles at the Barnes were (a) the cause or (b) the pretext for the move (or, if you prefer, theft), those troubles could have been forever solved by the sale of a tiny fraction of the works (without ever going anywhere near the core masterpieces of the collection). Now, if you're going to stick to your position that museums can never sell art (except to buy more art), then you've got to at least accept the possibility that something worse might happen as a result. That's exactly what happened here. Would you rather have 99.whatever percent of the collection in its original location? Or 100% of the collection in a new location?

2. The movie never really grapples with the public-private issue. A number of the talking heads, including Julian Bond, emphasize that it was Dr. Barnes's work so he could do whatever he wanted with it (including limiting the number of days the collection was open to the public, and the number of permitted visitors). But aren't we always told that great works like these are "held in the public trust"? Doesn't it matter at all that many more people will get to see the works in their new location? I'm not saying that the public interest necessarily trumps Dr. Barnes's intent, but it's a difficult question which, as I say, the film just glides over.

3. There's another tension that I think undermines the whole narrative of the film (and all other Barnes-related conspiracy theories). On the one hand, we're told that the Philadelphia Establishment (cue Darth Vader music, boo, hiss) made no bones about its desire to get its hands on the Barnes Collection from just about the moment it opened. But then, any time any objective evidence of that desire is discovered (whether it's a line item in the city budget in 2002, or a reference in a tax filing by the Pew Charitable Trust, or a conversation involving Governor Rendell in the mid-90s), we're supposed to see it as establishing some kind of secret conspiracy to snatch the collection. We know the powers-that-be wanted to move the Barnes to Philadelphia because they succeeded in moving it. So why bother with all the conspiracy theories? (But see again point 1 above. If it weren't for the Barnes's constant financial troubles, their evil plot to bring the collection to a wider audience could not have succeeded.) I discussed the "secret" budget-appropriation and Pew tax-filing points a couple of years ago here.

I'll stop there for now, and also recommend Richard Lacayo's five-part series on the subject (start here) and Julia Klein's piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

Charitable Deductions Update

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that the Baucus bill includes a 35 percent cap on charitable deductions by wealthy taxpayers (defined as individuals earning $200,000 and families earning $250,000):

"That is less drastic than the 28-percent limit proposed by President Obama. But a coalition of nonprofit leaders this week sent a letter to Mr. Baucus opposing the amendments, saying they would create a disincentive for charity’s biggest donors during a 'tough charitable giving environment.'

"'Charitable organizations are dealing with enormous financial challenges stemming from the economic downturn,' says the September 21 letter, which was signed by representatives of 14 groups including the American Association of Museums ...."

Fake Kahlos?

The New York Times had more yesterday on the group of disputed Frida Kahlo works mentioned earlier here:

"Last week the Mexican government trust that controls the copyright to Kahlo’s work filed a criminal complaint against [the works' owner], a measure aimed at investigating the works. The trust is also investigating legal recourse in the United States to halt sale of [a book published by Princeton Architectural Press about the works]."

David Nishimura says: "Just from reading the article, it's obvious that the 'discovery' is an audacious but incompetent exercise is fakery -- yet the writeup is pitched as if there is a real debate about the material's authenticity."

"A clear case of injustice ends in victory for free speech"

The Buffalo News on the end of "the four-year ordeal of artist and University at Buffalo professor Steven Kurtz."

"What Cha-gall!"

That's the lede to this New York Post story on a state court lawsuit by collector Joy Glass against art dealer Lyn Segal:

"The painting came with a certificate of authenticity from the Comité Chagall -- a French group recognized as the ultimate authority on Chagall's works. But in January 2009, the group told Glass that both the painting and certificate were fake, the suit said."

Joyce Settlement

Law.com reports that "the estate of author James Joyce has agreed to pay $240,000 in legal costs incurred by a Stanford University scholar following a fair use legal battle." Aided by the Stanford Law School Fair Use Project, the scholar -- Carol Shloss -- had brought an unusual "copyright misuse" action against the estate, which settled, but she then was awarded $326,000 in legal fees as the prevailing party.

The Fair Use Project's Anthony Falzone reacts here.

Another Art Theft

I mentioned the $27 million Pebble Beach art theft below. The Edmonton Sun reports on a much smaller, and less complicated, theft from a Toronto gallery:

"The art rustlers threw a rock through the front window of Gallery Gevik just after 1:30 a.m., picked up the three paintings -- worth as much as $60,000 -- and fled the ritzy downtown neighbourhood before the cavalry arrived in response to the security alarm that was set off."

Mark Durney: "Because this theft appears to be so basic, it would not surprise me to find that an individual from the Toronto area stole the paintings to simply pay for his own 'fix.'"

And We're Back

I've been busy atoning for my sins ("and for the sin of considering even the possibility of selling a work of art to keep a museum from closing its doors . . .") and seeing The Art of the Steal at the New York Film Festival (more on that later) and fallen a little behind, so let's start catching up on some news from the last few days, starting with a major art theft in Pebble Beach: paintings and drawings, valued at more than $27 million, from the home of a retired Harvard Medical School professor.

The Art Market Monitor thinks the story "contradicts much of what the experts tell us about art thefts, which is that they are primarily crimes of opportunity, not the work of criminal masterminds with shopping lists composed by secretive billionaires." David Nishimura says "it all sounds awfully fishy."

And Derek Fincham wonders: "Why all these [recent] thefts? Is it a product of the economic downturn? Or are thieves hoping to gain some of these lucrative rewards?"

Reinharz Resigning (UPDATED)

Brandeis president Jehuda Reinharz is resigning at the end of the current academic year. The Boston Globe has the story here. The Globe says Reinharz "dismissed suggestions that he is resigning under pressure arising from the [Rose] museum controversy," but adds:

"Controversy over the museum erupted in January, when university officials announced plans to close its art museum and auction parts of its $350 million collection amid heavy investment losses and declining fund-raising. Facing withering criticism from faculty, alumni, and the art and philanthropic worlds, the university quickly pulled back, and Reinharz apologized, saying he 'screwed up.'"

UPDATE: Felix Salmon isn't buying the line that this has nothing to do with the Rose mess: "There’s certainly nothing in Reinharz’s stated reasons for his resignation ('It is now time for me to enter the next chapter of my professional life') which explains what has changed since a year ago, when Reinharz signed [a new] five-year contract."

"The man then pointed a gun at the museum attendant while an accomplice went inside" (UPDATED 3X)

The NYT on a brazen morning theft of a Magritte from a Brussels museum today.

UPDATE: Richard Lacayo: "The Art Loss Register estimates the value of the paining at $1.1 million, though it's effective value right now is zero, because stolen paintings by famous names are almost impossible to sell, as the thieves will soon discover."

UPDATE 2: Once again, Derek Fincham takes us through the options. Loosely translated, they are basically: (1) the Dr. No scenario; (2) the thieves are pretty stupid; (3) a ransom play; and (4) the thieves are smarter than we think.

UPDATE 3: Mark Durney: "This art theft raises the question of whether or not museum gallery officers should be armed."

Back to Cleveland

Lawprof -- and native Clevelander -- Peter Friedman seconds my take on the Cleveland Museum matter:

"The CMA has used the doctrine of deviation in the past in a responsible way, and there’s no reason to think, given the obvious need even its critics acknowledge, that if it convinces the court to allow it, that the decision would be a precedent for museums everywhere suddenly to act irresponsibly. Nor should we make rules that don’t permit courts to look at individual cases and grant relief from restrictions that are no longer serving any useful purpose just because we’re afraid someone may try to get away with fooling a court into letting them act irresponsibly. As Zaretsky points out, those who fear that allowing the CMA to be released from the restrictions imposed on its use of certain funds because circumstances demand it would create a bad precedent are blind to the fact that the rules that allow precisely that have been around and worked well for a long time."

Rose Report Reax

More reaction to the Future of the Rose Committee report.

The NYT's Randy Kennedy pulls out some choice bits, including:

"The committee ... added that [the Rose], 'like many of its fellow university museums, has been oriented too much towards the art world, and not enough towards the academy' and should become more integrated into the university’s educational mission"; and

"As for selling the works, the group wrote that it assumed that whatever decision the university made regarding such sales, there would 'remain a substantial collection of art to be preserved and made available for research, study, and cultivation.'"

Time's Richard Lacayo: "You have to wonder whether the recent upswing in the stock market — if it continues — may make the whole problem go away. Brandeis first announced the museum closing in late January, when the Dow was bobbling around in the 7000s .... This month it's nudging 10,000 again. ... Meanwhile the art market is still not exactly robust, so it remains a poor time to sell. Maybe everybody should just take a deep breath and wait to see whether and by how much the market continues to improve."

And the LAT's Christopher Knight: "The university's administration had long since backtracked on quick implementation of the cataclysmic scheme, approved by trustees last January following a precipitous drop in the school's endowment funds. ... Now, the Brandeis administration's handpicked committee charged with thinking hard about the future of the Rose has essentially put the backtrack in writing. Imagine my surprise."

Kahlo Criminal Investigation

The New York Times reports that Mexican prosecutors are "investigating an assertion that more than 1,000 items attributed to the artist Frida Kahlo ... are forgeries." I mentioned this dispute in this roundup over the summer.

WE DEMAND THAT YOU NOT CLOSE THE MUSEUM YOU ARE NOT CLOSING

The Future of the Rose Committee has issued its final report. The report is here. Boston Globe story here. People seem disappointed that the report takes no position on the potential sale of art, but, in its interim report this spring, the committee made it very clear that it would offer no opinion on that issue.

One of the report's two "central recommendations" is that "the Rose Art Museum remain the Rose Art Museum. It should remain what it is and what it has been since its beginnings: a university art museum open to the public." It recommends that the university "communicate as loudly, clearly, as often, and in as many ways as possible that the Rose is not closing" (emphasis added). It says "the Provost's interim staffing announcement on April 17, 2009 affirmed the University's intention to maintain the Rose as a museum open to the public" and that "other University announcements have reaffirmed this commitment" (my emphases again).

Not everyone's gotten the message, however. As we've seen, there is a lawsuit out there seeking an "Order declaring that Brandeis may not close the Rose Art Museum."

Art of the Steal Deal

North American rights to "The Art of the Steal" have been acquired by Rainbow Media.

"Shouldn't these works be made available to people all over the world who want to see them?"

Writing about The Art of the Steal, the Toronto Star's Martin Knelman puts himself "squarely on the side of the bad guys":

"The audience may enjoy buying into the one-sided account offered in the film, which seduces us by offering a kind of Frank Capra melodrama in which money-grubbing philistines defeat pure-hearted art lovers who wish to honour the memory of Barnes (who died in a car crash in 1951). And so we are presented with a nasty group of Philadelphia power brokers ganging up to snatch the paintings away from the true followers of the Barnes vision in Merion. I might have been seduced by this version of events had I not had a chance to see the Barnes Collection at its original home in Merion last year. My conclusion: In Merion there are so many obstacles that only a tiny portion of the people who would enjoy this experience can do so. A major flaw of the movie is that it doesn't give a fair presentation of the very strong case for the move to downtown Philadelphia – where, incidentally, the conditions of the Merion site will be exactly recreated, so that the paintings will hang just the way Barnes specified. In my view, it's entirely plausible that some of the people involved in orchestrating the move are tainted by the Philly cultural world's history of back-room deals, influence peddling and dirty tricks. Perhaps you could even say that Philadelphia's super-rich, too used to getting their way, trample on anyone who dares to get in their way. Nevertheless, in the case of the Barnes collection, moving it downtown is the only solution that makes sense. The residents of Merion don't want hordes of visitors who bring traffic and parking problems. The upshot: access is so limited that most give up trying to get in. Instead of being savoured only by privileged local residents, teachers and former students of Barnes, shouldn't these works be made available to people all over the world who want to see them?"

Philadelphia Inquirer movie critic Stephen Rea, on the other hand, says the filmmaker makes "a persuasive case" that a "circle of Philadelphia movers and shakers ... orchestrated the Barnes' move from leafy Latchs Lane to new digs just blocks from the Philadelphia Museum of Art" (though he does add that the "film also touches on an inherent problem with the Friends of the Barnes' keep-it-in-Merion movement - namely, that after years of the Barnes' being a jewel-box museum with a severely restrictive admissions policy, its doors were opened in an effort to raise much-needed cash. Tour buses and cars started rolling up and down the street, and the neighbors were not pleased. In some ways, the NIMBY-ism of Merion residents served as a catalyst to decamp the Barnes").

O'Keeffe Appeal

Lee Rosenbaum breaks the news that the O'Keeffe Museum is appealing the Tennessee Court of Appeals decision that it lacked standing to participate in the proceedings involving Fisk University's O'Keeffe Collection.

Hello Cleveland!

Eric Gibson had an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about the Cleveland Museum of Art's request for court permission to use certain acquisition-restricted funds for non-acquisition purposes (namely, to help complete its renovation/expansion).

He's generally sympathetic to the museum's position -- "Clearly the museum has to do something. Nobody could have anticipated the events of a year ago, and [the museum's director] and his colleagues make a compelling case that the museum has to move forward with its expansion plan rather than mark time" -- but he suggests an alternative solution:

"If these restricted funds are, indeed, the museum's only financing option, then treat them like an individual's 401k, a resource that can be tapped only under specific conditions, but can be borrowed from on occasion. In other words, the museum should announce that while it would still use the interest income from these restricted funds for ... its expansion plan, it would agree to repay that money over a set period of time once the building program was complete."

I want to focus on a different point, however. Gibson worries about "the precedent this could set": he says "you only have to look at how museums have played fast and loose with the deaccessioning rules over the past several years despite AAMD's restrictions to worry about what they might do if given an opening to finesse the rules governing restricted endowments" (my emphasis).

But the museum's actions here don't "give" anyone an opening. That opening already exists, and always has. The doctrine of deviation, upon which the museum relies, has been around forever. If the court grants the museum's application, it won't be creating an opening that other museums will then come rushing through, but allowing it to pass through an opening that was always there.

In fact, as I mentioned in an earlier post, an Ohio probate court already found that income from three of the four funds at issue in this case could be used to fund a previous expansion by the museum. So the "opening to finesse the rules" has existed for this very museum with respect to these very funds for more than 50 years. It seems safe to say they haven't exactly been abusing the privilege. Once again, the people who run our nation's museums are not naughty schoolchildren who need to be penned in by simple, black-and-white rules.

Lee Rosenbaum makes a similar point (similar to Gibson's, not to mine). "Cleveland's actions," she says, "unchecked, would set a dangerous precedent that could have a negative impact on future benefactions, just when museums need help the most." But again: Cleveland is not setting a precedent here, it's following one. Given the existence of the doctrine of deviation, no donor -- in any context -- can ever know with certainty that the terms of their gift will never be altered. Yet donations somehow continue to happen.

Consider, in this connection, the four funds involved in the Cleveland case. As I mentioned above, the probate court ruled in 1955 that income from three of those funds could be used to help complete an expansion of the museum. Among the museum trustees who (according to the museum's current board chairman) "encouraged the museum to go forward with its suit to use acquisition funds for the expansion" was one Leonard Hanna.

The donor of the fourth fund at issue in the current case? Leonard Hanna.

Museum Director Charged

Newsday reports: "The former director of Long Island University's Hillwood Museum was arraigned on charges of stealing ancient Egyptian artifacts and lying to an FBI agent Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Central Islip." The Post goes with the headline: "LI's Pharaoh 'Phraudster.'"

"Who Keeps Stealing Bernie Madoff’s Art?"

New York magazine has some ideas.

Cut

The City of Long Beach followed through on its threat to cut funding of the Long Beach Museum of Art because of city "officials’ ire at having to pay off a $3.06-million bond that museum leaders had promised years ago to cover, but then failed to when their fund-raising campaign fizzled." The LAT's Mike Boehm has the story. The museum's director says "he now expects to enter negotiations with city administrators over the funding cut; the museum foundation’s operating agreement allows for 90 days of talks if funding is in dispute. If the sides can’t agree, the museum foundation has the right to end the agreement, which extends to 2025, take the 1,600 items it privately owns from the 3,000-piece collection, and leave the city to run what’s left of the museum on its own."

Art Theft and Rewards

Mark Durney offers some thoughts.

Barnes Syllabus

Michael Rushton provides a list of readings to enrich your viewing experience of The Art of the Steal.

Can't Stand It

On my first review of the Rose suit against Brandeis, I said the issue of standing was "certainly going to be another problem for the plaintiffs ..., and perhaps a fatal one":

"In general, the enforcement of gifts to charities lies with the attorney general of the state in which the charity is located. 'Based on the traditional rule that enforcement of charitable trusts is reserved to the attorney general, donors and heirs of donors usually are denied standing to sue for the enforcement of such trusts. Having made a gift for the benefit of the public, a donor is viewed as having no stronger claim to that gift than any other member of the public' (Marie Malaro, A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections, p. 26)."

Jack Siegel had a similar take.

Today, the Brandeis Justice's Alana Abramson reports that Brandeis has moved to dismiss on precisely those grounds. I had a chance to look at the motion papers, and the argument is very straightforward. "Time and again, Massachusetts courts and the Legislature have rejected the notion that donors or their heirs have standing ... to enforce their vision of how a charitable organization should operate. The authority to supervise charities in this way is reserved exclusively to the Attorney General." The plaintiffs here have "no standing to represent the public interest" or "the presumed wishes of other donors." At most, if they have any standing at all, "it is limited to contract-like claims with respect to their individual gifts" (p. 8).

Expanding a bit on the latter point, the university says that "donors may have rights ... to seek a return of their gifts, but this right is quite different from the power reserved to the Attorney General. A donor's reversionary right to his gift exists, if at all, for his particular gift. It does not entitle the donor to insert himself into the governance of the charity" (p. 11).

Strictly speaking, the motion does not (at this point) seek dismissal of the entire complaint. Instead, it requests dismissal of all claims "except insofar as they allege claims with respect to [these four plaintiffs'] own individual gifts" (p. 20). But as a practical matter, the granting of the motion would mean the end of the claims seeking to prevent the "closing" of the Rose and the sale of "any artwork."

"Why is preserving every single object ever entrusted to it a higher priority than keeping the museum open?" (UPDATED)

Massachusetts attorney Mark Gold (who also has a master's in museum studies from Harvard) has a piece in the Sept.-Oct. issue of Museum magazine entitled "Nothing Ethical About It." The "it" in question is the "ethical rule adopted by AAM in 1991 [that] limits the use of proceeds from deaccessioning to acquisitions and the direct care of the collection." The piece is not online, but is worth seeking out. An excerpt:

"The role of the museums as stewards of our cultural and historical legacy is undisputed and deserves the great respect it enjoys. But a balancing of priorities is in order -- placing the viability of the museum and its programs on at least an equal footing with the collection. Why not make it ethical for a museum to weigh priorities and make difficult choices without fear of condemnation and ostracism?"

UPDATE: The piece is now online. See here.

Long Beach Latest

The LAT's Mike Boehm has the latest on the Long Beach Museum of Art bond saga. The museum's facing a $400,000 cut in city funding for failing to pay off a $3 million bond the city says it promised to pay. "Whether the museum can sustain a $400,000 cut without having to lay off employees and close a second day a week could depend on whether donors are able to ramp up their gifts to offset the loss, Ronald Nelson, the museum's executive director, said today."

Wildflowers Oral Argument

Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento has a report on the oral arguments in the Chapman Kelley VARA appeal in the Seventh Circuit. You can listen here. Sergio says "they're a bit lengthy but promising to Kelley."

For background, see here and here.

"The film is sharp in every way, from the crisp visuals to the brisk editing and lively musical backgrounding"

"The Art of the Steal" gets a nice review in Variety.

The Art Market Monitor points out that "there remains a fundamental conflict between the emphasis on art as being held in the public trust and honoring donor intent." Indeed. Suppose I donate a painting to a museum and expressly stipulate that it is my intent that the work be exhibited for exactly 10 years and then sold, and that I further intend that the sales proceeds be used to (as the anti-deaccessionists like to say) "pay the electric bills." What then? Is the intent of the donor enough to trump the public trust? (Not a very robust conception of the public trust then, is it?) Not to mention that the Barnes Collection will remain in the public trust (and, if you measure by the number of people who will get to see it, will be even more in the public trust than it was before).

Of course, as I've argued before, a little bit of deaccessioning (just a smidgen, really) could have saved the Barnes.

"Is Batson a Chagall charlatan and a Picasso purloiner, or is there another explanation?"

ARTINFO.com reports on a lawsuit against a Florida dealer.

"Why not let the market work?"

IP lawyer Ben Sheffner on Shepard Fairey v. the AP:

"I'm still clinging to my tentative conclusion that whatever Fairey copied was the unprotectable 'fact' of Obama's face (which of course would render the fair use analysis unnecessary). But I think this is a hard case, and I remain persuadable. ... [C]opyright in photographs presents some very difficult conceptual questions of how to separate idea and fact from expression. See, e.g., the Ninth Circuit's two opinions in Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, here and here. It may seem anomalous, but I think Fairey is actually on stronger ground with an 'I didn't copy protectable expression' argument than with a fair use defense. Assuming arguendo that he did copy the AP's (or Garcia's) protectable expression, I'm not terribly sympathetic with a fair use argument here. Yes, he added to the political discourse. But that's not an unlimited license to infringe. There's a vibrant market for licensing AP photos, and (though I may have missed it), I haven't read anything suggesting that the AP (or Garcia) wouldn't have granted Fairey a license at a reasonable price. This is not an example of criticism or parody, where the copyright owner wouldn't grant a license for mockery of his work at any price. Why not let the market work?"

More on the Warhol Theft

Carol Vogel and Solomon Moore have more in today's New York Times on last week's Los Angeles Warhol theft. The collector is offering a $1 million reward for information leading to the paintings' recovery. They quote Tobias Meyer of Sotheby’s as saying: "Stealing Warhols is a very bad idea. The art world has become so transparent, and all these works are so traceable, ultimately they become an untradeable asset."

Noah Charney thinks the works were probably stolen for the reward money:

"The most probable outcome of this situation is that a 'well-meaning' informant will call in a lead that will bring police to the stolen art. Once the art is recovered, the good samaritan will be paid the reward. Likely in cases such as this, the call that leads to the recovery of the art will come from a colleague of the thieves. The reward will therefore be distributed among the thieves via the informant. For a few hours’ legwork, the thieves will have stolen art, abandoned it, had a colleague call in the location to the police, retrieve the reward, and pocket it."

"Richard Love, a charismatic art dealer with a prominent Michigan Avenue gallery, has been sued before"

"But the past two years have yielded a half-dozen lawsuits totaling at least $3 million that paint a picture of a man who reneges on promises, fails to make payments and stonewalls owners of artwork entrusted to him to sell."

"Look around and you see galleries struggling, museums cutting staff, universities reducing art resources and nonprofits treading water"

Holland Cotter refers to "Brandeis University’s disgraceful effort to dismantle its Rose Art Museum" and "the recent threat by the University of California, Los Angeles, to close its art library" and asks:

"What can universities be thinking? They exist to support and protect exactly what their museums are doing: shaping the history of the future. If they shut down such training facilities, they shut down the future. If they shut down the future, they violate their mission. And when they do that, my wish list turns into a demands lists, with one thing nonnegotiable: stop."

He also says "if you want to find innovative models for small-scale shows with big ideas, teaching institutions are still the place to look, particularly university art museums. This is where spadework research is being done, and where young curators are learning to create, experimentally, visions of history through objects."

And my question, with respect to the Brandeis situation, is the same one I had when Cotter made a similar point back in February: why can't this be true of the new, "re-purposed" Rose? Why can't it be a place for small-scale shows with big ideas, a place where spadework research is done, and where young curators learn to create visions of history through objects?

"This was a very clean crime. For some reason they had an interest in this collection" (UPDATED 2X)

The New York Times reports that "a multimillion-dollar collection of artwork by Andy Warhol was stolen from the home of a wealthy art collector in West Los Angeles last week." There were "several other valuable works of art" in the home, but "none of those were disturbed," according to the police.

UPDATE: More from Art Theft Central.

UPDATE 2: Derek Fincham runs through the possibilities. Judith Dobrzynski has some background on the victimized collector.

Leibovitz Settlement (UPDATED)

Annie Leibovitz and Art Capital Group have resolved their dispute. The Art Market Monitor explains what happened.

UPDATE: Interesting point from Jim Johnson: "The editors at The Times finally have filed this story in the Arts section. This is a tale about the political economy of the photo industry and how treacherous that terrain can be. But the Arts and artists hardly stand aloof from such pressures and it is sheer ideology to present the world as though they do."

"The entire work is about loss and memory"

The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum has a new exhibit up that takes as its subject the infamous 1990 theft there. You can read about it here. Gardner Heist author Ulrich Boser offers some thoughts here.

Roerich Arrest

The second stolen Roerich painting has been recovered, and a Brooklyn couple arrested after trying to sell it to an undercover police officer. The New York Post has the story here. New York magazine: "When Trying to Sell Your Stolen Painting, Leave Out the ‘Stolen’ Part." As they say, the easy part is stealing it; the hard part is selling it.

"Guaranteed to upset more than a few people on both sides of the Barnes battle"

Philadelphia Inquirer film critic Stephen Rea from the Toronto Film Festival:

"Of particular interest to Philadelphia-area residents, and art lovers the world over, is Don Argott's The Art of the Steal, a conspiracy theory-documentary about the Barnes collection and its controversial move from Merion to a new site on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. ... It presents a strong case that a 'cabal' of Philadelphia power brokers past and present - including John Street, Ed Rendell, billionaire Raymond Perelman, the Pew Charitable Trusts' Rebecca Rimel, and the late publishing magnate Walter Annenberg - strategized to defy the last will and testament of billionaire collector Albert C. Barnes, ultimately succeeding in wresting hundreds of Cezannes, Matisses, Picassos, Renoirs, and van Goghs from the eccentric physician-turned-art educator's Foundation headquarters on leafy Latchs Lane to a new spot just blocks from the Philadelphia Museum of Art."

"Navigating the Deaccessioning Crisis"

Speaking of Derek Fincham, he's posted a working manuscript of his soon to be published law review article on deaccessioning. Here's his summary:

"My proposal has three parts. First, the unnecessary restriction on deaccession proceeds should be eliminated. Second, when an important work of art is deaccessioned, other museums should be given an opportunity to purchase a work - to keep it in the public trust or its region - in much the same way the United Kingdom and other nations regulate the export of works of art. Finally, when any museum is considering a deaccession, it must provide reasons for the sale and publicize the decision to allow for public comment."

Sounds good to me! I look forward to reading the larger piece.

"The Southampton City Council has decided to sell parts of its permanent collection"

Derek Fincham discusses a case of deaccessioning in the UK. He says "if we were to apply the current rules of the AAMD to this sale, the sale would be perfectly acceptable would it not? These works do not fall within the scope of Southampton's collection." I don't think that's right. Apparently the sales proceeds will be used to help "construct a £15m maritime museum commemorating the sinking of the Titanic." Remember, under the AAMD approach, there is only one thing you can do with the proceeds from sales of art (buy more art); you can't go and build a Titanic-commemorating museum. What's more, from an AAMD point of view, it doesn't matter whether the works "fall within the scope of the collection" or not. You can sell work that falls right square in the middle of your collection and that's okay, just so long as you use the proceeds to buy art. But if you want to use the proceeds for any other purpose, that's forbidden, even if the work no longer falls within the scope of the collection.

A Closer Look at the Leibovitz-Lavazza Lawsuit

From Daryl Lang at Photo District News.

A Long Beach Question

Felix Salmon wonders why the Long Beach Museum of Art would run the risk of losing half a million dollars a year in operating support from the city by failing to repay the $3 million loan the city says it owes:

"I find that hard to understand: it should just take the $569,000 and use some fraction of it to pay off the $3 million over time, spending the rest on art and programming. Or is there some good reason why the museum’s implied discount rate is so incredibly high (over 18%)?"

"It hopes its existence will prove a 'crucial step' in the fight against the flourishing illegal trade" (UPDATED)

The Guardian has more on the Interpol online stolen art database.

UPDATE: Art Theft Central's Mark Durney takes it for a spin.

Rose Update

In the Brandeis Justice, Alana Abramson has the latest on the Rose lawsuit. There was a case management conference on Sept. 1. It's on a fairly fast track. The university will be filing a motion to dismiss by Sept. 15; the plaintiffs will be moving for a preliminary injunction by the same date. Opposition papers are due Oct. 6, with a hearing scheduled for Oct. 13.

One of the plaintiffs tells Abramson: "The University is using the line of attack that we don't care about the University, just the esoteric art collection. We are trying to save this piece of Brandeis because it's a crown jewel."

The university's lawyer counters: "It's unfortunate that Brandeis can find itself in a situation that it may have to sell art, but it is doing so for the right reasons. That is the essential truth of this case."

Another Leibovitz Lawsuit

Italian photographer Paolo Pizzetti has sued Annie Leibovitz for copyright infringement in federal court in New York, alleging that she used his work without permission in an ad campaign she did for Lavazza coffee. BBC News story here.

Long Beach Update

Interesting twist in the Long Beach Museum of Art story mentioned earlier in the summer here. Back in June, it was reported that "in 1999, the [museum] launched a campaign to obtain funds for construction of a new two-story exhibition pavilion" and, "under the [1999] agreement, the city promised to accept liability for the bond debt if the foundation could not pay it off." But, reported the LAT's Mike Boehm Friday:

"as museum director Ronald Nelson mulled over what to do a couple of months ago, he researched the original bond agreement that both parties had assumed laid full responsibility for repayment on the museum foundation -- and says he found the actual language says otherwise. The documents, Nelson says, put the onus on the city to make good on the bonds should the museum's fundraising fail -- and say nothing about the museum foundation having to pay the city back. Given the legalities of the situation, Nelson says, to make any repayment on the bonds now would be a misappropriation of museum funds."

Boehm had a follow-up story in yesterdays' paper. It seems the city agrees "the museum legally was not required to pay back the bond," but they believe the museum promised to do so regardless of what's in the contract. As a result, Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster "has recommended eliminating the $569,000 in support the city normally would pay, noting that the cut is a consequence of the museum's refusal to pay off the bonds."

The "Stalin-esque" idea of selling art to pay off the debt seems to have been ruled out:

"Selling art 'is not a concept that's on the table,' [assistant city manager Suzanne] Frick said. 'I don't think it ever was . . . It was a comment a council member made, never a formal action or discussion.'"

More Park West

The National Law Journal reports that Park West Gallery is facing a seventh lawsuit:

"The lawsuit, filed Aug. 26 in federal court in Detroit, alleges that a Park West appraiser ... conspired with the gallery to destroy the reputation of Fine Art Registry, which is investigating the gallery for alleged deceptive practices. The appraiser is accused of posting false and 'vicious' comments about the registry in a blog."

More on Park West and Fine Art Registry here.

"The investigation into Kozlowski’s illicit activities was triggered by his art buying activities"

Former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski is back in the news. Lindsay Pollock reminds us where his troubles started.

Back in play?

For a while there, it seemed President Obama's idea to limit charitable deductions was off the table. But the Wall Street Journal reports today that "the main proposal getting renewed attention" from Senate Democrats is one to "limit the federal tax deductions for higher-income families for mortgage interest and other widely claimed purposes, said two senior Senate Democratic aides."

Cleveland Kerfuffle (UPDATED)

Lee Rosenbaum calls attention to The Cleveland Museum of Art's recent request for court permission to "use for a period years a portion of the income from two charitable trusts and two endowment funds to assist with the funding of the renovation and expansion of its facilities" (Complaint paragraph 2). Because the trusts at issue were established to fund the acquisition of art, Lee is outrageously outraged: it's "the most egregious disregard of donor intent by an art-displaying institution in recent memory." (In a follow-up BlogBack, Michael M. Thomas tells her "high horses are all very well, but sometimes can run pretty rank when one gets real.")

Steve Litt's Cleveland Plain Dealer article which broke the story mentions that "in 1955, ... the county probate court granted the museum permission to use income from art-purchase funds to build an expansion completed in 1958 (since demolished)." But it's worth noting that it wasn't just any "art-purchase funds" in that case; it was three of the four funds at issue in the current case. (The fourth didn't come into existence until after the 1955 decision.) In the earlier case, The Cleveland Museum of Art v. O'Neill (129 NE 2d 669), the court was "convinced that the settlors were persons of broad vision and that in any event they would want the Museum to prosper, to expand and to be able to carry on its work indefinitely. The Court has no hesitancy in saying that under existing circumstances they would willingly deviate from their expressed method of procedure and permit the income from the trusts to be used as prayed for in the petition."

In this case, the museum argues that the expansion project addresses the "need for additional space for the display, care, conservation and presentation of the Museum's collection," will "allow greater access to the Museum's collection, accomodate a broader range of educational activities, and provide improved amenities for the 500,000 plus visitors that come to the Museum every year." It will also "allow the Museum to display on a regular basis a far greater percentage of its outstanding collection," "replace outdated environmental and security control systems," and "allow for the continued expansion of its collection in the future."

(Lee's counterargument is that allowing this deviation "could make benefactors around the country doubt that museums can be trusted to honor their wishes" and "may well give rise to second thoughts by potential donors.")

Two other points worth emphasizing from Litt's article:

1. "The proposal wouldn't erode the value of the art purchase accounts because it would involve using only a portion of the investment income from funds -- not the principal"; and

2. The museum's request "is supported by Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, whose office supervises the two endowment funds and two charitable trusts involved, and by Key Bank, which manages the two trusts." Cordray is quoted as saying: "It doesn't do much good to buy art once you run out of space, because you're going to stick it in the basement."

UPDATE: Michael Botwinick, director of the Hudson River Museum, is with Lee: "'Taxing' endowments given for the express and specific purpose of purchasing art is not an acceptable option. The trustees must consider 'taxing' their own resources to finish the building. Failing that they must make the hard decision to suspend, delay or reduce the project, pending funding. It will be embarrassing, unpopular and uncomfortable. But they made this bed; now they must lie in it."

"Annie Leibovitz's exit strategy"

Felix Salmon examines the options.

"Few things are more alluring than the vision of a dark mind hanging on the wall"

Newsweek on "criminal art" (not work so bad there should be a law against it, but work by prisoners).

"Can the art trade do more to reform its own practices?"

Derek Fincham has more on the San Francisco dealer indicted for selling fake Miro prints, mentioned earlier here. Related thoughts from Derek here.