"This action arises from a greedy, malevolent, fraudulent, bad-faith and (unfortunately) successful scheme to financially devastate the Estate and, indirectly, Belinda, by destroying the value of the Estate’s most valuable asset — Jean-Michel Basquiat’s masterpiece, ‘Flesh and Spirit.'"

The next round in a dispute over a Basquiat sold at Sotheby's last month. For round one, see here.

The painting sold for $30.7 million.  The claim seems to be that, but for the greedy, malevolent, fraudulent, bad-faith scheme, it would have sold for more.

Because we said so, that's why

I've been meaning to link to the AAMD's statement regarding their imposition of sanctions on the Berkshire Museum and the La Salle University Art Museum.

It's a really good instance of the phenomenon Michael Rushton talked about here: it just states their policy as if it's self-evident; there's no real effort made to explain why the policy makes sense.

All the work is done (to the extent any work is done) in the second paragraph:

"AAMD has a long-standing policy that restricts the use of funds obtained through deaccessioning to the acquisition of works of art. Selling art to support any need other than to build a museum’s collection fundamentally undermines the critically important relationships between museums, donors and the public. When museums violate the trust of their donors and the public, they diminish the opportunity and responsibility to make great works of art available to the public. This hurts the individual institution and affects the museum field as a whole."

The first sentence just asserts the policy.  The second sentence is the closest we get to an explanation or defense of the policy, so let's take a close look at it.  The key move, the stolen base, the sleight of hand, is the sneaky introduction of the "other than":  Selling art to support any need other than to build a museum's collection fundamentally undermines (not just undermines, fundamentally undermines).  But where does that particular "other than" come from?  Couldn't we just as easily slip anything we want in there?  Selling art to support any need other than keeping the museum from going out of business.  Selling art to support any need other than providing expanded access to the museum's collection.  Selling art to support any need other than attracting the most talented curators.  Selling art to support any need other than changing the museum's mission.  Selling art to support any need other than paying legal fees.  Why does "to build a museum's collection" get to be the only "other than"?  How did that happen?

Again, it's just what Rushton calls attention to:  what they're really saying here, in their big, public statement on this big, public matter, is:  We have a policy.  To violate that policy fundamentally undermines.  It's just circular; it's no explanation at all.  This was the best they could do?

Nor is there any explanation of how those "critically important relationships" are (fundamentally) undermined.  It's just another empty assertion.

The third sentence pivots to talking about "violating the trust" of the donors and the public -- but where did that come from?  What trust?  How is it violated when a museum sells art for one purpose but not for the big "other than" purpose?  And what if selling art in a particular case expands the opportunity to make great works of art available to the public -- again by, for example, subsidizing or eliminating admission fees, or keeping the museum open longer hours, or keeping a financially troubled museum from closing its doors for good?

Or, what about the Ellis Rule?  What if a small museum in the Berkshires sells art to a museum in Los Angeles?  Has that diminished the opportunity to make great works of art available to the public, or expanded it?  Won't more people get to see it in Los Angeles?

Are they even trying any more?

The paragraph concludes with:  "This" -- referring, I guess, to the diminishment of the opportunity and responsibility to make great works of art available to the public -- "hurts the individual institution and affects the museum field as a whole."  Yes, we mustn't do anything that could "affect" the museum field as a whole.  That's always unethical.  You never want to affect the museum field as a whole.

I've said before that they need better talking points.  But really what they need is a better policy.

"In its present form, the AAM’s deaccessioning policy hinders—rather than facilitates—access to one of America’s greatest sources of cultural capital: the art museum."

Outdated Rules Are Killing Museums—Here’s How Things Can Change.

"The day before Mr. Indiana died, Morgan Art Foundation, a company that says it has long held the rights to several of his best-known works, filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Mr. Thomas and a New York art publisher had isolated Mr. Indiana from the world and produced unauthorized or adulterated versions of his art."

Story here.

Still in the Public Trust (Part III)

The Berkshire Museum's Church is going to ... the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.

Oh the unethicality.  When will it stop?

Even better, the museum is offering Berkshire County residents, as well as Berkshire Museum members, free admission in perpetuity.  It's all so unethical.  Stalinesque, actually.

The Berkshire Museum sale is looking more and more like one big application of the Ellis Rule.

Still in the Public Trust (Part II)

The Berkshire Museum's Calder is going to ... the Calder Foundation.

Oh, it's just so unethical.

Still in the Public Trust

ARTnews:  Lucas Museum to Begin Loan of ‘Shuffleton’s Barbershop’—Painting at Center of Berkshire Museum Firestorm—to Norman Rockwell Museum in June.

The loan runs until 2020.

It's so, so awful that this painting went from that one museum to this other museum down the road and then will go to another, new museum.  That's such a totally unethical situation.

Found One

I've mentioned a couple times that, so far as I was aware, no member of the Deaccession Police had had anything negative to say about the Baltimore Museum deaccessioning (to the point that I had to post my own tongue-in-cheek version of a response).

But according to this Hyperallergic post, there was one:

"Tyler Green, the producer and host of the Modern Art Notes Podcast, tweeted his concern that the BMA was not following AAM guidelines regarding deaccessioning, writing: 'It’s by a man, so we’ll sell it even tho it’s a great artwork.'  A subsequent tweet read: 'I’d like to know where in AAM’s guidelines it says that deaccessioning motivated by gender is a best or even sanctioned practice.'"

"Instead of being decided by judges and juries, cases will be heard by arbitrators who are seasoned lawyers familiar with industry practice and issues specific to art disputes."

The Art Newspaper:  "A new body dedicated exclusively to resolving art disputes, the Court of Arbitration for Art (CAA), will be formally launched 7 June in the Hague."

"A Monkey Can’t Hold Copyright."

"But What About a Robot?"

Are dealers about to be regulated?

Eileen Kinsella reports that they might be.

Tim Schneider has some concerns:

"To be perfectly honest, I’m not that worried about whether the richest sellers have to implement some annoying bureaucratic compliance measures. For one thing, they have the resources. ... More importantly, they’re also the sellers that could realistically be used in money laundering schemes.  Neither of the above is true for most galleries and dealers. They are already stretched too thin from a staff and expenses standpoint .... Having to bolt on a heavy, federally approved monitoring arm could tip some of these struggling small businesses over into the abyss."

This is something some people have been calling for for a long time.

Guilty Plea in Chowaiki Case

One count of wire fraud.  "The prosecution and defense have agreed to ask the judge for a sentence of between four years and three months and five years and three months, which is what sentencing guidelines recommend."

The Art Market Monitor says the case "may continue to have consequences as the details and market histories of [the works involved] are better understood."

Background here.

"Collector Sues Sotheby’s to Block Basquiat Auction, Exposing Ugly Family Dispute" (UPDATED)

New York Times story here.

UPDATE:  Dismissed.

"Aspen judge issues arrest warrant for suspect in 2017 art slashing"

He's the owner of the painting's son.

"Never wear synthetic fibers while making a forgery."

Advice from Jamie Martin, profiled in the New York Times here.

"In the context of the grotesque harm that the law allows humans to inflict on numerous animals, there is something profoundly misguided—even perverse—about suing for the copyright royalties from a monkey selfie."

"Given PETA’s tendency to engage in (frequently misogynistic) publicity stunts, one cannot help but think that the point of the Naruto lawsuit—like the point of much PETA activity—was to call attention to PETA rather than to the plight of crested macaques and members of other free-living species whose habitat is threatened."

Cornell's Michael Dorf on the monkey selfie decision.

More Dorf here, on the judges' "speciesism."

A Highly Ethical Post

Since the Deaccession Police all seem to be on vacation or busy at the art fairs, I thought I would do them a favor and make the case against the Baltimore Museum's planned deaccessioning:

The museum's decision fails to consider the essential point of museum collections: once an object falls under the aegis of a museum, it is held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations.  And the public’s trust is the coin of the realm for museums.  It's also common sense.  You don't cut out the heart to cure the patient.  The director seems not to have understood his broader responsibility to care for all of the museum's assets.  Instead of selling these works, the museum should have embraced furious fundraising.  The sale also sends a terrible message to potential donors:  why wouldn't somebody say, "Why should I give this to you? What guarantee do I have that you're not going to sell this tomorrow?"

Also keep in mind that the museum's permanent collection belongs to all of us. The public has paid for these works through the tax deductions given to private donors. And those donors bestow such works on the public expecting them to be valued for their aesthetic, not financial worth. If a museum doesn’t regard a particular gift as worthy of display or study, it shouldn’t accept the gift in the first place.

There you have it.  Where do I pick up my badge?

In fairness to the museum, the other half appear to be real

NYT:  French Museum Discovers More Than Half Its Collection Is Fake.

Another VARA mural suit

This one in Pittsburgh.

Earlier this week it was Memphis.

Related.

Another Koons-Gagosian Lawsuit

This one brought by film producer Joel Silver.

No mention of ouroboros in this one, so far as I'm aware.