"All we really have is our word"

New Mexico's KRQE reports that "a woman who sold two paintings to an Albuquerque art dealer-appraiser for $4,500 later auctioned for $661,000 won a cash settlement in court this week after alleging she had been defrauded." That's a slightly misleading way of putting it: it makes it sound as if the dealer-appraiser bought them at $4,500 and turned around and re-sold them for the $661,000, when, in fact, according to the story, he sold them for $35,000, and they then "passed hands two more times" and eventually sold at auction for the larger figure. The seller sued for fraud and negligence, and the jury "returned a split verdict .... [The dealer-appraiser] was cleared of fraud but found to be negligent and ordered to pay [the seller] nearly $15,000."

"The question is simply why there’s such anger"

An "honest question" from the Art Market Monitor for "the vocal opponents of deaccessioning." (The subject this time is Robin Pogrebin's recent NYT piece on "turnkey" museum exhibitions organized by corporations. Judith Dobrzynski, Ed Winkleman, and Derek Fincham all commented on the story earlier in the week.)

More on the Peters Gallery Lawsuit

Josh Baer gets a statement from the Gerald Peters Gallery on the lawsuit mentioned here: "This lawsuit appears to be grounded in nothing more than buyers remorse, likely brought about by the economic downturn. Neither the facts nor the law support the claims made. The facts will demonstrate the gallery acted properly." Josh says "this seems like an easy case - either there is a record of an agreement allowing Waitt to rescind/take on approval works or not" (this overlooks the possibility, I think, of a contract having been formed through a course of dealing between the parties), but thinks what's really needed is "a strong arbitration process run by the Art Dealers Association that collectors (or dealers) could take complaints to."

Found (but maybe never lost)

Yesterday, Derek Fincham flagged a story that a Picasso painting "which was looted by an Iraqi soldier during the 1990 invasion of Kuwait has been recovered by Iraqi security forces." Today comes news that maybe it's not a Picasso after all: "The painting has a tag on the back with several misspellings that says it was sold by 'the louvre' to 'the museum of kuwait,' with the words Louvre and Kuwait in lower case. There are also several stamps bearing the name of the Louvre Museum in Paris. But an official with the Louvre Museum said it has never had a Picasso in its collection and does not sell its works because they are government property. ... The London-based Art Loss Registry said it has no record of any paintings missing from the Kuwait National Museum, and no record of this particular painting as missing at all."

No Nudes at the Met

A 26-year-old model was arrested yesterday after posing naked for a photo shoot in the arms and armor room of the Met. She was charged with two crimes: endangering the welfare of a minor and public lewdness. The photographer, Zach Hyman, has not been charged. Full story in the LA Times. The NY Post's coverage, with photos and video, is here.

Let the Wild Rumpus Begin!

The Iowa City Press-Citizen reports that "the University of Iowa has established an envisioning committee to consider options for the future of the UI Museum of Art, the university announced Tuesday."

Derek Fincham sums up the state of play: "So, we have a situation where it is not possible to return the works to the original, flood-prone museum; and paying for a new museum will be difficult."

And he has a thought: "One thing I think the committee should consider is selling a few of the works to another public institution, and using the funds raised to keep much of the art at UI."

How dare he! Perish the thought! Philistine! Repulsive! Stalinesque!

I have a headache already.

"Ruling is a setback for sports artist"

The Tuscaloosa News has the latest in Daniel Moore's lawsuit with the University of Alabama, now in its fifth year and on its fifth judge.

"I won’t let anyone treat me like this" (UPDATED)

Bloomberg has more on the lawsuit by Moscow dealer Gary Tatintsian against Luhring Augustine Gallery, mentioned last week here.

UPDATE: Some thoughts on the story from the Art Market Monitor: "Nobody likes to be treated like they’re second in line."

"Ye gods, man, you're accused of what, making a million and a half bucks by ripping off who, a bunch of nuns?"

In the Maine Antique Digest, David Hewett has the latest twist in the story of the nuns and their $2 million Bouguereau, mentioned earlier here and here.

Wildenstein Dismissal Affirmed

Back in Sept. 2007, I mentioned the dismissal of a state court lawsuit against Guy Wildenstein. The Appellate Division has now affirmed, but, interestingly, two judges wrote separate dissents.

The case concerns an appraisal Wildenstein wrote and which the plaintiff claims overstated the value of the work. The majority affirmed the dismissal because there was no "basis for connecting [the plaintiff] to Wildenstein": "There is no allegation or evidence that Wildenstein even knew of [plaintiff's] existence (by name or anonymously) or that [plaintiff] or any other person would rely upon his opinion to buy the painting."

One dissenter agreed that the claims at law (fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, etc.) failed, but thought the equitable claim for unjust enrichment should survive: "There is no requirement that the aggrieved party be in privity with the party enriched at his or her expense."

The other dissenter thought the whole complaint should be reinstated: "Since the record does not establish what the relationships of any of the parties were, or what was known or unknown by any of them, the need for discovery is evident, and the motion to dismiss should be denied."

You can read the opinions here.

"Bartering may be the answer to bail us out of our current crisis" (UPDATED)

Lindsay Pollock points to a "no money art show" this weekend in Chelsea -- Art4Barter. The press release explains: "No works shall be sold for money but rather for services and goods. The exact service or good that the artist requires will be on the label next to their art. For example, if an artist were to ask for dental work or other medical procedures in exchange for their art, or for a studio to work in, etc., it will give the community an opportunity to barter for those items that are missing from the artists' lives."

I would add just a word of warning.

UPDATE: Economist Michael Rushton points out that there was a similar exhibition in Philadelphia in March. A Philadelphia Inquirer story at the time quoted him as follows:

"I see it as not an awfully important thing. The barter in modern times is a bit of a gimmick, really. It's a fairly ineffective way to go about your business. The electrician always had the option of going to an art fair and a gallery and looking for things. . . . All you've done is made things more difficult for obtaining the services."

Rose Update

Brandeis student newspaper The Justice has more on the transfer earlier this month of the Rose lawsuit from the Massachusetts Supreme Court to the (less supreme) probate court.

The University's lawyer, former Massachusetts AG Thomas Reilly, is quoted as saying:

"The Rose Art Museum is open. The plaintiffs were claiming that it's closed; that's simply not true. They were claiming that [there] was a sale of paintings that was imminent; that's simply not true. So there are serious misrepresentations in the complaint, but the bottom line is the Court wouldn't take their case and didn't take their case."

One of the plaintiffs, Jonathan Lee, chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, "said in an interview that he was not displeased with the court's decision to transfer the case" (one wonders why he bothered filing the suit in the Supreme Court then in the first place).

A case management conference is scheduled for Sept. 1.

Barnes Doc

This year's New York Film Festival lineup includes The Art of the Steal: "Bound to be controversial, this thought-provoking documentary explores the travails of the legendary Barnes collection of art masterworks and the foundation set up to protect it [and] raises vital questions about public vs. private 'ownership' of art." Sept. 29, 9:15 pm.

As old as the Eden tree

Lots of stories about fakes in the news lately.

Derek Fincham points to a story in ARTnews "on the slew of Russian avant-garde paintings which were alleged to be fake." One expert is quoted as saying: "There are more fakes than genuine pictures."

Fom the AP: "German police have confiscated hundreds of bronze and plaster statues alleged to be the works of Alberto Giacometti and arrested an art dealer and two others on suspicion of selling the fakes across the globe."

An art dealer in San Francisco has been indicted by a federal grand jury on fraud charges "for allegedly selling fake Joan Miro prints."

The New Mexico state attorney general’s office "entered into a consent decree with Golden Bear Trading Inc. of Santa Fe over selling fake Indian art work."

The Art Newspaper's Jason Edward Kaufman reports that "a collection of Frida Kahlo oil paintings, diaries and archival material that is the subject of a book to be published by Princeton Architectural Press on November 1 has been denounced by scholars as a cache of fakes."

The Guardian's Jonathan Jones says "the fear of fakes does far more harm than forgery itself. This terror that comes with the pride of thinking you know something about art corrodes pleasure, cripples the imagination, blinds you to what might be beautiful. Art is riddled with forgeries, misattributions and dodgy restorations. ... The kind of scholarship that does not add to the excitement of art, but instead makes people terrified that what they are seeing might be inauthentic, is arrogant and destructive."

ARTINFO's Yael Friedman asks: "Why are individuals of means, often extraordinarily savvy in their other financial dealings, so vulnerable when it comes to the acquisition of art? What is it about art that causes buyers to take such leaps of faith, often only to discover that simple research could have easily uncovered any snags or malfeasance?"

"A large number of art attackers appear to be several sandwiches short of the full picnic"

Inspired by "the recent assault on the Mona Lisa with the unlikely weapon of a teacup," Bloomberg's Martin Gayford asks: "Why do people attack art?"

On some legal issues surrounding art vandalism, see here.

"The case is still something of a mystery"

Soon-to-be movie-star Richard Lacayo on the 98th anniversary of The Great Mona Lisa Heist.

The Stealth Brodsky Bill

Lee Rosenbaum reports that the NY State Board of Regents has released its Proposed Permanent Amendment to its deaccessioning rules. Lee summarizes:

"This amendment ... would prohibit use of deaccession proceeds for operating expenses, payment of outstanding debt, or capital expenses (other than those for historic buildings designated as part of an institution's collection). Proceeds cannot be used as loan collateral, and 'collections shall not be capitalized' (i.e., listed as assets on an institution's balance sheet). They can be used only for the acquisition, preservaton, protection or care of collections."

Lee thinks these rules are even "more stringent than the deaccession guidelines of the [AAMD]," but I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that the exception for "refinement of collections" puts us exactly where the AAMD rules are: sales to buy more art are fine; sales for any other purpose you can think of are not.

Lee is of course thrilled: "I believe that government oversight ... is needed now more than ever, as the temptation to monetize collections for a quick fix becomes increasingly hard to resist. I've lost confidence in the ability of the field to regulate itself. It's time to call in the reinforcements." Cornell's Peter Hirtle offers some thoughts here. My own views on this issue should be pretty clear by now.

Public comments on the proposal are due Sept. 25. The Regents will vote on it at their meeting on Oct. 19-20. If they are adopted, the effective date of the new rules will be Nov. 12.

One interesting feature of this whole debate is that, while it's the Brodsky Bill that gets all the attention, with the exception of the few institutions not chartered by the Board of Regents, these regulations achieve the same effect, but in a much quieter way.

You can read the proposed amendment here. The full text of the current version of the regulations (see §3.27) is here.

Dealer Defamation Suit

Private dealer Paul Rusconi is suing actress Claire Forlani for defamation: "On July 27 of this year, Forlani allegedly ... sent out a mass email claiming Rusconi was selling art work that he knew had been forged 'and that he routinely defrauded his clients by vastly overcharging for the works he sold to them.'"

Rusconi is represented by Kaye Scholer, and seeks "at leat $25 million" in damages.

No Less Than Three

Artnet News notes that Josh Baer might have to start a new newsletter devoted just to legal news:

"His Aug. 18 issue, for instance, featured items on no less than three legal actions: a dispute involving Gateway Computer founder Norman Waitt over some paintings he acquired from Gerald Peters Gallery; a lawsuit by Moscow dealer Gary Tatintsian against Luhring Augustine Gallery over the sale of a dozen George Condo paintings for $4.5 million; and a $5-million suit filed against Christie’s by Georges Marciano and Beverly Hills Antiques accusing the auction house of negligence in the transport of a collection of 400 artworks."

"How could this happen to Annie Leibovitz?"

The Atlantic Wire has a roundup of commentary on the Annie Leibovitz mess.