Saturday, April 05, 2014
"A recent decision in New York’s Supreme Court could cause chaos in art forgery cases."
I'm quoted in this Art Newspaper story on the (weird) authentication decision mentioned earlier here.
Friday, April 04, 2014
Thursday, April 03, 2014
"If a museum’s collection is deemed fungible, why should private donors or government agencies fund its operations?"
LA Times art critic Christopher Knight reacts to the shocking news that the Met sold off more than 3,000 objects last year.
Three thousand little units of fungibility. No wonder everyone is so upset with them!
I say we form a human circle around the building and, in one voice, just say no.
Down with fungibility!
Three thousand little units of fungibility. No wonder everyone is so upset with them!
I say we form a human circle around the building and, in one voice, just say no.
Down with fungibility!
Wednesday, April 02, 2014
Detroit Cuts Pensions Further
New York Times story here.
I checked with the spokesperson for the Deaccession Police, who issued the following statement: Not. Our. Problem.
I checked with the spokesperson for the Deaccession Police, who issued the following statement: Not. Our. Problem.
Art law in the galleries
ARCA's Catherine Sezgin on an art-law related show at the D'Amour Museum in Massachusetts.
Tuesday, April 01, 2014
Tell me again about the public trust (it's a fire sale at the Metropolitan Museum of Art edition)
Speaking of the repulsive practice of deaccessioning artworks, the NY Post notices that the Met sold more than 3,000 objects last year alone.
That's 3,000 objects that, having fallen under the aegis of a museum, were held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations.
I'm surprised it hasn't led to the dissolution of the museum.
The most interesting thing about the Post article is that we often hear from the Deaccession Police that one reason museums can't sell art is that it upsets donors, who will then be reluctant to give in the future (as I often point out, they never explain why donors don't mind when their works are sold when the proceeds are used to buy more art ... but leave that be for now). Well, the Post tracked down the great-grandson of a donor of one of the pieces the Met sold ... and he was all for it! "I would rather think of this being in a private collection or another museum where people can enjoy it," he said, "than in the basement of the Met where no one is going to see it." Imagine that.
That's 3,000 objects that, having fallen under the aegis of a museum, were held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations.
I'm surprised it hasn't led to the dissolution of the museum.
The most interesting thing about the Post article is that we often hear from the Deaccession Police that one reason museums can't sell art is that it upsets donors, who will then be reluctant to give in the future (as I often point out, they never explain why donors don't mind when their works are sold when the proceeds are used to buy more art ... but leave that be for now). Well, the Post tracked down the great-grandson of a donor of one of the pieces the Met sold ... and he was all for it! "I would rather think of this being in a private collection or another museum where people can enjoy it," he said, "than in the basement of the Met where no one is going to see it." Imagine that.
"Yes, communities benefit from famous paintings, but they also benefit from safer roads and better schools."
Cornell economist Robert H. Frank had a piece in Sunday's New York Times on Detroit and its art collection.
He urges us to look at both costs and benefits. Take Pieter Bruegel the Elder's "The Wedding Dance," which could be worth $200 million by itself. At a 6 percent interest rate (after rates "return to normal levels"), "the foregone interest on that amount would be approximately $12 million a year." If the museum is open 2,000 hours a year, "the costs of keeping the painting on display would be more than $6,000 an hour." If five people view it per hour, that's $1,200 an hour per visitor. He guesses that "most taxpayers [would] think the same money could deliver much greater value if spent in other ways."
Michael Rushton, Director of Indiana University's Arts Administration Programs, says "those firmly against DIA selling art need to be able to respond to the arguments Robert Frank makes" -- but of course they'll do no such thing. To the extent they even acknowledge the existence of his arguments (unlikely), they're more apt to call him names (repulsive Stalinist trickle down philistine) and try to figure out a way to sanction him.
He urges us to look at both costs and benefits. Take Pieter Bruegel the Elder's "The Wedding Dance," which could be worth $200 million by itself. At a 6 percent interest rate (after rates "return to normal levels"), "the foregone interest on that amount would be approximately $12 million a year." If the museum is open 2,000 hours a year, "the costs of keeping the painting on display would be more than $6,000 an hour." If five people view it per hour, that's $1,200 an hour per visitor. He guesses that "most taxpayers [would] think the same money could deliver much greater value if spent in other ways."
Michael Rushton, Director of Indiana University's Arts Administration Programs, says "those firmly against DIA selling art need to be able to respond to the arguments Robert Frank makes" -- but of course they'll do no such thing. To the extent they even acknowledge the existence of his arguments (unlikely), they're more apt to call him names (repulsive Stalinist trickle down philistine) and try to figure out a way to sanction him.
"Proponents of the bill believe that it is necessary to incentivize experts to continue to authenticate works in light of the chilling effect of recent litigation."
Frankfurt Kurnit summarizes the proposed NY legislation protecting "authenticators," mentioned earlier here.
Via Sergio Munoz Sarmiento, who wonders if the bill "give[s] authenticators too much power?"
Via Sergio Munoz Sarmiento, who wonders if the bill "give[s] authenticators too much power?"
"But Mr. Parsons said Mr. Loeb ... faces 'an uphill battle' to show the pill actually puts him at a disadvantage."
The Wall Street Journal has the latest on Daniel Loeb's poison pill lawsuit against Sotheby's.
Should "assisting the truly needy be the central focus of the charitable contribution deduction"?
The Nonprofit Law Prof Blog thinks so.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
How to be ethical in the art world
In two easy steps.
Step one: when the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts sells a $40 million Hopper in order to buy a bunch of contemporary art, say nothing. Relax. No reason to be so touchy.
Step two: when the Delaware Art Museum announces plans to sell $30 million worth of art in order to keep from closing, get out the pitchforks. Act as outraged as possible. Rend garments. And most of all: PUNISH THEM.
A little thing called ethics, my friends. Get with the program.
Step one: when the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts sells a $40 million Hopper in order to buy a bunch of contemporary art, say nothing. Relax. No reason to be so touchy.
Step two: when the Delaware Art Museum announces plans to sell $30 million worth of art in order to keep from closing, get out the pitchforks. Act as outraged as possible. Rend garments. And most of all: PUNISH THEM.
A little thing called ethics, my friends. Get with the program.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Release the hounds!
Randy Kennedy in the NYT: Delaware Art Museum Will Sell Works to Pay Off Debt.
How dare they!? Repulsive Stalinesque scoundrels. Have they no decency? Why can't they just fail quietly and go home?
I assume they will be sanctioned and sanctioned good. This cannot stand.
How dare they!? Repulsive Stalinesque scoundrels. Have they no decency? Why can't they just fail quietly and go home?
I assume they will be sanctioned and sanctioned good. This cannot stand.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Prince-Cariou Settlement
As anyone who is interested enough in art law to be reading this blog must know by now, the long-running Prince-Cariou fair use lawsuit has settled. Terms were not disclosed. Here is Randy Kennedy. Here is Brian Boucher. Here is Julia Halperin.
My take on this is that, after all the drama, we still have no idea what's fair use and what isn't and that's just a fact.
My take on this is that, after all the drama, we still have no idea what's fair use and what isn't and that's just a fact.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Monday, March 10, 2014
Hand-wringers gonna wring
The Art Market Monitor takes on the latest art world "ethical" controversy: works being loaned to museums ... and then later sold. Says the Monitor:
"Why this trend should be considered a bad thing... is not clear. The unstated premise seems to be that art gaining value because it has been recognized by curators is a bad thing. But isn’t that what the market needs to see more of? ... [W]ould it be a terrible thing for the public and the art historical establishment to have collectors eager to make loans, even becoming solicitous of curators?"
"Why this trend should be considered a bad thing... is not clear. The unstated premise seems to be that art gaining value because it has been recognized by curators is a bad thing. But isn’t that what the market needs to see more of? ... [W]ould it be a terrible thing for the public and the art historical establishment to have collectors eager to make loans, even becoming solicitous of curators?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)