NYT: Private text messages entered as evidence in a legal dispute raise new questions about whether the artist fully designed his final works.
Christine Farley: "Everything about this story is sad."
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Saturday, January 19, 2019
"An artist resale royalty is fair in principle for all visual artists. It would also address lingering inequities born of racism and allow the families of artists excluded from the art market to be appropriately recompensed." (UPDATED)
Maxwell Anderson had a recent piece in The Art Newspaper arguing in favor of resale royalty legislation, which he says "is expected to be reintroduced" in the new Congress.
One of the arguments people often make against the resale royalty is that it's not necessary: that artists whose prices go significantly up reap the benefit of that when they sell their own work. Anderson points out that one group of artists that's not always true for is "historically disadvantaged artists who have been left out of the American canon of art for reasons of race, gender or other socio-economic limitations. This is especially true of the many artists who lack representation or a presence in the art market until the end of their careers or posthumously." For example: "Consider the Gee’s Bend quilters of Alabama: with no access to the gallery system, many of their artworks were purchased by Atlanta collector William S. Arnett at a time when no viable market existed for their work. … Like many artists, the value of the quilt makers’ works has increased over time. But many of the artists have either passed away or are no longer producing works, and thus an improved market came too late to benefit them in their prime. One could cite many examples of this discrepancy throughout history."
UPDATE: Brian Frye is unimpressed: "Even the best arguments in favor of statutory artist resale royalties are comically bad. Yes, it is possible to hunt up artists who didn't profit from work that later became valuable. But they deserve money because they are poor, not because they are artists."
One of the arguments people often make against the resale royalty is that it's not necessary: that artists whose prices go significantly up reap the benefit of that when they sell their own work. Anderson points out that one group of artists that's not always true for is "historically disadvantaged artists who have been left out of the American canon of art for reasons of race, gender or other socio-economic limitations. This is especially true of the many artists who lack representation or a presence in the art market until the end of their careers or posthumously." For example: "Consider the Gee’s Bend quilters of Alabama: with no access to the gallery system, many of their artworks were purchased by Atlanta collector William S. Arnett at a time when no viable market existed for their work. … Like many artists, the value of the quilt makers’ works has increased over time. But many of the artists have either passed away or are no longer producing works, and thus an improved market came too late to benefit them in their prime. One could cite many examples of this discrepancy throughout history."
UPDATE: Brian Frye is unimpressed: "Even the best arguments in favor of statutory artist resale royalties are comically bad. Yes, it is possible to hunt up artists who didn't profit from work that later became valuable. But they deserve money because they are poor, not because they are artists."
"Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos. That’s a Problem for Video Game Developers."
Another interesting story from around the holidays: the New York Times reports on a series of lawsuits against sports video game makers by tattoo artists (for example, where the LeBron James character in a video game includes LeBron James's actual tattoos).
NYU's Christopher Sprigman says:
"All seem to agree that 1) tattoos [are] copyrightable, yet 2) tattooed person has [an] implied license to walk around in public. But why doesn’t [the] implied license include [the] power to authorize reproduction/distribution of one’s image, w/tats? Isn’t that protected by 1st Amendment?"
Annemarie Bridy agrees:
"The implied license should cover any actual or virtual appearance of the tattoo as long as it’s incidental to the appearance of the tattooed person."
(To which Sprigman responds: "Agreed. This entire developing genre of 'let's shake down the video game companies w/some new tattoo copyright litigation' should end.")
NYU's Christopher Sprigman says:
"All seem to agree that 1) tattoos [are] copyrightable, yet 2) tattooed person has [an] implied license to walk around in public. But why doesn’t [the] implied license include [the] power to authorize reproduction/distribution of one’s image, w/tats? Isn’t that protected by 1st Amendment?"
Annemarie Bridy agrees:
"The implied license should cover any actual or virtual appearance of the tattoo as long as it’s incidental to the appearance of the tattooed person."
(To which Sprigman responds: "Agreed. This entire developing genre of 'let's shake down the video game companies w/some new tattoo copyright litigation' should end.")
"[B]ut didn't it all work out in the end?"
Still catching up on some year-end reading, and came across this, from Michael Hiltzik's list of the 10 best books he read in 2018, one of which was John Anderson's “Art Held Hostage: The Battle over the Barnes Collection”:
"Eventually, after intricate legal maneuvering, the entire collection was moved in 2012 to a new home in Philadelphia, into a painstaking replica of the interior of the Merion gallery. Art critics were divided, with some, including Christopher Knight of the Los Angeles Times, remaining unhappy, while others professed themselves to be pleasantly surprised at the resolution. What remains clear is that the relocation finally opened up this outstanding collection to full public view. That points to a question that neither Anderson nor Argott adequately answers — what was wrong about moving the Barnes? It was locked in a community that didn’t want it, run by a board that couldn’t manage it, was all but invisible to the public and was threatened with physical deterioration."
Good question.
"Eventually, after intricate legal maneuvering, the entire collection was moved in 2012 to a new home in Philadelphia, into a painstaking replica of the interior of the Merion gallery. Art critics were divided, with some, including Christopher Knight of the Los Angeles Times, remaining unhappy, while others professed themselves to be pleasantly surprised at the resolution. What remains clear is that the relocation finally opened up this outstanding collection to full public view. That points to a question that neither Anderson nor Argott adequately answers — what was wrong about moving the Barnes? It was locked in a community that didn’t want it, run by a board that couldn’t manage it, was all but invisible to the public and was threatened with physical deterioration."
Good question.
Sunday, January 13, 2019
"The divorce also threatens to expose the private dealings of one of the wealthiest and most influential families in the art world. Mr. Mugrabi, 47, is the scion of a powerful art-dealing family that is reportedly worth $5 billion and owns some 1,000 works by Warhol, making it the world’s largest private holding."
The New York Times on Libbie and David Mugrabi's divorce.
"[A]s long as dealers who show a lot of women artists pay those artists i am good with the dealer cheating on her taxes. It’s a wee bit bad-ass too. But you want ‘em to pay taxes, cool by me. She has to now. You win." (UPDATED)
Tweets Jerry Saltz, who was one of many "prominent art world figures" who wrote letters to the sentencing Judge on Mary Boone's behalf.
Paddy Johnson isn't having it:
"Taxes pay for food stamps, Medicare and the NEA. It’s not bad ass to opt out of those responsibilities so you can make improvements to your million dollar apartment and not stealing from your artists too doesn’t make it any better."
Nor is Rachel Wetzler:
"I'm not exactly cheering for Mary Boone to go to prison, but how warped does your worldview have to be to believe that it's OK for a millionaire to dodge taxes because you like her gallery programming?"
Nor is Columbia's Shamus Kahn:
"Spare us your righteous indignation about elites. Guess it doesn’t apply when they’re liberal and your friends."
UPDATE: Saltz waves the white flag: "BOY did I call this one wrong."
Paddy Johnson isn't having it:
"Taxes pay for food stamps, Medicare and the NEA. It’s not bad ass to opt out of those responsibilities so you can make improvements to your million dollar apartment and not stealing from your artists too doesn’t make it any better."
Nor is Rachel Wetzler:
"I'm not exactly cheering for Mary Boone to go to prison, but how warped does your worldview have to be to believe that it's OK for a millionaire to dodge taxes because you like her gallery programming?"
Nor is Columbia's Shamus Kahn:
"Spare us your righteous indignation about elites. Guess it doesn’t apply when they’re liberal and your friends."
UPDATE: Saltz waves the white flag: "BOY did I call this one wrong."
Saturday, January 12, 2019
"He is very proud of his work, which he is excellent at."
The New Yorker: The French Burglar Who Pulled Off His Generation's Biggest Art Heist.
Background on the man the French press dubbed Spider-Man here.
Background on the man the French press dubbed Spider-Man here.
Another Shagalov Lawsuit
In this one he is suing Paul Kasmin Gallery for $8.5 million.
Previous Shagalov lawsuits discussed here.
Previous Shagalov lawsuits discussed here.
"The exhibition will be accompanied by a symposium exploring strategies 'to torpedo the art market while simultaneously giving it new momentum,' according to a museum statement."
The Art Newspaper: German museum to show shredded Banksy work.
Background here on the shredded Banksy work, which, oddly enough, did not seem to torpedo the art market.
Background here on the shredded Banksy work, which, oddly enough, did not seem to torpedo the art market.
"The question here is really an unlitigated question, which is what is the minimum quantum necessary for a choreographic work?"
The New York Times on the spate of lawsuits against video game makers for their use of popular dance moves within the games.
Wednesday, January 09, 2019
"Christie’s Sale of Francis Bacon Painting Draws Suits"
The work had been pledged as collateral for a $4.9 million loan. Details here. Felix Salmon declares the suit "BONKERS."
"Mary Boone, Art Dealer, Cites Early Trauma in Bid to Avoid Prison" (UPDATED)
New York Time story here. She plead guilty in September to tax fraud. Sentencing is scheduled for later this month.
UPDATE: Prosecutors are seeking 30 to 37 months.
UPDATE: Prosecutors are seeking 30 to 37 months.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Recognize this practice for what it is
I've basically been arguing here for a decade now that there can be two coherent theories on deaccessioning.
You can think it's always wrong -- that museums hold their works in the public trust, for the benefit of present and future generations, and they should never be sold.
Or you can think works can, on occasion, be sold, if there is a sufficient reason. That reason can be to acquire other work. Or it can be something else (e.g., to keep from going out of business). You have to look closely at each individual case and decide. (This is my view.)
It's the middle view -- the view of the Deaccession Police, the view of the AAMD, the conventional wisdom in the field -- that is, frankly, ridiculous. It holds that deaccessioning is deeply unethical and a violation of the public trust if the proceeds of sale are used for Purpose X (anything other than buying art) … but completely fine if the proceeds are used for Purpose Y (buying art). I've never understood how that could be at all persuasive to anyone.
Former museum director Steven Miller has a piece in The New Criterion coming at it largely from the first perspective, and calling out "the obvious hypocrisy of voicing concern for the survival of collections, only to sell them into oblivion":
"Though it is largely accepted within the profession, deaccessioning is still a controversial issue. The debate surrounding it surfaces with alarming frequency. For the most part, however, complaints are rarely directed at the practice itself, but at what happens if any profits realized from the sale of the museum collections are 'misused.' Furor tends to erupt only when income will cover operating expenses or capital and debt payments, rather than pay for future acquisitions. Oddly, controversy about commercial deaccessioning sidesteps the fact that, unless the purchase is made by another museum, objects will probably be lost to the public forever. How does that practice align with the preservation imperative museums repeatedly embrace …? Put simply: it does not."
He adds that once a work is sold, "we might as well have tossed them on a bonfire. This is a total abrogation of museological duty."
What's his answer? First, "recognize this practice for what it is and acknowledge that it contradicts a museum's commitment to preserving and caring for its collections." And then he ends up signing on to the Ellis Rule:
"Correcting the unfortunate results of unbridled commercial deaccessioning is simple. An item can be deaccessioned and kept by the museum for educational purposes. Or it can be sold or given to another museum. Everyone wins in this situation …. One museum's loss can always be another's gain."
You can think it's always wrong -- that museums hold their works in the public trust, for the benefit of present and future generations, and they should never be sold.
Or you can think works can, on occasion, be sold, if there is a sufficient reason. That reason can be to acquire other work. Or it can be something else (e.g., to keep from going out of business). You have to look closely at each individual case and decide. (This is my view.)
It's the middle view -- the view of the Deaccession Police, the view of the AAMD, the conventional wisdom in the field -- that is, frankly, ridiculous. It holds that deaccessioning is deeply unethical and a violation of the public trust if the proceeds of sale are used for Purpose X (anything other than buying art) … but completely fine if the proceeds are used for Purpose Y (buying art). I've never understood how that could be at all persuasive to anyone.
Former museum director Steven Miller has a piece in The New Criterion coming at it largely from the first perspective, and calling out "the obvious hypocrisy of voicing concern for the survival of collections, only to sell them into oblivion":
"Though it is largely accepted within the profession, deaccessioning is still a controversial issue. The debate surrounding it surfaces with alarming frequency. For the most part, however, complaints are rarely directed at the practice itself, but at what happens if any profits realized from the sale of the museum collections are 'misused.' Furor tends to erupt only when income will cover operating expenses or capital and debt payments, rather than pay for future acquisitions. Oddly, controversy about commercial deaccessioning sidesteps the fact that, unless the purchase is made by another museum, objects will probably be lost to the public forever. How does that practice align with the preservation imperative museums repeatedly embrace …? Put simply: it does not."
He adds that once a work is sold, "we might as well have tossed them on a bonfire. This is a total abrogation of museological duty."
What's his answer? First, "recognize this practice for what it is and acknowledge that it contradicts a museum's commitment to preserving and caring for its collections." And then he ends up signing on to the Ellis Rule:
"Correcting the unfortunate results of unbridled commercial deaccessioning is simple. An item can be deaccessioned and kept by the museum for educational purposes. Or it can be sold or given to another museum. Everyone wins in this situation …. One museum's loss can always be another's gain."
Saturday, December 08, 2018
Settlement in the Anish Kapoor-N.R.A. Lawsuit
Story here. Background here. Kapoor declares victory. On the other side, the N.R.A. says the suit was "baseless" but that "it agreed to remove the image 'to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.' It also said that the settlement does not require the group to pay Mr. Kapoor any money."
Monday, December 03, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)