Saturday, June 27, 2020
"A Charles White Drawing Went Missing From Howard University. After 40 Years, It Appeared at Auction—and Now Howard Wants It Back"
Sarah Cascone has the details on an interesting ownership dispute here. Sotheby's has withdrawn the work from sale while Howard and the consignors battle it out.
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Malcolm Gladwell on Deaccessioning (UPDATE 3X)
Or at least on how museums account for their collections.
He views it as a species of hoarding. I've had the same thought myself. As have others.
Listen here.
UPDATE: Good two sentence summary here: "His takeaways will not please museum traditionalists. First, he contends, it’s shady that museums get to avoid valuing their art collections in financial statements—and it’s even more concerning that institutions would rather let go of staff than objects, especially when most of the items are just squirreled away in storage."
UPDATE 2: Hoarders episode 2 here.
UPDATE 3: Deaccessioning Hall of Fame Scholar-in-Residence Brian Frye responds here.
He views it as a species of hoarding. I've had the same thought myself. As have others.
Listen here.
UPDATE: Good two sentence summary here: "His takeaways will not please museum traditionalists. First, he contends, it’s shady that museums get to avoid valuing their art collections in financial statements—and it’s even more concerning that institutions would rather let go of staff than objects, especially when most of the items are just squirreled away in storage."
UPDATE 2: Hoarders episode 2 here.
UPDATE 3: Deaccessioning Hall of Fame Scholar-in-Residence Brian Frye responds here.
Thursday, June 18, 2020
"He used his cell phone constantly, took tennis lessons several times a week, frequented a nearby coffee shop, and become involved in animal rescue efforts. He even adopted a dog of his own." (UPDATED)
Great piece by Eileen Kinsella on Inigo Philbrick's time in Vanuatu: "He Didn’t Hide Who He Was."
And some choice words from Kenny Schachter.
Also on the criminal law docket, collector Angela Gulbekian, "who left the U.K. ahead of trial on theft charges was arrested in Portugal."
UPDATE: More on the Gulbenkian story from Sarah Cascone here and Alex Greenberger here.
And some choice words from Kenny Schachter.
Also on the criminal law docket, collector Angela Gulbekian, "who left the U.K. ahead of trial on theft charges was arrested in Portugal."
UPDATE: More on the Gulbenkian story from Sarah Cascone here and Alex Greenberger here.
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
New artist resale rights contract with a charitable twist
Story here. Excerpt:
"Del Pesco then reconnected with an old friend, Lauren van Haaften-Schick, a curator and writer who was researching this very topic for her PhD dissertation at Cornell University. Along with the art lawyer Laurence Eisenstein, she helped draft a document that designates that 15% of resale profits go to a charitable organisation of the artist’s choice. The agreement is available online at artistcontract.org, and will soon be promoted by Kadist Art Foundation."
I participated in a really interesting roundtable with van Haaften-Schick on the subject of resale royalties a couple summers ago. Link here.
"Del Pesco then reconnected with an old friend, Lauren van Haaften-Schick, a curator and writer who was researching this very topic for her PhD dissertation at Cornell University. Along with the art lawyer Laurence Eisenstein, she helped draft a document that designates that 15% of resale profits go to a charitable organisation of the artist’s choice. The agreement is available online at artistcontract.org, and will soon be promoted by Kadist Art Foundation."
I participated in a really interesting roundtable with van Haaften-Schick on the subject of resale royalties a couple summers ago. Link here.
"However, we do make a distinction when a third-party entity wants to take advantage of Chris Burden’s artwork and make money off of it in a way that is not aligned in the Chris Burden Estate’s interest, and in this case that commercial distinction is what made it very important for us to actively assert our rights."
Monday, June 15, 2020
"When his schemes began to unravel, Philbrick allegedly fled the country. Now he is in U.S. custody and facing justice."
Wednesday, June 03, 2020
Monday, June 01, 2020
"Inevitably, the AAMD’s response to its member community’s urgent needs will be simultaneously criticized as opening the floodgates to sell off priceless treasures meant to benefit the public ..."
". . . and as doing too little to enable museums to stay afloat during the most significant financial crisis faced by the arts and culture sector—and perhaps the world—during our lifetimes."
Megan Noh on the recent changes to the AAMD's stance on deaccessioning, which she says "are far from a panacea to the museum communities’ current woes: these special dispensations are narrow, subject to pre-conditions and external legal requirements, and must be implemented in keeping with broader ethical and policy considerations."
Megan Noh on the recent changes to the AAMD's stance on deaccessioning, which she says "are far from a panacea to the museum communities’ current woes: these special dispensations are narrow, subject to pre-conditions and external legal requirements, and must be implemented in keeping with broader ethical and policy considerations."
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
"Gallery Sues Landlord, Claiming Covid-19 Shutdown Voids Lease" (UPDATED)
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
Ninth Circuit Reinstates Authentication/Defamation Lawsuit
I first posted about this case back in 2017 under the headline "Here's what can happen when you say a work is fake."
The district court dismissed the case in 2018.
Now the Ninth Circuit has reversed. You can read the decision here.
The main grounds for reversal had to do with the issue whether the defendant had to have known the specific identity of the plaintiff at the time of the allegedly defamatory statements (answer: it did not), but the Court also threw in the following:
1. Rejection of the district court’s conclusion that a jury could not conclude that certain of the statements at issue -- which remember were typical authenticity statements -- implied “an assertion of objective fact under the circumstances." In other words, a statement that a work is inauthentic can be considered an assertion of fact for purposes of a defamation claim.
2. Rejection of the argument "that an assertion that a painting is a fake is categorically not a communication that may be defamatory of a seller who has sold—and warranted—it as authentic." In other words, a statement that a work is inauthentic can, depending on the circumstances, form the basis of a claim that the seller has been defamed.
3. Holding that, whether or not the authentication claims "might be understood as an opinion," a jury "could easily find otherwise given the language used." In other words, a statement that a work is inauthentic is not necessarily opinion (and therefore can in theory form the basis of a defamation claim).
So once again: here's what can happen when you say a work is fake. As a general rule, it's still a good idea to keep quiet.
The district court dismissed the case in 2018.
Now the Ninth Circuit has reversed. You can read the decision here.
The main grounds for reversal had to do with the issue whether the defendant had to have known the specific identity of the plaintiff at the time of the allegedly defamatory statements (answer: it did not), but the Court also threw in the following:
1. Rejection of the district court’s conclusion that a jury could not conclude that certain of the statements at issue -- which remember were typical authenticity statements -- implied “an assertion of objective fact under the circumstances." In other words, a statement that a work is inauthentic can be considered an assertion of fact for purposes of a defamation claim.
2. Rejection of the argument "that an assertion that a painting is a fake is categorically not a communication that may be defamatory of a seller who has sold—and warranted—it as authentic." In other words, a statement that a work is inauthentic can, depending on the circumstances, form the basis of a claim that the seller has been defamed.
3. Holding that, whether or not the authentication claims "might be understood as an opinion," a jury "could easily find otherwise given the language used." In other words, a statement that a work is inauthentic is not necessarily opinion (and therefore can in theory form the basis of a defamation claim).
So once again: here's what can happen when you say a work is fake. As a general rule, it's still a good idea to keep quiet.
"Selling to Survive"
Saturday's CBS This Morning had a segment on the changes to the AAMD deaccessioning guidelines.
It's about four minutes long and worth watching in its entirety.
Couple things worth mentioning.
There's no mention of the public trust. The new rationale for the general rule, offered by AAMD president Brent Benjamin, is that "the idea is that you don’t benefit today’s visitors at the expense of tomorrow’s, and you don’t benefit tomorrow’s visitors at the expense of today." But it should be obvious that that doesn't really make any sense if you think about it. First of all, almost every dollar a museum spends today, on programming, on engaging with today's visitors, and so on, is in some sense benefiting today's visitors at the expense of tomorrow's. You could always just put that money in the bank and save it for the future, to benefit tomorrow's visitors. There's no way museums can sensibly do this sort of intergenerational calculation for every decision they make.
More to the point, how in the world does it benefit today's visitors or tomorrow's visitors if a museum is forced to close its doors? Doesn't Benjamin's principle argue in favor of selling whenever a museum faces a financial crisis (i.e. not just in a pandemic)?
Maybe they should have stuck with the public trust.
I also really liked Baltimore Museum of Art director (and aggressive deaccessioner) Christopher Bedford's statement of what should really matter to museums: "Serving our publics. Being vital, being relevant, keeping our doors open."
I think that's exactly right, and not just till April 10, 2022.
It's about four minutes long and worth watching in its entirety.
Couple things worth mentioning.
There's no mention of the public trust. The new rationale for the general rule, offered by AAMD president Brent Benjamin, is that "the idea is that you don’t benefit today’s visitors at the expense of tomorrow’s, and you don’t benefit tomorrow’s visitors at the expense of today." But it should be obvious that that doesn't really make any sense if you think about it. First of all, almost every dollar a museum spends today, on programming, on engaging with today's visitors, and so on, is in some sense benefiting today's visitors at the expense of tomorrow's. You could always just put that money in the bank and save it for the future, to benefit tomorrow's visitors. There's no way museums can sensibly do this sort of intergenerational calculation for every decision they make.
More to the point, how in the world does it benefit today's visitors or tomorrow's visitors if a museum is forced to close its doors? Doesn't Benjamin's principle argue in favor of selling whenever a museum faces a financial crisis (i.e. not just in a pandemic)?
Maybe they should have stuck with the public trust.
I also really liked Baltimore Museum of Art director (and aggressive deaccessioner) Christopher Bedford's statement of what should really matter to museums: "Serving our publics. Being vital, being relevant, keeping our doors open."
I think that's exactly right, and not just till April 10, 2022.
Friday, May 22, 2020
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
"Why the AAMD's move on deaccessioning matters so much"
Mark Gold and Stefanie Jandl explain.
Bottom line: "Going forward, it will be extremely hard for the AAMD–or anyone else–to pass judgment on a museum’s decision in the face of any existential threat."
That's correct.
The logic of the AAMD's current position seems to be that (non-acquisition related) deaccessioning is okay if the entire sector is experiencing serious financial strain, but not okay if any individual museum is experiencing serious financial strain. I just don't see how that makes sense.
Bottom line: "Going forward, it will be extremely hard for the AAMD–or anyone else–to pass judgment on a museum’s decision in the face of any existential threat."
That's correct.
The logic of the AAMD's current position seems to be that (non-acquisition related) deaccessioning is okay if the entire sector is experiencing serious financial strain, but not okay if any individual museum is experiencing serious financial strain. I just don't see how that makes sense.
"When it’s a matter of survival, let museums sell art"
Says the Boston Globe editorial board.
Remember, prior to about a month ago that statement -- when it's a matter of survival, let museums sell art -- would have been considered repulsive, beyond the pale, self-evidently unethical.
Remember, prior to about a month ago that statement -- when it's a matter of survival, let museums sell art -- would have been considered repulsive, beyond the pale, self-evidently unethical.
Friday, May 15, 2020
"New Hampshire mother and son in art fraud case want $250 million"
What's interesting about that is that the mother and son lost the art fraud case. Collector Andy Hall won a $465,000 judgment against them in 2018.
Now, "[i]n a lawsuit the mother and son filed, the pair allege that media outlets like The Keene Sentinel, New Hampshire Public Radio, The Concord Monitor, and the Monadnock Ledger Transcript, defamed them by reporting on the case incorrectly."
Now, "[i]n a lawsuit the mother and son filed, the pair allege that media outlets like The Keene Sentinel, New Hampshire Public Radio, The Concord Monitor, and the Monadnock Ledger Transcript, defamed them by reporting on the case incorrectly."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)