Art Culture Law

Apr 23

“But shouldn’t we be alarmed that one work by Murakami now costs more than masterworks by Constable, Courbet, Delacroix, Fuseli, Géricault, Ingres, Rubens, and Turner combined? It’s not a joke: I know markets are mirages and unrelated, but good work by all of these older masters recently sold for a total of around $3 million; one Murakami fetched over $15 million. From an edition of three. Plus two artist’s proofs.” http://nymag.com/arts/art/rules/reject-the-market-2012-4/index1.html

Jan 31

“When Pissarro returned to his home in France after the war, he discovered that of the 1,500 paintings he had done over 20 years, which he was forced to leave behind when he moved to London, only 40 remained. The rest had been damaged or destroyed by the soldiers, who often used them as floor mats outside in the mud to keep their boots clean. It is assumed that many of those lost were done in the Impressionist style he was then developing, thereby “documenting the birth of Impressionism,” a style that some credit him with inventing.”

Jan 2

What about artist resale royalties?

Should artists be paid royalties when their work is resold? Europe and the UK both have laws to this effect. The proposed Equity for Visual Artists Act (EVAA) targets only sales by major auction houses, leaving private deals unaffected. Accordingly, many believe the combined effect of US and foreign “droit de suite” legislation will drive business to private dealers in the US.

An important reason to exempt private sales from the resale obligation is they are notoriously hard to monitor, so enforcement is often not practicable. California’s track record - their royalty legislation includes private sales - is evidence of this adminstrative difficulty. By only targetting auction sales, the EVAA may avoid an outcry from private dealers and gallerists, probably increasing its chances of passage

Opponents of resale royalties argue that such laws benefit only established artists, i.e. those whose works actually resell. The additional monetary and logistical cost of making the royalty payment would, it has been said, deter art owners from reselling certain lower ticket works. Seems logical, but it would also be useful to hear if lesser-known artists also share these reservations (or are simply all in favor). The proposed US legislation also benefits collection agencies like ARS and VAGA by allowing them to retain up to 18% of royalties collected for the resale of works by their represented artists.

Stepping back for a moment, there are some larger questions worth asking. Do resale royalties even make sense for the fine arts? When does an object become a work of fine art such that it’s creator should be compensated for its resale? Is a work of fine art so different from a piece of finely crafted furniture? And yet it seems highly unlikely such a furniture resale bill would ever come to pass.

The argument is made that artists in other disciplines (e.g. writers and musicians) are compensated on a royalty basis, so why not treat “fine artists” the same way. There is an important distinction though, namely that writers and musicians create works that are intended to be sold in editions and re-aired/reproduced/re-performed by subsequent users and licensees. Accordingly, the royalty model makes sense to remunerate these creators for the (often commercial) re-use of their works by third parties. Fine arts, on the other hand, are generally created (and sold) on a one-off basis, with no copyrights transferred to the buyer. So the “everyone else is doing it” argument may galvanize those in favor of expanding resale rights, but it is not particularly well-suited to the facts.

Why not acknowledge that perhaps the main motivation behind any new resale royalty law arises, as it did in Europe, from the belief that fine arts are culturally vital, so much so that we should put in place special systems of compensation to ensure that artists (are incentivized to) keep creating. And also from the obvious fact that most artists have not reached commercial viability, and could really use every little check they may (in theory) receive for the resale of their works.

Whether the EVAA, if passed, will only favor established artists remains to be seen, as does its effect on overall market activity.

An article from the Guardian here.

Summary of various resale laws here.

Sep 16

DE KOONING OPENS AT MOMA

This grand collection of drawings and paintings follows the artist in chronological order across seven decades. Viewed in this way, de Kooning’s works reflect his significant awareness and respect for other artists and artistic periods, a large part of what makes him enduringly one of the greatest. Evident are his fascinations with European old masters and early modernists, as well as with gestural New Yorkers like Franz Kline, to whom de Kooning appears to have paid tribute in a couple of works painted while living in Rome. Like few other artists working in the United States during the mid-20th century (Hofmann comes to mind), De Kooning truly bridges the European painting tradition with that of those ‘irascible’ American modernists.

Praise from the New York Times here.

Rest in peace Richard Hamilton

The father of pop art who loved Duchamp and Joyce.

An interview with Hamilton here.

Sep 9

Does copyright protect works made from living materials?

The Supreme Court is being asked to review the matter of Chapman Kelley v. Chicago Park District. Kelley appeals from a decision denying his right to protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), part of our federal copyright law, on the grounds that his work (made of living plants) was not “fixed in a medium” as is required to receive statutory protection. Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts has submitted an amicus brief in support of Kelley’s position.

Some background here.

Full text of the 7th Circuit decision here.

Aug 19

Taking the Hype out of Arcangel at the Whitney

Enjoyed parts of the show (namely the noise created by all of the video games playing at the same time, which reminded me of being a kid in an arcade), but left feeling that Arcangel doesn’t (yet) deserve such a prestigious venue. The fact that this show was presented at the Whitney will inspire hope in many young artists.

Police Judging the Content of Photographs in Long Beach

You may be detained if your photograph contains no “aesthetic value,” or captures a subject tourists wouldn’t normally choose to shoot. Maybe this is some kind of anti-terrorism/anti-suspicious behavior policy, but what about the fact that it is an arbitrary restriction on speech? Looking forward to some colorful backlash.

More here.

May 11

Museums Moving

MOMA purchases neighboring American Folk Art Museum.

Met to lease the Whitney for use as additional Modern and Contemporary wing.

Artinfo

Art Newspaper

Apr 8

“There’s definitely something beyond the pale about the recently established market in the U.S. for serial-killer art and death-row art, known as murderabilia, which is frequently sold directly to collectors from the prison cell.”

Matthew Collings compares the world of prison art and with the art world at large.

Via Modern Painters.