The Art & Law Program is happy to announce the Fall 2019 Art & Law Fellows. Once again, our decision-making was extremely difficult given our applicant pool. The incoming group includes a broad and diverse range of artistic, intellectual and professional interests, and we very much look forward to working with them.
In the fall 2019, the Program will examine artists’ legacies and artists’ estates through the lens of tangible and intangible property, contracts, moral rights, freedom of expression, and corporations. This will allow the fellows an opportunity to examine how sectors of the art industry— such as academia, the ...
Roberta Smith on San Francisco’s Disputed George Washington Murals
In a democracy, destroying a work of art is never a solution to any offense it may give. Once art has been made and released into the often choppy flow of life, it should stay there. It will live on anyway. To dictate its elimination is an implicitly autocratic move, similar in spirit, if not scale, to the deliberate demolition of ancient art and artifacts by the Taliban and the Islamic State.
More here.
Lego my Lego
In today's intellectual property and toys news.
Revisiting: Interview with Tom Lawson, Dean of CalArts School of Art
For the next several weeks I'll be bringing back some oldie but goodie reads from Clancco's past.
We'll start off with this interview with CalArts School of Art dean, Tom Lawson, which took place the glorious sunny afternoon of October 7, 2006, at the Spain Restaurant in Los Angeles, California, hours before the New York Mets swept the Los Angeles Dodgers to win the National League Division Series. The interview covers a wide range of questions: from Lawson’s artistic career, deanship at CalArts, and writing publications, to Lawson’s current thoughts on contemporary art, art pedagogy and the ...
Ferrari recognized as work of art
Image courtesy of Motohide Miwa.
An Italian commercial tribunal in Bologna has recognized the Ferrari 250 GTO car not only as a classic, but as a work of art that is entirely original and fully protected by intellectual property rights.
Given that only 36 of these GTOs were produced between 1962 and 1964 (with one selling last year at auction for $48.4 million), another company in the northern city of Modena thought it a good idea to produce 250 replicas. Obviously that's not gonna happen.
Does anyone remember that interesting, and wrongly decided, moral rights case in Texas some 9 years ago? ...
The Art & Law Program is happy to announce the Fall 2019 Art & Law Fellows. Once again, our decision-making was extremely difficult given our applicant pool. The incoming group includes a broad and diverse range of artistic, intellectual and professional interests, and we very much look forward to working with them.
In the fall 2019, the Program will examine artists’ legacies and artists’ estates through the lens of tangible and intangible property, contracts, moral rights, freedom of expression, and corporations. This will allow the fellows an opportunity to examine how sectors of the art industry— such as academia, the gallery system, for-profit and non-profit institutions, auction houses, curatorial practices, and law—impact the practices, definitions and controversies of contemporary art.
The Fall 2019 Fellows are:
Juliana Biondo Ivana Dizdar Mira Friedlaender Kearra Amaya Goepee Danny Greenberg Norman Kleeblatt Shervone Neckles Cassie Packard Chris Rawson Armando Rosales Rivero Susan Rosenberg Elizabeth Smolarz Aden Solway
What the hell is going on in San Francisco? The heehawing by the San Francisco School Board on what to do with an alleged “racist” mural gives credence to the belief that sniffing glue in the San Francisco region is a daily and welcome event (albeit not frightening).
The Board has recently reversed their decision to destroy art and instead voted to cover the mural with “solid panels.” I suppose this is a belts and suspenders approach just in case the future brings a different type of snowflake, one that would be emotionally damaged by the covering up of art.
Here’s the Board’s rationale,
“Where we all agree is that the mural depicts the racist history of America, especially in regards to African Americans and Native Americans. It is important that we all share the agreement and acknowledgment of racism, discrimination, and the dehumanizing of people of color and women in American history,” SFUSD President Stevon Cook said in a press release.
Apparently we should erase the history of racism in the U.S. and pretend it never happened. Who was it that said, “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it”?
Of note also is how Cook’s use of “especially” designates a list indicating which groups of people have been discriminated against more than others.
Article here. Previous post on Roberta Smith’s thoughts on this cluster fuck, here.
Guggenheim curator, Nat Trotman speculates that “the fact that some museum stakeholders may balk at paying money for something intangible[.]” Initially this makes sense, but it does seem odd considering that many board members profit from speculation and intangible property. So why is “intangible” art any different?
Probably not a good idea to be brandishing and shooting an assault rifle at this moment in time, even if the weapon is being used to alter and destroy works of art.
On one evening last November, musician Ryan Upchurch carried a couple of paintings into has backyard in Tennessee, propped them up against a some greenery and shot them repeatedly with an assault rifle.
The artist, Jacob Aaron LeVeille, is now suing Upchurch for violating LeVeille’s moral rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990.
In a democracy, destroying a work of art is never a solution to any offense it may give. Once art has been made and released into the often choppy flow of life, it should stay there. It will live on anyway. To dictate its elimination is an implicitly autocratic move, similar in spirit, if not scale, to the deliberate demolition of ancient art and artifacts by the Taliban and the Islamic State.
The organizers of the trienniale shut down the exhibition “After ‘Freedom of Expression’?” at the Aichi Prefecture Museum of Art in the city of Nagoya after organizers said they received numerous threats objecting to a controversial work in the show.
Novak’s [mock Parma Police Department Facebook] page delighted, disgusted, and confused. Not everyone understood it. But when it comes to parody, the law requires a reasonable reader standard, not a “most gullible person on Facebook” standard. The First Amendment does not depend on whether everyone is in on the joke. Neither is it bothered by public disapproval, whether tepid or red-hot….
That’s part of the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning. Eugene Volokh has more here.
Clancco, Clancco: The Source for Art & Law, Clancco.com, and Art & Law are trademarks owned by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento. The views expressed on this site are those of Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento and of the artists and writers who submit to Clancco.com. They are not the views of any other organization, legal or otherwise. All content contained on or made available through Clancco.com is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed, nor is anything submitted to Clancco.com treated as confidential.
