“I think it’s still art and still belongs to Buchel” —MASS MoCA Curator
“In my view, under no circumstance should a work of art be shown to the public until the artist has determined that it is finished. Speaking as someone who has commissioned or sponsored many comparable artistic projects, I strongly maintain that public institutions that act as sponsors for art projects should only do so with the full knowledge that those projects may not meet their expectations, and, in the end, may even prove unfeasible. No matter how much money may be spent on the creating of a work by an institution on behalf of their public, such sponsorship belongs to the category of patronage and does not buy that institution or its public any degree of ownership of or any proprietary right over the project much less any decision-making authority with respect its readiness for public presentation.” (Robert Storr Affidavit, see from p. 14, Büchel Summary Judgment Brief)
When did all this happen?
On Friday, August 31, 2007, MASS MoCA’s and Christoph Büchel’s attorneys met in Massachusetts to submit their summary judgment motions. (For Büchel’s Summary Judgment motion, click here. For MASS MoCA’s Summary Judgment motion, here.)
In the most recent battle between MASS MoCA and Christoph Büchel, Büchel’s attorney, Donn Zaretsky, summarized the issue best:
“This case presents questions of considerable significance in the art world: Does someone other than the visual artist have the right to decide when that artist’s work is finished or otherwise in a state suitable to be shown to the public? Can an institution modify a visual artist’s unfinished work without that artist’s consent?”
According to MASS MoCA and its director, Joe Thompson, the answer is definitively “yes”! Zaretsky and Büchel counters this absurd and appalling claim by correctly reminding Thompson and his Museum that unless there is a legally binding written waiver of his Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), the Museum is precluded from exhibiting Büchel’s artwork without his permission.
Büchel and his attorney’s assert that although his installation is currently an unfinished work of art, it nonetheless covets protection from the Museums illegal display and presentation under Section 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Büchel and his attorney’s are absolutely right in making this legal assertion.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page