MASS MoCA Will Not Exhibit Büchel’s Artwork
After Christoph Büchel decided late yesterday to appeal Judge Ponsor’s decision to allow MASS MoCA to remove the yellow tarps and exhibit his art project, Training Ground for Democracy, without his consent, MASS MoCA decided today against removing the tarps and exhibiting it.
In effect, the Museum had this to say on their new blog:
MASS MoCA announced today that it has begun removing materials gathered for Training Ground for Democracy and will not permit the public to enter the planned installation which was cancelled on May 21, 2007. Materials and partially completed fabrications for this large-scale installation have been stored in MASS MoCA’s main Building 5 gallery since the artist abandoned the project nine months ago. The front doors to the gallery have been locked, and the materials covered by tarpaulins.
It would be simple to say that this decision–albeit the proper one–is surprising. One is left to wonder what, if anything, the Museum and Joe Thompson gained after months of expensive litigation. Although certain parties will argue that nothing was lost (at least not by artists), it is certain that the effects will be felt by all artists in the future, when in fact artists will face a narrow and very limiting application of the federal Visual Artists Rights Act.
This does not include the waste of exhibition space that could have been used for other exhibitions or programming, and with less government grants given to artists and institutions, and sans pro bono by Skadden Arps, that the Museum would rather use its limited budget to pay $400 dollar-an-hour attorneys.
It is sad to see that an institution which portends to expand and champion contemporary art and avant-garde expressions is in fact more preoccupied with winning a personal war rather than grant artists the rights they have fought hard and for so long to obtain.
In the end, nothing was was gained, but much lost. It is a loss that only those vested with legal knowledge, its history and its complex lexicon will understand. It is a loss called the seven-factor VARA test, based on a legal interpretation of art that takes us back to the 19th Century. Thank you MASS MoCA. Thank you indeed.
What was gained was a reminder that with rights, especially ones fought hard for, come responsibilities. Buchel did not live up to his, and now he gets what he wants anyway.
EFG:
And what responsibilities did Buchel sidestep? Keep in mind that the the party making the commission should be the one to draft a written agreement. How did Buchel “get what he wants”? He’s the one stuck with the legal bills, and even if he sold art or had someone helping in this it’s money he otherwise wouldn’t have spent but for the proclivities of the Museum.
It seems to us that what really happened was one director’s ego getting in the way. It’s sad he had to drag so many other artists through the mud.
There is so much resentment against Buchel (see Ed Winkleman’s blog) which I just don’t understand. This isn’t a case of his fu**up; rather a case where he was forced to fight for the few rights granted to him under U.S. law. Don’t you agree?
-sms
I don’t agree. Buchel is not a painter or sculptor, working alone in his studio, who has complete control over every aspect of his artistic production. He relies on others to help execute his works. It is therefore his responsibility, if he accepts a commission, to make every effort to be professional and respectful to the people who are providing the funding and labor to realize his vision. That did not happen here.
He abused the trust of an institution that offered him his biggest exhibition ever, an institution that, until this fiasco, had a spotless reputation for nurturing the creation of incredible new works. MASS MoCA made every effort to get Buchel to return and finish the project. He refused and that’s what started this whole downward spiral.
The virtue of this ruling is that now museums, especially MASS MoCA, will still be in a position to take risks, knowing that there is some backup for them when things go haywire. If the verdict went the other way, what sane institution would commission bold projects knowing that at any time the artist could just bail and leave them in the lurch irregardless of time and money and sweat invested?
As for Buchel getting what he wants… He’s now the art world poster boy, with more publicity than he could ever dream of. And why is no one talking about the fact that he was selling framed editions of email correspondence between him and the MASS MoCA director at Art Basel. Is that the action of someone who’s worried about the situation ruining his career or simple profiteering?
This situation has nothing to with “one director’s ego”, but perhaps more with the pride of a young institution. MASS MoCA has, in a very short time, made quite a name for themselves, especially when it comes to big complex installations. They’ve handled Ann Hamilton, Robert Wilson, Carsten Hoeller and others with considerable aplomb. When Buchel sends his manifesto to the Boston Globe and essentially calls them a bunch of incompetent idiots, they have a right to defend themselves.
Furthermore, had they tried to remove the work last spring, Buchel could have potentially sued them for “destroying” his unfinished work. Can’t show it, can’t throw it away. OK, let’s get an impartial, legal ruling on the parameters of the situation. Which is exactly what happened.
And now they’ve proved a gracious victor – they’re not showing the unfinished work – and they should get some major credit for that.
Will Buchel be a gracious loser and withdraw his appeal? To pursue it would be not only moot, but punitive, and no doubt damage the global institution/artist relationship more than anything up to this point.
I don’t disagree that respect and consideration are traits that should be exhibited (no pun intended) by both parties. Where I disagree is where the claim is made, and believed, that individuals and parties, regardless of their status and/or relationship, can make business arrangements without any written agreements, especially when they involve hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I’ve said this before, that if monetary expenditures were the true reason why the Museum and Thompson were suing Buchel, then there were other LEGAL means of which the Museum could have availed itself to remedy the financial issue. They opted not to, and in their haste, failed to consider the ultimate implications of their legal actions. There’s a saying in law, “hard cases make bad law.” This is a perfect example.
I also wouldn’t be too quick to declare that Museums will now be in a position to commission artists and exhibit their “tantrums.” Rather, any good museum worth its salt has a disciplined board of directors; meaning that after this fiasco, no board member would be fulfilling their duty of care, loyalty, and obedience if they allowed any officer (director and/or curator) to continue to engage in corporate dealings with nothing but a handshake and good vibes.
Lastly, Buchel deciding to appeal would not be moot. The decision by Ponsor is one that other judges will look to in the event of another VARA case, and it’s a decision that favors a museum, organization, curator, collector, or any individual that has a conflict with a commissioned artist. Until we see the actual decision—and even then—we do not know to what extent artists working in this country will have lost the few precious moral rights they were granted after Serra’s Tilted Arc.