“When did a law degree become the union card for making judgments on art?”
So asks arts writer, Daniel Grant.
As we all have seen, artwork can generate big money, and where money goes, lawyers and litigation follow. More recent lawsuits, though, are defining what art is, how it can be bought and sold, how literally to follow a donor’s wishes. The meaning of the legal term “due diligence” is far more debated these days than the Abstract Expressionist theory of “push-pull,” particularly when speaking about Abstract Expressionists.
Unfortunately, with so many artists willingly ceding interpretations to critics and lawyers, it’s no surprise ill-equipped judges are making determinations as to what is art.
Worth a read (and not just because I’m quoted).
Jon Tobin:
February 10th, 2014 at 6:06 pm
I liked the article simply because I enjoyed the discussion of recent important art law cases.
I do not understand his argument; I can’t tell if he is saying that the court is not the place to discuss art or that he wishes the courts would discuss more about the art itself.
In either case, art law cases are interesting because they show that art exists within a larger context of law and that applying the law to artwork can be a bit baffling. It also sheds light on the fact that art has aspects of property – I think the property aspect is what is properly at issue in many of these cases. I have no problem with that.
There are judgments to be made about art that do not revolve solely around aesthetics, but rather around the works’ symbolic and/or economic value. In discussions like that, dealing with aesthetic theories would be a waste of time.