More art law, vintage cheese, art market joy, Justice Ginsburg’s pants, Instagram, and litigation (to come)
As some of you know, I attended CalArts for my MFA from 1995 to 1997. It was the most magical and special time in my life. I would do it again and again without hesitation. The faculty, my peers, the courses, the facilities, the other departments, all were more than I could have imagined. It’s a libertarian artist’s dream! But CalArts is an art school that although may have bureaucratic snags, faces nowhere near the obstacles Ivy Leagues schools and other prestigious art departments face. CalArts at that time was predicated on the student finding her/his own way. Some, like me, thrived in this environment. Others hated it. They wanted more hand-holding and less competition. I practically lived at CalArts during those two years and cannot remember one time that I wish I was not there. But I had a diverse group of faculty to learn from, and not just in the art school. My conversations with Robert Blanchon and Alexis Smith, not to mention Michael Asher, Alan Sekula, Charles Gaines, and Tom Lawson, I recall to this day. I often remember my long conversations with Mitchell Syrop: they were about art, language, images, the Santa Clarita landscape, Disneymouse, David Mamet. Conversations held in his adjunct office, my studio, over coffee or over beer. How I miss those days.
Look, I’m not anti-art schools as much as I’m anti-laziness. I never said that being like Charles Bukowski was better than vacationing with the Hausers and Wirths. Just make up your mind and don’t ask one industry to do it all. It’s odd that the one cultural practice that prides itself on breeding Duchamp, Pasolini and performance art is the same cultural practice that is now so comfortable and imbedded in its own skin. If anything, some of the comments I received fully sediment my thoughts on the SF Art Institute. If keeping the status quo is your strongest defense, then you have just given me my stronger offense. In the words of Irene Cara, “take your dreams, and make them happen.”
On to law. Mark my words: this Rona thing is going to elicit a slew of litigation globally and in every industry (health, insurance, manufacturing, transportation, rock concerts…). The art industry won’t be spared. For starters, think of how much the art industry has changed in the last 15 years. When I started my art law blog, Clancco.com, the only other art law blog out there was Donn Zaretsky’s (which he started months before mine). Today, Artnet, The Art Newspaper, Artsy, all have “art law columns” or consistent art law articles. Art law is now taught in law schools, it’s (to my chagrin) an art practice, and there is even The Art & Law Program, an art and law think-tank (mine). It shouldn’t be a surprise that with the advent of the internet and role of money in the art industry the world of visual art has become more litigious and dependent on lawyers. Think rent and lease payments: gallery, storage and studio); employment benefits; loan defaults; non-delivery of services or products; cancelled art commissions; cancelled art transactions; damaged art; and of course the continuation of intellectual property disputes. Hopefully, and in order to avoid costly and needless litigation, parties will opt to settle their differences in the most cost-effective and commonsensical manner, as well as for the sake of art.
While we’re on the subject of the legal profession, a question for you: will Justice Ginsburg be wearing pants? Legal eagle says that the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing, for the first time in history, oral arguments in pending cases this May via teleconferencing. All audio of the teleconference hearings will be released through a network pool, and thus immediately available to the public on media platforms. I’m not a fan of cameras in the Supreme Court, but making these arguments available to the public via audio can certainly be used by home-schoolers to educate their children—and spouses—on the nature and apparatus of law.
Page 2 of 3 | Previous page | Next page