Yesterday’s NY Times reported on a pending New York state bill which would make selling parts of a collection to cover museum operating costs illegal. The bill, drafted by Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky in collaboration with the New York State Board of Regents and the Museum Association of New York, “would prohibit museums from using proceeds from the sale of artworks ‘for traditional and customary operating expenses.”

Under the bill, proceeds from a sale could be used only for the acquisition of additional artworks for the museum’s collection or “the preservation, protection or care” of works in the collection. And, it says, “No item in a museum’s collection may be used as collateral or may be capitalized.”

The legislation also delineates criteria under which an artwork could be deaccessioned: if it is inconsistent with the museum’s mission as set forth in its mission statement, if it has “failed to retain its identity” because of decay or other deterioration, if it is redundant or inauthentic, or if it is being repatriated or returned to its rightful owner or donor.

Wow. It baffles the mind that during these dire economic times state legislators would be more preoccupied with saving one or two Warhols than with drafting and passing bills that would lower crime rates in the state, increase jobs, and updating our faltering subway system. Walking around Manhattan and the hip Williamsburg district, I am perplexed in seeing restaurants and bars filled every night with patrons, all buying $9 dollar beers and $15 hamburgers. Perhaps it’s this same constituency that abhors the thought of selling a Rothko, at the cost of additional layoffs, constrained expenditures, or perhaps the ultimate sin: shutting down another museum.

Donn Zaretsky has his usual but extremely interesting counterpoints here, such as this one:

A “sacred cultural and ethical trust” — unless, of course, a museum wants to acquire some shiny new artworks, in which case: hey, knock yourself out! Sacred shmacred. Sell to your heart’s content!

The Boston Globe just reported that yesterday “more than 50 members of the Rose family … demanded the continued operation of the museum that bears their name and denounced plans to sell the art to pay its bills.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Starting today, the Boston Herald is launching an effort (including a blog) to help the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum recover $500 million in art stolen from Boston almost 19 years ago. The blog, “The Hunt for the Art,” launches tomorrow and will keep readers updated on promising new leads and theories. (Blog has been launched and can be viewed here.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Germany has appealed the Hans Sachs court ruling that would have returned thousands of rare posters to Peter Sachs, a Jewish man, whose father lost the collection to the Nazis. According to the SF Chronicle:

Bernd Neumann, [the federal culture minister], said Germany has never shirked its “moral responsibility” for restitution to the victims of the Nazi government, but that the ruling in the case of Hans Sachs’ poster collection was overly broad.

According to Artnet, Mary Boone, the reputable, aggressive and attractive art dealer has filed a lawsuit in New York state supreme court seeking to compel Ohio collector Mary Kidder, a trustee of the Columbus Museum of Art, to complete a purchase of a painting worth $32,000.

The gallery claims that the collector agreed to buy the work, forming a “binding contract” for the purchase, “pursuant to the custom and practice of the art world,” and sent the collector an invoice. About two weeks later, according to the lawsuit, Kidder told the gallery she had changed her mind and was canceling the transaction. Since the gallery had paid Cotton $30,000 for the painting on her account, the gallery says, Kidder should complete the purchase, or at least compensate the gallery for its costs ($30,000 to Cotton).

More here.

Today, the Associated Press filed their answer, counterclaims and affirmative defenses against Shepard Fairey’s preemptive lawsuit (See the actual court document fairey.ap.cc.pdf). Wired magazine has a great expose and synthesis of the lawsuit.

Texas artist Baxter Orr who reconfigured a Fairey drawing by adding surgeon’s mask.

The nation’s oldest and largest operating news-gathering organization sought unspecific damages from Fairey, who the wire service accuses of misappropriating a 2006 AP photo of Obama when he was a senator from Illinois. Last month, Fairey filed a preemptive lawsuit seeking to have a court rule that his computerized image was a fair use of the photo snapped at National Press Club on April 27, 2006.

“Simply put, the fair use doctrine cannot be contorted to permit Fairey to wholly replicate a photographer’s prescient photograph and exploit it for his own commercial benefit,” (.pdf) the AP wrote in its New York federal counter suit. The AP claims Fairey has generated $400,000 in sales of the image, which has adorned websites, posters, stickers, shirts and buttons.

Additionally, Wired points out Fairey’s hypocrisy of claiming “free expression” for his appropriation of the AP’s photograph and his aggressive prosecution of individuals Fairey believes appropriate his work.

Either way, this isn’t good for visual artists. If Fairey loses the court decision will establish a narrower interpretation of fair use, most likely hitting on and defining the “marketability” and “commercial” factors (which may be a good thing). If Fairey wins, the decision will outline ways in which artists can appropriate images from other artists for commercial purposes without the original artist’s consent. Artist’s lacking in exposure and financial means will grab the short end of the stick. Live by the sword… . Perhaps this is a good thing; it may send artists back to their own creative boards rather than Google images and the front page of the New York Times.

Yoshitomo Nara, a top Japanese pop artist in town for a big gallery opening was busted the night before his show when cops spotted him drawing a smiley face on the wall of an East Side subway station.

From the New York Post:

Nara – whose works portraying doe-eyed, cartoonish children have sold for as much as $1.5 million – was charged with resisting arrest, making graffiti, criminal mischief, possession of graffiti tools and damaging property. He was released after spending the night in jail and will have the charges dropped if he does not get in legal trouble for a year, officials said.