Thursday, March 28, 2024
 


Buy Fake and Stolen Dalís Here


Spanish police impounded 81 works that had been on display at a hotel in the southern Costa del Sol region. It was not clear whether the pieces were stolen, genuine or fakes. More here.

 

SF MoMA Plays Co-Author


Tyler Green, of Modern Art Notes, reports that SF MoMA is exhibiting their recently acquired art project by the recent Hugo Boss Prize winner, Emily Jacir, although with an odd disclaimer.

SFMOMA is committed to exhibiting and acquiring works by local, national and international artists that represent a diversity of viewpoints and positions. Works of art can engender valuable discussion about a range of topics including those that are difficult and contested, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Additional information about Emily Jacir’s Where We Come From, including a list of frequently asked questions, is available at the information desk in the Haas Atrium.

Green notes that Jacir’s project, Where We Come From (2001-2003), involves her “using her U.S. passport to gain entrance to Palestinian lands normally difficult or impossible to reach with a Palestinian passport. Once in Palestine, she fulfilled the wishes of Palestinians who had sent her requests, acting as a kind of DJ of geopolitical wanderlust. Jacir then photo-documented her performance of achingly simple requests[.]”

It is an extremely powerful project. SF MoMA’s decision to post a disclaimer to Jacir’s project violently intercedes in the creation of its meaning. We won’t deny the (obvious) political implications of this project, and certainly not at this specific historical moment. However, that is a reading that should be left to the viewing audience alone. The institution’s narrow interpretation of Jacir’s work does a grave injustice not only to the artist, but to the general viewing audience. It is bad enough that the politically correct corners of academia have perpetuated and generated a lame and impotent generation of art historians, but by creating its own editorial addendum to Jacir’s work it also perversely speculates that the majority of its viewing audience is too stupid or uninformed, or worse, that its paying audience lacks any aesthetic and poetic sensibilities to make up its own mind as to the meaning, if any, to Jacir’s work. SF MoMA’s chicken-shit and unconsented editorial of Jacir’s work indicates a growing trend in institutional and museum practice: a vulgar display of power nourished in large part by donor support, and synonymous only with its own ignorance.

We’ve seen other institutional editorial gestures (MASS MoCA and Cooper Union come to mind). The question–the ethical question–one must ask, is to what extent, and for how long, will artists allow institutions to curtail their speech for the sake of institutional and market support.

 

Yes Rasta. Yes Fair Use?


Controversy regarding Patrick Cariou’s lawsuit against Richard Prince for his use of Cariou’s copyrighted material continues. The Art Newspaper reported yesterday:

French photographer Patrick Cariou has launched a lawsuit against Richard Prince, claiming that the artist improperly lifted images from Cariou’s photographic survey of Rastafarian culture for a recent series of paintings. The suit, filed in New York, also names as defendants Larry Gagosian, Prince’s dealer who displayed the series in a recent show titled “Canal Zone”, and publishing house Rizzoli, which co-produced the catalogue. In addition to seeking unspecified damages for copyright infringement, the lawsuit also demands the “impounding, destruction, or other disposition” of all of the paintings, unsold catalogues and preparatory materials involved in the making of the works.

Donn Zaretsky has an interesting take regarding what seems to be an overzealous use and citation of another previous copyright infringement case against Jeff Koons (Blanch v. Koons), stating that the Koons case is not a “get-out-of-jail-free card.”

But what about the Rogers v. Koons case? We noted a crucial difference between Rogers and Blanch here.

Although this may signal to some a reversal of Rogers v. Koons, where Koons had a sculpture made based on a copyrighted postcard image, the Second Circuit was clear to announce that in Blanch, the transformative use and lack of market harm to Blanch were aided by Koons’ commentary on the copyrighted work. Conversely, in Rogers, Koons failed to show any commentary while evidencing complete and willful disregard for the copyrighted postcard image and its notation (©). What seems to be crucial in the Blanch case, as noted by the Second Circuit, was that Blanch not only failed to show market harm but also that she sought copyright protection only after she saw Koons’ painting on exhibition, indicating a clear desire for a monetary windfall.

 

“As Is”


Today’s Wall Street Journal has an interesting article concerning restoration of artworks. Some very important legal issues come to light in this article, two explicitly and some implicitly.

On the issue of whether or not an original artist has, or will have, any say in terms of restoration, this bit.

Glenn Wharton, a “time-based media” conservator at the Museum of Modern Art, agreed, claiming that “I’m all about working with artists, when artists are still alive,” although he noted that “when artwork is sold, other players come into the picture and the artists give up some of their rights.”

In terms of whether or not an artist has a legal duty to restore or participate in the restoration of the damaged artwork:

An artist’s sense of obligation to his or her work sometimes may be time-limited, contracturally — public art commissions usually contain a clause in the agreement stipulating the artist’s responsibility for “patent or latent defects in workmanship” for between one and three years — or because of evolutionary changes in the artist’s life and work.

But what happens when an art work cannot be repaired to its original condition for reasons outside the artist, collector, or conservator’s control? What if some materials are no longer in circulation, either due to natural reasons or commercial reasons?

 

Deaccessioning In A Nutshell


For an update on the latest controversies regarding museum deaccessioning practices, visit our Deaccessioning Blog.

 

Google to Zoom In on Spanish Masterpieces


The WSJ and the CBC have reported that Google has teamed up with Spain’s Prado Museum in order to allow viewers to zoom in on 14 of the museum’s main works, including Diego Velazquez’s “Las Meninas,” Francisco de Goya’s “Third of May,” and Peter Paul Ruben’S “The Three Graces.” Forgers will love this technological wonder. Any other legal issues?

Check out The Prado in Google Earth here.

 

London Photographer Arrested for Terrorism


A photographer who spent his whole life photographing and painting around his home neighbourhood of Elephant and Castle in London was arrested under anti-terror laws and jailed, his DNA and fingerprints taken. He was released after five hours, once his Member of Parliament intervened. Under current policies, his DNA will remain on file forever — though the EU has ordered Britain to cease this practice.

Boing Boing the story here.

 
 
Legal

Clancco, Clancco: The Source for Art & Law, Clancco.com, and Art & Law are trademarks owned by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento. The views expressed on this site are those of Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento and of the artists and writers who submit to Clancco.com. They are not the views of any other organization, legal or otherwise. All content contained on or made available through Clancco.com is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed, nor is anything submitted to Clancco.com treated as confidential.

Website Terms of Use, Privacy, and Applicable Law.
 

Switch to our mobile site