Lawyers pick sides, fights, justice, rights of absolutely any topic you can think of- drugs, trade, criminal, divorce, and even art. Generally, it’s a dispute over belonging, appropriation, and who has rights over something, in this case a work of art. Firstly this goes way beyond anybody’s amazing rhetoric skills because I don’t think anyone has a clear idea or definition of art since this changes all the time depending on the viewer, context, time period, and so on. Then there is the issue of who as a person or group has ownership and therefore rights over an artwork.
Is it the creator? Does the artist really own the art since they really don’t have anything appropriated to the work of art once it has left the studio. In terms of appropriation there is such a thing as artist resale rights (or droit de suite in French the origin of the term) where the artist is allowed to claim royalties, a percentage of a final sale price when a public transaction has been made. However artist resale rights only exist in certain countries (not the USA mostly) so whether the art belongs to the original creator might depend on your nationality? Seems a bit manipulative.
Then there’s the artist gallery relationship. The artist produces the work, but the gallery representing the artist has some ownership rights over the work- they generally get a generous 50% cut of the final sale price for all the work they do to get the art noticed. But then if belonging changes through transactions if the art is bought then does the buyer then own the art? Is it an object with interchangeable rights dependent on that monetary exchange? Some people might even argue that art should belong to the people, this proletariat view seems to be easiest to fight for, but private viewing minimizes that belonging to the person with the biggest pocket book.
Let’s say art does belong to everyone, to the world, art is a child of the world and therefore is owned and belongs to everyone.
They also say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes it’s argued art only exists to serve its when there is a viewer at hand (meaning art for arts sake belongs to itself.) This cliché statement poses so many problems for instance not all art is beautiful, aesthetics doesn’t imply beauty. If art is so subjective that belonging changes according to the viewer then appropriation of art is practically impossible- so why even fight about and create laws for it?
Then why is it whenever there is a conversation between artworks, if too much is ‘borrowed’ from one work a lawsuit of copyright issues arises?
Examples are Shephard Fairey and the Associated Press concerning the Obama Hope posters. The Associated Press is suing Fairey for copyright infringement among other things because he mass produced a picture originally owned by the AP without permission (with his artistic interpretation of course not the exact photograph) The truth is had his posters not made such a statement and if some small scale artist had done the same without as much exposure, conversation, money…it probably would’ve gone unnoticed and been treated as a compliment. Jealousy is a dangerous and vicious creature.
Then there is someone like Richard Prince where the work is mostly a collage of photographs from ads with recognizable brands and figures for these brands. He has been sued by many of the original ‘producers’ of these creative advertisements. He generally uses these photographs out of their original intent and context to create his own collages without of course demanding for the right to use them. But did these originals belong to anyone in the beginning?
It is true a lot of initial work goes into the creation of these photographs especially if a photographer has worked 10 years earning the trust of Rastafarians in the mountains to produce a body of work with a specific intent. But does it end there? Isn’t art about a conversation between already existing work of art, it would be limiting to have the appropriation end any potential discourse. Maybe influence and inspiration should be given credit and maybe explained a bit rather than claiming a whole work as completely original in everyway possible.
Then there is what commission can do for appropriation. If a piece is commissioned, does the artwork then belong to the decisions of the pocket book owner? Richard Serra found this out the hard way when he filed a Million lawsuit against the General Services Administration (GSA) for a sculpture he had created called “Tilted Arc” at the 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan and it was very site-specific meaning the creation of the piece was adapted and largely depended on its physical location. It wouldn’t make sense had it been transferred unlike a painting from one gallery to another. The GSA who had commissioned the work were adamant on changing the location, and unfortunately they got their way.
Art Law is a growing topic of interest among artists, art consultants, and people working in the art world. The question of appropriation is still more complex than previously because if there is an actual owner to a work of art, this might affect its initial being and purpose as an artistic creation and therefore becomes part of the whole artistic process and intention.
Written by kieranshep
Lawyers pick sides, fights, justice, rights of absolutely any topic you can think of- drugs, trade, criminal, divorce, and even art. Generally, it’s a dispute over belonging, appropriation, and who has rights over something, in this case a work of art. Firstly this goes way beyond anybody’s amazing rhetoric skills because I don’t think anyone has a clear idea or definition of art since this changes all the time depending on the viewer, context, time period, and so on. Then there is the issue of who as a person or group has ownership and therefore rights over an artwork.
Is it the creator? Does the artist really own the art since they really don’t have anything appropriated to the work of art once it has left the studio. In terms of appropriation there is such a thing as artist resale rights (or droit de suite in French the origin of the term) where the artist is allowed to claim royalties, a percentage of a final sale price when a public transaction has been made. However artist resale rights only exist in certain countries (not the USA mostly) so whether the art belongs to the original creator might depend on your nationality? Seems a bit manipulative.
Then there’s the artist gallery relationship. The artist produces the work, but the gallery representing the artist has some ownership rights over the work- they generally get a generous 50% cut of the final sale price for all the work they do to get the art noticed. But then if belonging changes through transactions if the art is bought then does the buyer then own the art? Is it an object with interchangeable rights dependent on that monetary exchange? Some people might even argue that art should belong to the people, this proletariat view seems to be easiest to fight for, but private viewing minimizes that belonging to the person with the biggest pocket book.
Let’s say art does belong to everyone, to the world, art is a child of the world and therefore is owned and belongs to everyone.
They also say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes it’s argued art only exists to serve its when there is a viewer at hand (meaning art for arts sake belongs to itself.) This cliché statement poses so many problems for instance not all art is beautiful, aesthetics doesn’t imply beauty. If art is so subjective that belonging changes according to the viewer then appropriation of art is practically impossible- so why even fight about and create laws for it?
Then why is it whenever there is a conversation between artworks, if too much is ‘borrowed’ from one work a lawsuit of copyright issues arises?
Examples are Shephard Fairey and the Associated Press concerning the Obama Hope posters. The Associated Press is suing Fairey for copyright infringement among other things because he mass produced a picture originally owned by the AP without permission (with his artistic interpretation of course not the exact photograph) The truth is had his posters not made such a statement and if some small scale artist had done the same without as much exposure, conversation, money…it probably would’ve gone unnoticed and been treated as a compliment. Jealousy is a dangerous and vicious creature.
Then there is someone like Richard Prince where the work is mostly a collage of photographs from ads with recognizable brands and figures for these brands. He has been sued by many of the original ‘producers’ of these creative advertisements. He generally uses these photographs out of their original intent and context to create his own collages without of course demanding for the right to use them. But did these originals belong to anyone in the beginning?
It is true a lot of initial work goes into the creation of these photographs especially if a photographer has worked 10 years earning the trust of Rastafarians in the mountains to produce a body of work with a specific intent. But does it end there? Isn’t art about a conversation between already existing work of art, it would be limiting to have the appropriation end any potential discourse. Maybe influence and inspiration should be given credit and maybe explained a bit rather than claiming a whole work as completely original in everyway possible.
Then there is what commission can do for appropriation. If a piece is commissioned, does the artwork then belong to the decisions of the pocket book owner? Richard Serra found this out the hard way when he filed a Million lawsuit against the General Services Administration (GSA) for a sculpture he had created called “Tilted Arc” at the 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan and it was very site-specific meaning the creation of the piece was adapted and largely depended on its physical location. It wouldn’t make sense had it been transferred unlike a painting from one gallery to another. The GSA who had commissioned the work were adamant on changing the location, and unfortunately they got their way.
Art Law is a growing topic of interest among artists, art consultants, and people working in the art world. The question of appropriation is still more complex than previously because if there is an actual owner to a work of art, this might affect its initial being and purpose as an artistic creation and therefore becomes part of the whole artistic process and intention.
Everyone wants to be a critic. For those who love art, an art critic job can be very rewarding and enjoyable. Becoming an art critic not only requires an understanding and appreciation of art, but also the ability to provide an informative and educated review.
If you want to be an art critic, you need to have the ability to intelligently write an opinion of the artwork you have reviewed. Make a note of the type of art you are interested in whether it is art paintings, drawing, sculpture or abstract work. It helps to research different time periods, different artists and their work with that genre. This way you can have a basic comparative tool when judging a new artist’s work. When reviewing an artist for your critique, find out who the artist is, get some background information on them and see what other works they have.
An art critic must be able to write what they have seen and convey the mood, the subject and the type of art work they have seen. Many art critics get their start by writing local reviews for a newspaper or online art magazine. Art critics should educate themselves on the local art scene, art paintings, the history of art, the famous and not so famous artists and the starving artist in order to have a well-rounded background to fairly judge someone’s art work. If you have a background in art, consider that a plus. If you do not, think about taking a beginner’s art history class. Attend a local showing at the city art guild. Contact your local art council and attend an event. Find a well-known gallery and go visit. Spend a day perusing small galleries.
If you are trying to get your foot in the door, contact your local newspaper and offer to do a critic of a local art show. Contact one of the prominent art galleries in your area and ask if they would like to have an art critic attend their next event. Many places are happy to accommodate this request because it means exposure for them. Contact your local art guild or arts council and ask if they can suggest an artist for you to write a feature article about. Again, everyone loves a little bit of publicity especially if they are trying to get someone to buy their art paintings or other art work.
It is important to write an honest well-thought out opinion. If you liked their work, then explain why. If you do not like their work, then explain why and be prepared to defend your statements. Above all, enjoy the art and give it a fair review.
Written by ncgirl3571
