Portal to Houston's Art Community
Whose art is it?
Any Thoughts?
From News:
MassMoCA can show artist’s unfinished installation, says judge
By Martha Lufkin | Posted 24 September 2007
On 21 September, a federal judge in Springfield, Massachusetts, rejected an artist’s suit for an injunction to bar the exhibition of his unfinished work. In a resounding upset to Swiss artist Christoph Büchel, Judge Michael A. Ponsor further ruled that nothing in US copyright law prevents the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (Mass MoCA) from displaying parts of the massive installation, which Büchel abandoned in the exhibition space after significant museum expenditures.
Büchel claimed that allowing public access to the unfinished work would violate his rights under the 1990 Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), by distorting the work against his wishes.
Announcing his decision from the bench to a tense courtroom, after arguments from the lawyers on both sides, Judge Michael A. Ponsor said that the museum had gathered and assembled many of the disputed components for Büchel at its own expense, and that the artist and museum had worked together in an “organic collaboration” on the installation. In these circumstances, a display of the unfinished work was not a distortion, he said. But he said the museum would have to inform viewers by a disclaimer that the work is “an unfinished project that does not carry out the artist’s original intent”.
The ruling is of importance to museums and artists who collaborate on installations, which can evolve and change as they progress.
The suit arises from a breakdown in the joint project by Mass MoCA, which has arguably the largest display space of any contemporary art museum in the world, and Büchel, who commenced a cutting-edge installation for the museum’s biggest gallery. According to the artist, the exhibit, Training Ground for Democracy, was to be a village, based on mock US Army villages used to prepare soldiers for “real-life battle situations” in Iraq or against terrorism.
But Büchel abandoned the project, after disagreements over funding, scope, details and other matters. When the museum sought a court declaration that it could exhibit the materials as part of a new display about collaborations with artists, Büchel sued for an injunction barring this.
Access to the art has been restricted during the dispute, but Judge Ponsor, who was permitted to view it, said he was “extraordinarily moved” by it—but almost no one else has seen the work. He said that the assemblages, filling a space the size of several city blocks, included “dusty and bummed-up” components such as an old movie theatre, a “Saddam area with a replica of a spider hole”, a propaganda van, a jail, a sniper atop a gas station, a looted convenience store, a police car, and a hippie van, all creating “an atmosphere of torture and despair” and “an overwhelming sense of portentousness”. While the exhibit “does not present my image of democracy”, Judge Ponsor said, it is “a vision that strikes home very deeply”.
The judge cited pertinent facts grounding his decision, including that the project was “a very large and complex installation” requiring “a large degree” of detailed collaboration between artist and museum. The exhibit was “the product of the intent and vision of persons other than Mr Büchel”, he added. The museum paid for all or most of the materials, he said, with the result that “a great deal of stuff” which it bought is now “resting on its premises”. It also paid for most of the installation work, he said, and the dispute is occupying the museum’s “primary gallery”, which the museum says it cannot now use. There will be no “distortion” under VARA if the disclaimer makes clear that the work was not finished, he added.
The distortions which Büchel cited included building a cinder block wall whose dimensions the artist had not determined; the incorrect assembly of a “bomb carousel”; changes to the “spiderhole”, a replica of the hole where Saddam Hussein was captured, and others.
But the judge said museum staff had bought the components under Büchel’s supervision, and could have made choices which added irony to the exhibit, such as a police car with the slogan “Pride, Partnership and Professionalism”. “Did Mr Büchel choose that?” the judge asked, or was it a choice by museum staff?
In oral arguments, Mark M. Elliott, Büchel’s lawyer, told the judge that if an artist says a work is not finished, and not in a state to be publicly displayed, “then to show it to the public, against the artist’s wishes, is a distortion”. But Judge Ponsor asked how something could be distorted that wasn’t even created yet.
Mr Elliott went on to say that it was “an absolute heresy in the art world” for a museum “to be making the decisions” without the artist’s approval.
“Doesn’t this ignore the practicalities?” Judge Ponsor asked, noting that “Mr Büchel was five thousand miles away, not showing up”, and that “many of the e-mails” related to “trying to get the job done”. Büchel “never said, don’t touch my art”, the judge added.
But Kurt Wm. Hemr, the attorney for Mass MoCA, said that “there was no showing here that the museum in some dramatic way departed” from what it was supposed to do. VARA was not intended to cover this kind of disagreement between artists and their assistants, he said.
The judge evidently agreed. But he told Mass MoCA to be aware that his decision could be overturned if there was an appeal. Mr Elliott said Büchel would likely seek one.
The museum said that it hoped to announce a decision by Tuesday 25 September regarding the exhibit.
The museum is represented by Mr Hemr and others at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Boston and New York. Büchel is represented by Mr Elliott and others of the firm Bingham McCutchen LLP, New York and Boston, and Donn Zaretsky, of the firm John Silberman Associates PC, New York.
From News:
MassMoCA can show artist’s unfinished installation, says judge
By Martha Lufkin | Posted 24 September 2007
On 21 September, a federal judge in Springfield, Massachusetts, rejected an artist’s suit for an injunction to bar the exhibition of his unfinished work. In a resounding upset to Swiss artist Christoph Büchel, Judge Michael A. Ponsor further ruled that nothing in US copyright law prevents the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (Mass MoCA) from displaying parts of the massive installation, which Büchel abandoned in the exhibition space after significant museum expenditures.
Büchel claimed that allowing public access to the unfinished work would violate his rights under the 1990 Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), by distorting the work against his wishes.
Announcing his decision from the bench to a tense courtroom, after arguments from the lawyers on both sides, Judge Michael A. Ponsor said that the museum had gathered and assembled many of the disputed components for Büchel at its own expense, and that the artist and museum had worked together in an “organic collaboration” on the installation. In these circumstances, a display of the unfinished work was not a distortion, he said. But he said the museum would have to inform viewers by a disclaimer that the work is “an unfinished project that does not carry out the artist’s original intent”.
The ruling is of importance to museums and artists who collaborate on installations, which can evolve and change as they progress.
The suit arises from a breakdown in the joint project by Mass MoCA, which has arguably the largest display space of any contemporary art museum in the world, and Büchel, who commenced a cutting-edge installation for the museum’s biggest gallery. According to the artist, the exhibit, Training Ground for Democracy, was to be a village, based on mock US Army villages used to prepare soldiers for “real-life battle situations” in Iraq or against terrorism.
But Büchel abandoned the project, after disagreements over funding, scope, details and other matters. When the museum sought a court declaration that it could exhibit the materials as part of a new display about collaborations with artists, Büchel sued for an injunction barring this.
Access to the art has been restricted during the dispute, but Judge Ponsor, who was permitted to view it, said he was “extraordinarily moved” by it—but almost no one else has seen the work. He said that the assemblages, filling a space the size of several city blocks, included “dusty and bummed-up” components such as an old movie theatre, a “Saddam area with a replica of a spider hole”, a propaganda van, a jail, a sniper atop a gas station, a looted convenience store, a police car, and a hippie van, all creating “an atmosphere of torture and despair” and “an overwhelming sense of portentousness”. While the exhibit “does not present my image of democracy”, Judge Ponsor said, it is “a vision that strikes home very deeply”.
The judge cited pertinent facts grounding his decision, including that the project was “a very large and complex installation” requiring “a large degree” of detailed collaboration between artist and museum. The exhibit was “the product of the intent and vision of persons other than Mr Büchel”, he added. The museum paid for all or most of the materials, he said, with the result that “a great deal of stuff” which it bought is now “resting on its premises”. It also paid for most of the installation work, he said, and the dispute is occupying the museum’s “primary gallery”, which the museum says it cannot now use. There will be no “distortion” under VARA if the disclaimer makes clear that the work was not finished, he added.
The distortions which Büchel cited included building a cinder block wall whose dimensions the artist had not determined; the incorrect assembly of a “bomb carousel”; changes to the “spiderhole”, a replica of the hole where Saddam Hussein was captured, and others.
But the judge said museum staff had bought the components under Büchel’s supervision, and could have made choices which added irony to the exhibit, such as a police car with the slogan “Pride, Partnership and Professionalism”. “Did Mr Büchel choose that?” the judge asked, or was it a choice by museum staff?
In oral arguments, Mark M. Elliott, Büchel’s lawyer, told the judge that if an artist says a work is not finished, and not in a state to be publicly displayed, “then to show it to the public, against the artist’s wishes, is a distortion”. But Judge Ponsor asked how something could be distorted that wasn’t even created yet.
Mr Elliott went on to say that it was “an absolute heresy in the art world” for a museum “to be making the decisions” without the artist’s approval.
“Doesn’t this ignore the practicalities?” Judge Ponsor asked, noting that “Mr Büchel was five thousand miles away, not showing up”, and that “many of the e-mails” related to “trying to get the job done”. Büchel “never said, don’t touch my art”, the judge added.
But Kurt Wm. Hemr, the attorney for Mass MoCA, said that “there was no showing here that the museum in some dramatic way departed” from what it was supposed to do. VARA was not intended to cover this kind of disagreement between artists and their assistants, he said.
The judge evidently agreed. But he told Mass MoCA to be aware that his decision could be overturned if there was an appeal. Mr Elliott said Büchel would likely seek one.
The museum said that it hoped to announce a decision by Tuesday 25 September regarding the exhibit.
The museum is represented by Mr Hemr and others at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Boston and New York. Büchel is represented by Mr Elliott and others of the firm Bingham McCutchen LLP, New York and Boston, and Donn Zaretsky, of the firm John Silberman Associates PC, New York.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Victoria Lewelling on -
I think the art concept belongs to the artist, but if he abandoned the project midway thru than the museum has the right to show it, since they were trying to fulfill the artist requests, which were alot, it seems. Monies, time etc. spent by the museum to try and show someones work who becomes difficult, is still the museums money and they have a right to the ownership of actual items. If the artist becomes "self important", believing too much in what people say about him, as an artist, and becomes a diva than that is his illusions and fault. If you believe all the people telling you, you are wonderful, etc., then when the times comes around where you fall out of favor, do you keep acting like a diva, even if no one wants to show your work? or do you return back to the artist who creates for the sheer joy of, whether no one wants to see it or not? If the artist is so successful, he should know better than pulling off this behavior and if he is financially successful from previous shows, perhaps he should offer to buy the items, ship them back to his next show and arrange it to his taste. The best he should hope for is that the current exhibt will try to assemble it they way they had discussed it seems many times over and make a disclosure that the exhibt is based on concepts by said artist, but was not finalized by him as he chose to leave. IF, as Max mentioned more comes out about the issue that has not been revealed than of course, my opinion might change. But in essence, it should be, if you act like a baby, you lose and so does everyone else, by your behavior. Even artist should respect the place that has chosen them to show their work. None of us are THAT important.
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Rose on -
From Mass MoCA website:
MASS MoCA to remove Training Ground materials
New exhibition, Jenny Holzer’s Projections to open November 17th
Galleries
MASS MoCA announced today that it has begun removing materials gathered for Training Ground for Democracy and will not permit the public to enter the planned installation which was cancelled on May 21, 2007. Materials and partially completed fabrications for this large-scale installation have been stored in MASS MoCA’s main Building 5 gallery since the artist abandoned the project nine months ago. The front doors to the gallery have been locked, and the materials covered by tarpaulins.
Ever since the artist left MASS MoCA in December 2006, the museum explored every possible avenue in an effort to re-engage the artist, and when those efforts proved futile, the museum offered him the opportunity to retrieve the materials from the museum galleries (reimbursing the museum for its costs), which he declined to do. In late May 2007, MASS MoCA sought a declaratory ruling in the U.S. District Court, Springfield, Massachusetts, to rule on its and the artist’s rights in regards to the unfinished work. Even after bringing suit, however, MASS MoCA sought on numerous occasions to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute. None of those efforts were successful.
“With several hundred tons of materials and thousands of objects and partial constructions sitting abandoned in our galleries, we carefully considered what we could do,” said Joseph C. Thompson, MASS MoCA’s director. “We obviously cared a great deal for the work and had expended extraordinary effort and energies to try to bring it into existence; we did not want to act precipitously in either dismantling or displaying it. With no other options, and wanting to move forward as the situation continued to draw resources away from other artists and public programming, we sought a declaration of our respective rights by an impartial party – a federal judge.”
Judge Michael A. Ponsor of the U.S. District Court Second Circuit ruled on Friday, September 21, that MASS MoCA could exercise its curatorial discretion with respect to the materials, including making the assembled materials available for viewing when accompanied by signage explaining that it was an unfinished work.
“We are deeply appreciative of the Court’s thoughtful scrutiny of this matter. After giving careful deliberation to the interests of many constituents, including the artist’s own views, and factoring in the limited time window available given our normal exhibition cycle -- together with other considerations both logistical and philosophical-- we have decided to begin removing the materials immediately without placing them on public display. We are eager to return to our core mission to serve as a experimental platform for art-making, and we look forward to commencing work immediately on the previously announced installation by Jenny Holzer, Projections, which will open November 17, 2007.”
-
Permalink Reply by DUNE-MICHELI PATTEN on -
To Abandon a work of Art is to Sin against it!!
The Outcome is to be Expected
-
Permalink Reply by Victoria Lewelling on
-
Well said Max!
Badge
About
© 2009 Created by Frank Rose on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
