When is a photo not a photo?

Last Friday took me to the V&A’s Friday Late which was dedicated to their current exhibition – Shadow Catchers or Camera-less photography. It was the usual fun and fascinating evening that I have come to expect from Friday Lates including a Q&A with Martin Barnes, curator of photography at the V&A.

The world of photography has transformed in the last ten years. The advent of digital photography and, in particular, the fact that most mobile phones now include a digital camera, means that millions more photos enter the world on a daily basis (although few of these photos are ultimately printed).

The concept of digital photography was, to my knowledge, not even conceived when the Copyright Designs and Patents Act was drafted yet the definition was cleverly crafted to include all possible variants:

"Photograph" means

a recording of light or other radiation

on any medium on which an image is produced or

from which an image may by any means be produced

and which is not part of a film.

A little long winded perhaps. Almost poetic. It covers all the images in the exhibition and elsewhere in the gallery. Even those the photographic community would not necessarily deem a photograph such as an x-ray of a jacket or the heat impression from some lace gloves on chemically treated paper. It is worth remembering that what we consider to be a sculpture, building, photograph etc may not necessarily marry up with what the stereotype associated with that word conjures up.

I tried and failed to think of an example of something we might consider to be a photograph but fails to fall within the CDPA definition. If any readers have any good examples, please comment below.

Prison Art: Russia 1948-1986

For those of you who have been interested in the recent Russian themes explored on A&A, you may want to take yourself down to the Russian Criminal Tattoo Archive exhibition at 4 Wilkes Street in London’s East End. The exhibition, which opened yesterday, shows around 120 of the 3000 plus original ink drawings made by Russian prison attendant Danzig Baldaev. The drawings date between 1948-1986 when Baldaev worked as a warden in Kresty, an infamous Leningrad prison. Baldaev himself was an ‘orphan’ of the soviet system; his father having been denounced as an enemy of the people, Baldaev grew up in a Russian children’s home.

Having published three volumes of Baldaev's drawings in the Russian Criminal Tattoo Encyclopaedia series, Murray and Sorrell now launch their first exhibition, giving the public a rare chance to see the original drawings for the first time. The public may never have had the chance to see these works had Damon Murray and Stephen Sorrell of the design publishers Fuel not heard about it from a Russian literary agent. Upon hearing about the works they visited his widow in St Petersburg, where they found thousands of drawings of inmates tattoos stacked in bin liners. Baldaev’s widow did not know what to do with them, but she was concerned that her family would throw them out when she died. Murray and Sorrell bought them off her and published what became a hugely popular book series entitled the Russian Criminal Tattoo Encyclopaedia.

The tattoos formed a service record of a criminal's transgressions and whilst the KGB knew about Baldaev's project, surprisingly they sanctioned it, acknowledging the value of information recorded about a prisoner on their bodies. Each tattoo has a unique meaning: skulls denote a criminal authority; a scorpion a bodyguard; a cat a thief; crosses on knuckles show the number of times the inmate had been to prison; and a shoulder insignia marked solitary confinement. But tattoos also told a political story; a swastika was not indicative that the wearer was a fascist supporter, but instead represented a refusal to accept the rules of prison society, whilst a larger tattoo of manacled hands holding the Kremlin ironically refers to how the State is founded on corruption and signifies a "don" or boss.

The accompanying photographs by Sergei Vasiliev act as an important counterpart to Baldaev's drawings and allow us a glimpse into this compelling and extraordinary world. These incredible images allow the viewer a rare opportunity to delve into the ever-changing folklore of the Russian criminal underworld.

Don’t miss this opportunity to see this wonderfully unique and informative exhibition.

One Man’s Rubbish is Another’s Treasure

Hackney Council in East London are seeking to paint over a piece of street art (to be precise a 3.5m (12ft) rabbit on the side of a recording studio) by internationally renowned artist ROA. The owners of the building had originally granted ROA permission to create the piece, but they have been served with a removal notice by Hackney Council, warning that unless they "remove or obliterate the graffiti" within 14 days, a council contractor will paint over the wall and charge them for the service.

Hackney Council seemed to have deemed the work a ‘blight’ on the local environment; news to local residents and the building owner who have a lot of positive things to say about the work. By locals it has been hailed as something which adds to the local area.

This is not an unfamiliar story. In 2007 a Banksy piece showing a monkey preparing to blow up a bunch of bananas at Waterloo station in London was painted over by staff. In October 2008 Westminster city council removed a mural from Newman Street in central London after the deputy council leader, Robert Davis, said keeping it would be "condoning" graffiti. Last year Hackney was criticised after it painted over a Banksy cartoon of the royal family that had been present on a block of flats for over eight years.

So who is ROA?

ROA is a secretive Belgian street artist who has risen to prominence over the last two years after. He began by painting animal forms in a disused warehouse close to his native Ghent, Belgium. His work can now be seen in across the USA, Europe and as far away as Brazil. His first solo show in the UK was staged in 2010 at the Pure Evil gallery in Shoreditch, which specialises in Street Art.

Does Anybody Think it Should Stay?

Mark Rigney, who runs a walking tour featuring ROA's work, said: "Hackney council should realise that this art movement is a huge tourist attraction and people are crossing London and the globe to see the art upon the streets of Hackney, Islington and Tower Hamlets – areas which are often referred to as the epicentre for London street art."

Charley Edwards, who runs the Pure Evil gallery, said that the ROA show “was the most successful show we've ever had in terms of people coming. You could hear the gasps as people walked in and saw his pieces.”

Julia Craik, managing director of Premises music studios and cafe says "If it was some horrible graffiti then they'd have a point, but it's a thing of beauty in Hackney Road, which is not the greatest area in the world. Among the bingo halls and shops you've got a really nice artwork, which really adds something."

An interesting comment, which begs the question: should the local authority be nominated as overseer as to what constitutes ‘good street art’ versus ‘bad graffiti’? A question that Hackney Council seems to tackle head on Hackney: "The graffiti ... is clearly visible from the road and, whilst it is not the council's position to make a judgment call on whether graffiti is art or not, our task is to keep Hackney's streets clean.

"As part of our enforcement policy, which is informed by Defra guidance, we initially contacted the property owner on an informal basis and offered advice, including what they needed to do if they wished to retain the piece of graffiti. This was followed by a letter and another visit to the property before the removal notice was served. However, we are currently holding our enforcement action to allow the owner a further opportunity to seek planning advice about retaining the piece."

Other councils have adopted novel solutions to deciding whether or not a piece of graffiti should remain. Sutton invited residents to vote on whether a Banksy should remain. More than 90% of respondents wanted it to stay, but the mural was defaced by taggers before the vote closed.

Do YOU Think it Should Stay?

Supporters of the work have started a petition to save it and at the last count there were 1617 signatories. If you think the Rabbit should stay click here to show your support.

The Bigger Picture

The destruction of street artworks such as graffiti, which by its very nature is likely to be on someone else’s property, begs an even bigger question: should the ROA as the artist have the right to object to derogatory treatment of his work in accordance with sections 80-83, of the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1998 in the same was as afforded to other artists? Are his Moral Right’s as an artist in fringed? Or does the Council’s right to obliterate such works fall squarely within the provision of section 81? Fellow Blogger Tomasz Rychlicki raises similar interesting points in his Legal questions about illegal art article if you have time to read more.

Craik said she had replied to Hackney Council in writing after receiving their letter this month, but was yet to receive a response. "It could happen at any moment," she said. "We're constantly thinking 'are we going to come in tomorrow to no rabbit, and a massive bill.'"

For More Images of ROA’s work click here.

Source: Guardian Online Monday 25 October 2010 23.12 BST

Art Scam backfires

An American art auctioneer who sold fake artwork on a national auction TV show was this week sentenced to five years in jail after pleading guilty to mail fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, interstate transportation of stolen property and failing to file a tax return.

James Mobley sold the forged art in association with the Fine Art Treasures Gallery, located in Pasadena CA. The owners of the Gallery had already been sentenced to a total of eleven years jail, having also pleaded guilty to numerous charges including conspiracy, interstate transportation of stolen property and filing false tax returns. $3.8 million had also been seized from their bank accounts.

The way the scam had worked was that fake or forged art was bought from suppliers or created by the Gallery owners and then passed off as the authentic works of artists such as Picasso and Dali. Forged certificates of authenticity or fake appraisals were often drawn up for these pieces. Also, to make it seem more plausible that the art was real, the Gallery claimed that they sourced the worlds from worldwide estate liquidations. The scam did not stop there, however. Mobley then auctioned the works live on TV in an art auction show, where the auction bidding process was also rigged such that fake bids were announced on the program to falsely drive up the prices.

The scam operated for 4 years and over that time more than $20 million is said to have been conned from thousands of people.

This case serves to confirm the old adage that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

So, if you are thinking of investing in some art, try and get the opinion of a professional appraiser or qualified authenticator beforehand. After all, you wouldn’t buy a house without a survey. The purchase of art, especially as an investment, should be treated in the same way.




<------For future reference: a fake picasso


















Source: Los Angeles Daily News, 26 October 2010.

Pictures of polaroids

A recent article in The Guardian inspired today's trip to the Colnaghi Gallery to see the current exhibition of Julian Schnabel's work. He uses a 1970s handmade polaroid camera to great effect:

"It is as if you were Xeroxing your own face. The pictures have such physicality: their surface is like fine leather, stained from chemicals. Each one has a body and is more than an image."

The pictures that he creates are extremely varied, some in sepia, some are covered in paint to greater or lesser effect. My favourites were two of Mickey Rourke looking surprisingly unlike his public image and one of a man (possibly the artist) painting in a garden.

Why the art review? Partly because I felt like it. But the IP twist on the tale is the gallery's attitude towards photography: "No flash and not too many." Use on a blog was "ok." Hence the couple of pictures uploaded here. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable standpoint and contrasts with my experience of a number of museums and galleries who have attempted to restrict photography on the basis that to photograph their pictures and in some instances the building itself would be copyright infringement. More often than not both the paintings and the buildings are hundreds of years old.

No one wants to wander round a gallery while every second person is taking a photo rather than appreciating the art but to outright ban photography in the name of intellectual property has long been a source of personal annoyance. Particularly where the art in question is based on a number of sources and may even directly copy other images. My photographs are not good quality but they will serve as a reminder and an illustration.

Julian Schnabel's Polaroids exhibition is at Colnaghi gallery, 15 Old Bond Street, London W1 until 12 November 2010.

Own Art

A trip to the Bankside Gallery this weekend allowed not only a viewing of the Royal Watercolour Society’s Autumn Exhibition, which it is currently hosting, but also the opportunity to see the Own Art programme in action.

For those who aren’t in the know, Own Art is the Arts Council England scheme which aims to make it easy and affordable for everyone to buy a contemporary work of art. The scheme is run by the Arts Council through its trading company ArtCo Trading Ltd in partnership with by Hitachi Capital Consumer Finance. To summarise; you can apply for a loan for any amount between £100 – £2,000 to buy a piece of art, the credit is provided by Hitachi and then you pay back the amount you borrow in equal instalments over 10 months interest free. The loan is interest free as it is subsidised by the Arts Council who pays the interest to the bank instead of you.

The scheme can be used to buy most pieces of contemporary art, including paintings, sculptures, textiles, jewellery, fashion, furniture, glass, ceramics and multi media works as well as prints and multiples, so long as they are in limited edition. But, the artists must be living.

Seeing the scheme in practice, it is easy to be seduced by the sudden affordability of some great pieces of art, which in other circumstance would seem far out of reach – especially when the price besides each work is helpfully broken down into 10 monthly instalments. I was certainly tempted by several works and figured that if I did take advantage of the scheme I would easily be able justify the monthly outgoings by, for example, reducing my night outs each month by one.

However, despite the apparent ease with which art can be acquired, it is important not to forget or ignore the legal side. A loan agreement is a legally binding agreement to repay a certain amount of money. Therefore, applicants to the scheme must ensure that they are fully aware of what they are agreeing to do and the penalties for defaulting on the loan. There is also the matter of the purchase agreement with the gallery. The purchaser should be clear on issues such as when the title and risk in the artwork pass and whether there are any there are any conditions on resale of the work,

On the other side, the galleries which are members of the scheme are bound certain legal obligations as well as the Own Art Scheme Rules. For instance, they are required, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to hold a Standard Licence covering at least credit brokerage as they will be involved in activities relating to credit. Indeed, failure to hold such a licence at all times may amount to a criminal offence and result in the inability of that gallery to carry out any consumer credit business in the future. The galleries also have to be independently registered with the Office of the Information Commissioner for data protection activities particular to their business.

Thus, by all means invest in some eye-catching art, but always keep your other eye on the legal picture.




Kata Tjunta (Australia) by Simon Pierse
Currently on display at the Bankside Gallery
Price: £780.00 or £78/month for 10 months through Own Art








All the details of the Own Art scheme here.

An alternative to affordable art: The diamond encrusted saucepan

In stark contrast to the Affordable Art Fair, Russia's millionaires, were cordially invited last Sunday to attend the aptly named Millionaire Fair in Moscow. Whilst no paintings were on sale, a wide variety of luxury items, some of which may fall within a wider definition of "art" were on sale. A diamond encrusted saucepan, luxury cars and fur coats were valued at such high prices that it is hard to comprehend their value.

Art and luxury goods share a similar approach to pricing where so much depends on image and exclusivity. Preserving this image of exclusivity is paramount to the value of the goods. The importance of considering intellectual property rights and taking steps to avoid copying is absolutely fundamental to both industries. Yet, as Louise points out, the art industry has been far slower to utilise all the tools in the intellectual property toolbox.

A little quiz for our reades: when was the last time you saw an artist in court? I'm going to start with when Andrew Goldsworthy's snowball was used by Habitat... More suggestions welcome.

Art is for Life – Not Just For Christmas

The Affordable Art Fair (AFF) at Battersea Park in London draws to a close today and it was the last chance to get your hands on some of those wonderfully affordable pieces of art from the autumn collection.

In case you have never heard of The AFF the concept is simple – make art affordable. Founded in 1999 this exhibition and art shopper’s paradise ensures you don’t need to be an art expert or a millionaire to enjoy and buy art, as no piece exceeds £3,000. After 10 years in action The AFF is now considered the leading showcase in the UK for contemporary art in this price range, having welcomed over 430,000 visitors who have bought a staggering £73 million of art.

But whilst The AFF has a host of activities and educational events, I am yet to see a workshop that addresses issues of IP in the creative industries. Unfortunately IP is commonly a neglected theme. This gap in the educational programme is largely reflective of the art industry as a whole, who often tackle issues of IP and artworks reactively at the top, and wealthy, end of the chain. Instead I am looking forward to the day when fantastic events such as The AFF reach out to developing artists and budding collectors alike on important topics such as copyright infringement; helping them to recognise the perils of infringing other works early in their artistic development. Important, as old habits die hard and IP actions can easily bankrupt a struggling young artist or collector.

I hope to see events like this grow in the future to include free IP based educational sessions for artists and newly fledged artwork collectors.

But what a great place to have started your Christmas shopping!

Russia – Art in Revolt

If Simone’s post on the new law that threatens Russia’s art collections interested you then you may want to visit the Chto delat? (What is to be done?) - The Urgent Need to Struggle exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary Art. I’m sure this group of artists and activists will have something to say about this new legislation as their work advances a leftist position on economic, social, and cultural agendas. This project and exhibition seeks to merge political theory, art and activism. It is realised by a Russian collective of artists, philosophers and writers whose ideas and observations are rooted in post-perestroika Russia and in principles of self-organisation and collectivism.

The work is not limited to “art” in its most traditional format, but instead seeks to explore art through less traditional mediums such as publication of a regular newspaper, videos, installations, public actions and radio programmes.

This Free exhibition is well worth a visit, but be warned, it ends tomorrow...

Art sales in the recession

Thinking of selling some art as a quick way of raising some capital to make ends meet? Think again if you are a US art gallery and member of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD).

In 2008, the National Academy Museum in New York sold two of its paintings in order to be able to pay its bills. The sale of Frederic Edwin Church’s “Scene on the Magdalene” and Sanford Robinson Gifford’s “Mount Mansfield, Vermont” raised a total of $13.5 million.



Although this might seem reasonable, since the Academy has more than 7000 artworks and was struggling financially with the economic downturn, the result was that the AAMD imposed sanctions on the Academy for violation of its Code of Ethics.

Among other things, the Code of Ethics provides that:

“A museum director shall not dispose of accessioned works of art in order to provide funds for purposes other than acquisitions of works of art for the collection.”

“AAMD members who violate this code of ethics will be subject to discipline by reprimand, suspension, or expulsion from the Association. Infractions by any art museum may expose that institution to sanctions, such as suspension of loans and shared exhibitions by AAMD members.”

The Academy’s actions were clearly in breach of the Code. The AAMD president, Kaywin Feldman, stating that:

“The National Academy’s actions violated one of our most core beliefs: that the collection is sacred and not a fungible asset … We thought it was very important to make that statement, that they had acted improperly, and that AAMD as an organization did not condone that behaviour. And we also wanted to see positive change for the organization.”

Thus, sanctions were imposed which reflected those envisaged in the Code, namely, the Academy was banned from loans from and program collaborations with the AAMD’s other members.

Those sanctions were finally lifted this month, almost two years later, but it seems that the effects were quite severe. This was confirmed by the Academy’s director, Carmine Branagan, who stated:

“Sanctions really hurt … “You’re completely incapable of designing exhibition programming going forward because you can’t loan and you can’t get loans, and sanctions also affect funding. Sanctions were very, very painful.”

However, though the Academy might have learnt its lesson, it is still not completely in the clear. Although voting to suspend the sanctions, the AAMD’s board also voted to establish a five-year probation period during which it will review the Academy’s progress. It is expected that the Academy will toe the AAMD line from now on.



Source: The New York Times, 18 October 2010