Artist faces child pornography charges

The recent federal elections may have overshadowed this latest art news out of Australia.

Australian artist, Paul Yore, was charged last week with producing and possessing child pornography. The charges were laid following the seizure by Victorian police of pieces of his art back in June of this year. The artworks were from one of his installations called "Everything's F..ked" - which was on display at a Melbourne gallery at that time.

One of Yore's allegedly pornographic pieces

The case is scheduled to be heard in the Melbourne Magistrates Court in November. If it goes to trial, it is likely to be a landmark case on the censorship of art.

Source: The Australian, 7 September 2013

Voina recognises the virtues of the law?

Our favourite Russian art group is in the news again – but this time it seems they are not protesting the law. Art Info reports that:

Voina (translating to “war” in English) openly rejects the rule of law, yet they have recently taken to the Moscow courts to sue filmmaker Andrey Gryazev for his 2012 documentary about the group, “Tomorrow.”

The film, which reportedly cost just $2,000 to make, follows the everyday lives of the artists as they plot future protests, pee on cars, and shoplift diapers for their youngest member, Kasper, son of Voina leader Oleg Vorotnikov and his wife, Natalia Sokol. The members clearly granted Gryazev broad access, but their lawsuit, filed in a Moscow court in November, claims they were led to believe that the footage was intended for archival use only and that distributing it violates their right to privacy. Voina is seeking about $33,000 in damages.

Voina had sought to prevent distribution of the film in a number all of ways, which were all unsuccessful. Indeed, Gryazev is said to have a contract and on-camera permission from Vortnikov and Sokol. It remains to be seen what the Moscow courts think of Voina's case.

Source: ArtInfo, 13 February 2013

Skilled in the art: legal answers to questions of authenticity

An interesting issue which has been flagged by the press recently is whether the courts are qualified to make judgments as to the authenticity of artworks.

Reports the New York Times:

Federal District Court Judge Paul G. Gardephe’s résumé includes many impressive accomplishments but not an art history degree. Nonetheless he has been asked to answer a question on which even pre-eminent art experts cannot agree: Are three reputed masterworks of Modernism genuine or fake.

Judge Gardephe’s situation is not unique. Although there are no statistics on whether such cases are increasing, lawyers agree that as art prices rise, so does the temptation to turn to the courts to settle disputes over authenticity. One result is that judges and juries with no background in art can frequently be asked to arbitrate among experts who have devoted their lives to parsing a brush stroke.

The three art cases on Judge Gardephe’s docket in Manhattan were brought by patrons of the now-defunct Knoedler & Company who charge that the Upper East Side gallery and its former president Ann Freedman duped them into spending millions of dollars on forgeries.

The judge’s rulings may ultimately rely more on the intricacies of contract law than on determinations of authenticity. But the defendants and plaintiffs are busily assembling impressive rosters of artistic and forensic experts who hope to convince the judge that the works — purportedly by Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko — are clearly originals or obvious fakes.

Of course judges and juries routinely decide between competing experts. As Ronald D. Spencer, an art law specialist, put it, “A judge will rule on medical malpractice even if he doesn’t know how to take out a gallstone.” When it comes to questions of authenticity, however, lawyers note that the courts and the art world weigh evidence differently.

Judges and juries have been thrust into the role of courtroom connoisseur. Legal experts say that, in general, litigants seek a ruling from the bench when the arguments primarily concern matters of law; juries are more apt to be requested when facts are in dispute.

 The problem is that ultimately it may not matter what the judge or jury decides. In reality, if the art experts declare that a work is fake, a legal pronouncement is likely to have little effect – the market will heed the experts.


One of the paintings, attibuted to Jackson Pollock,
 in respect of which Judge Gardephe will be required to rule



Source: New York Times, 5 August 2012

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.