Please find below a copy of a letter sent by Michelle Maccarone to a vast array of art schools and other folk regarding Christoph Büchel’s recent fight with tha law and Mass MoCA. He lost. Tha law won. I encourage everyone to research this situation. Not a very good decision for artists and, ultimately, art.
The piece was to be entitled, “Training Ground for Democracy.” Check it:
OPEN LETTER
To:
John Baldessari, Kris Kuramitsu, Weston Naef, Cathy Opie, Ann Philbin, Paul
Schimmel;
and the Deans or Chairs of:
Art Center College of Design, California Institute of the Arts, Claremont
Graduate University, Otis College of Art and Design, University of
California in Irvine, University of California in Riverside, University of
California in Los Angeles, and the University of Southern California
January 29, 2008
Re: LA25
Dear Colleagues,
In the summer of 2006, the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP (³Skadden Arps²) announced a three-year program, LA25, intended to aid
twenty-five artists from a select group of Southern California art schools
and university art departments. I write to you in order to bring to your
attention the fact that Skadden Arps is also the law firm that counseled and
represented the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (³Mass MoCA²), pro
bono, in Mass MoCA¹s recent lawsuit against artist Christoph Büchel. As you
may know, Mass MoCA sued Mr. Büchel in order to obtain a court ruling
allowing them to distort and exhibit Mr. Büchel¹s artwork without his
consent.
I find it very ironic and deeply unsettling that Skadden Arps has initiated
this program and collection using the existing professional and
highly-respected institutions in the Los Angeles art community, all the
while counseling and representing an institution that not only disseminated
false and negative press about an artist, but also strategically initiated a
lawsuit which claimed that either Mr. Büchel¹s project was not art, or
alternatively that the Museum was the co-author of Mr. Büchel¹s unfinished
art work.
The lawyers of Skadden Arps were so aggressive and manipulative in their
tactics against Mr. Büchel that they are now responsible, along with Mass
MoCA, in establishing an unprecedented decision which made it legal for a
museum to exhibit an unfinished and unauthorized installation by an artist
against her or his consent. The negative historical consequences of this
matter remain to be seen, but ostensibly the impact of this aggressive and
manipulative maneuver by an art institution and its representative is
frightening.
I write to urge you to not participate in putting together a collection for
a corporation who has challenged the authority and authenticity of a fine
contemporary artist, and simultaneously diminished legal protections for the
very same visual artists we all help produce, educate, nourish and support.
Yours truly,
Michele Maccarone
Maccarone Gallery
New York City
BrooklynNellie | 30-Jan-08 at 10:29 am | Permalink
Christ, get a grip woman! “Artists” sell what they produce, just like any other employer or contractor. The purchaser can do with it as he/she pleases. Hey, if I were a multi-millioaire, I would probably buy some Gauguins and burn them.
CLINTON | 12-Feb-08 at 6:56 am | Permalink
But you would be burning “finished” Gauguins, I presume.
Eric Fredericksen | 18-Feb-08 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
Nellie, physical property and intellectual property differ. You will need that basic conceptual understanding in order to comment engagingly on this subject. For instance, you could have the right to burn a painting you own by a living artist but not the right to then display the ashes as his or her work.
chris | 10-Apr-08 at 7:17 am | Permalink
I’ve followed this case from the time all documents in regard to this case were made public and one must really look into all the details to form their opinion on this matter rather than your seriously lacking description of what happened.
Your shortened version of the story leaves off an awful lot of details regarding Christoph’s “issues” with this exhibit. If you look at all the letters, emails, and details of the case (they are publicly available – I’ve spent hours reading them in forming my opinion) it is clear to most what happened. It is painfully obvious (from an artist’s perspective) that Christoph severely underestimated the costs, time, and logistics involved with producing this exhibit in that space at MassMOCA. His ignorance and snubbing of building codes which MassMOCA had to abide by also present themselves clearly. He repeatedly snubbed alternatives to assist his project along and severely underestimated the costs to pull of the exhibit and it seems as though at some point along the way, his self inflated ego got into the way of progress and it seems as though he lost interest in actually finishishing this project. A good artist would have made it happen no matter what. A bad artist would have gone the route he did.
Likewise, as pathetic as the situation presents itself to the public, this letter from Michele Maccarone presents itself just as pathetically, an almost direct reflection of the artists ego. It comes as no surprise to find this gallery and Christoph have a history together and likewise has a cut of Christoph’s work.
This letter comes across as a public attempt to make both MassMOCA and the law firm look bad, by intentionally leaving off the details of the case and diverting its attention to a ‘new danger’ conjured up in an attempt to pull support for MassMOCA by writing to “colleagues.”
Additionally, this letter comes across just as egotistical as Christoph’s failure at MassMOCA and does not do a whole lot for his ‘case’ or for positive advertising for this gallery. Furthermore, your finding of something “ironic” coming from a law firm is laughable. Are you serious? If you find a law firm based upon morality or one that actually fights for ‘what is right’, pinch yourself, because you need to wake up!