4 ms·

Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage. I don't remember the stuff about the other Doig's sister, and the prison records had not yet surf

by aab0 10y ago

Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage. I don't remember the stuff about the other Doig's sister, and the prison records had not yet surfaced (the prison system had been unable to find them at the time).

mhurron 10y ago
> Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage. Which actually should never have mattered, because the trial never should have happened. Doig said, no, that is not my painting. That should have been the end of it, but the other party didn't like that and tried to get the court to say otherwise because they thought they had basically won the lottery.
- ghaff 10y ago
  One can imagine scenarios where an artist disclaims that they created something out of spite (with family or whatever) and that disclaiming greatly decreases the value of some sold item. If that painting or whatever was fairly obviously the artist's work, would you still feel the same? This case seems odd based on the news coverage though (based on the coverage in respectable publications like The New York Times and Guardian). I would have, perhaps naively, assumed that the plaintiffs would have been expected to have at least some evidence that Doig (with a different spelling) was the artist in question before it went to trial. Which doesn't seem to have been the case. Of course, this was a civil suit and the reality is that you can sue anyone for just about any reason. For better or worse.
  - mhurron 10y ago
    One of the benefits of being a living artist is the ability to disavow anything as their work.
  - ChoHag 10y ago
    > an artist disclaims that they created something ... disclaiming greatly decreases the value of some sold item If this concerns you, you should not be as dependent on items whose value hangs so tightly on the word of a disinterested (or worse, interested) party.
33degrees 10y ago
Doige's sister was mentioned in the New York Time's article from July, so that part isn't new.

by aab0 10y ago

mhurron 10y ago

> Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage. Which actually should never have mattered, because the trial never should have happened. Doig said, no, that is not my painting. That should have been the end of it, but the other party didn't like that and tried to get the court to say otherwise because they thought they had basically won the lottery.

ghaff 10y ago
One can imagine scenarios where an artist disclaims that they created something out of spite (with family or whatever) and that disclaiming greatly decreases the value of some sold item. If that painting or whatever was fairly obviously the artist's work, would you still feel the same? This case seems odd based on the news coverage though (based on the coverage in respectable publications like The New York Times and Guardian). I would have, perhaps naively, assumed that the plaintiffs would have been expected to have at least some evidence that Doig (with a different spelling) was the artist in question before it went to trial. Which doesn't seem to have been the case. Of course, this was a civil suit and the reality is that you can sue anyone for just about any reason. For better or worse.
- mhurron 10y ago
  One of the benefits of being a living artist is the ability to disavow anything as their work.
- ChoHag 10y ago
  > an artist disclaims that they created something ... disclaiming greatly decreases the value of some sold item If this concerns you, you should not be as dependent on items whose value hangs so tightly on the word of a disinterested (or worse, interested) party.

33degrees 10y ago

Doige's sister was mentioned in the New York Time's article from July, so that part isn't new.