4 ms·

First, let me say that this looks like mistaken identity or worse; and that I myself am an artist, and like most part-time artists I'm very sympathetic to the i

by biztos 10y ago

First, let me say that this looks like mistaken identity or worse; and that I myself am an artist, and like most part-time artists I'm very sympathetic to the interests of full-time artists. However, this sentiment is unrealistically simple: "I feel a living artist should be the one who gets to say yea or nay and not be taken to task and forced to go back 40 years in time." The way the art market works, attribution (and provenance) is a big part of valuation. If you're a famous artist and I bought one of your paintings without having you sign a bunch of paperwork -- and who does that with young artists and amateur collectors? -- then you have the power to give or withhold a lot of value. I think the artist was in the right here. But you have to consider what his statement would mean if he had in fact painted that picture. By denying its authenticity he would be trying to destroy its value. You can choose what you acknowledge, but as an artist you don't get to choose your own history retroactively. Like anybody else you can tell your own story, but yours might not be the only version. Of course, this is why real collectors document provenance, sometimes extensively; and why a lot of artists will by default include a "certificate of authenticity" of some kind with every sale.

ww520 10y ago
An artist should be free to affirm or deny authorship of an art object whether he actually created it or not. The buyers assume substantially risk when buying unauthenticated artworks.
lallysingh 10y ago
What's interesting here is how the art isn't valued on its own artistic merits, but by its authorship. The artist's ability to control the value of a work by testimony is weird, but only because the underlying work's value is weird.
- biztos 10y ago
  It's been that way for a long time, though authorship and merits were (and arguably still are) very intermingled. It started with the simple fact that really good artists were those that made really good art, and once somebody had a reputation it would be both to the artist's benefit and the collector's to have that front and center: for the artist, as advertisement to attract buyers, and for the collector to brag about. I think the things that are very different now (i.e. since about the 80's) are: 1. Much, much more money is involved. 2. In many cases there is a huge gap between what insiders would consider the "underlying work's value" and what average people would find inspiring. 3. Media, obviously, and the Internet. (And of course even insiders can differ on #2: there are plenty of cases where the market says Yes but the academics say No. The market works hard to "correct" this in its favor.) Here's a great article on a great artist whose name recognition was a big part of his career in the 1500's, for instance: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieronymus-bosch/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieron...
- alanh 10y ago
  Welcome to art! The only difference between Fountain and the, ah, similar works on display in the art museum men’s room is an official nod by DuChamp.
- Waterluvian 10y ago
  It's kind of McLuhanesque. The artist is on display, not the art.
- jeffwass 10y ago
  Many collectibles are like that. Eg : Jimmy Hendrix's first guitar as a child would auction for quite a lot of money. But the same model and condition guitar instead owned by some random guy in Omaha would be worthless.
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    I feel like this analogy isn't quite right. I would compare the guitar to a paintbrush. Both are tools which, in the right hands, can make beautiful things. So the value comes from the pairing of the tool to the wielder, and I would expect an artist's paintbrush to be valuable when tied to a specific artist just like Hendrix's guitar, and both mostly worthless otherwise. But the art itself should have value mostly independently, and I think the analogue to that would be the music. If someone else produced exactly the same music as Hendrix, I think it should be almost as valuable.
    - jeffwass 10y ago
      Would you pay the same amount to see a famous band play a concert vs a very good cover band?
      - jjnoakes 10y ago
        If the concert was purely music and the very good cover band played the music just as well, then sure. Concerts are about more than just the music though. They are often about the stage presence, visual affects, and the nostalgia, in addition to the music. That being said, if this cover band had just as good a show as the original band, and somehow the same amount of nostalgia (i.e. they've been covering the original band's songs since the start and have always been just as good in concert), then again I would say yes. I don't think that's likely though. I mean, if you boil down what you are paying for to its essence, and provide an alternative with exactly the same quality in that essence, then you should be willing to pay the same. It's almost by-definition.
pessimizer 10y ago
Then it's a perverse market where people have ceased to sell objects, and are now just trading financial instruments. I support the right of the author to disclaim the authorship of any work at any time, despite any evidence to the contrary. He should be able to choose whether he wants his name used as a vehicle in a financial transaction. Not whether it will be, because if some insurance company or law firm wants to back it as a work by him, it's entirely up to them. He should not be forced to endorse that transaction, and if their valuation relies on that enforcement, their valuation should be dependent on his consent. The opposite has always been true. I can endorse that painting as an original pessimizer, without caveat. That doesn't imply that I own the image in terms of copyright, any more than R.Mutt endorsing a urinal as his own work, or Jeff Koons claiming various arrangements of vacuum cleaners as his own work gives them any power over any patents covering the design of the object.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Not forcing the author to endorse is fine, but in this case - assuming he did paint it - he actually lied. I have sympathy for the particular role that is authorship of art, but if it was something else like a car or a house, and the previous seller publicly and falsely claimed there was something wrong with it, losing you a sale, is that not an harm? If the author sells his works in the open market, why should he then have privileges above other sellers?
  - robryk 10y ago
    Do you think that there should be a blanket prohibition against causing harm to other people by making false statements, even if the person making the false statement doesn't gain anything by doing that? This would be a stronger prohibition against libel than (IIUC) is present in US. I also don't see how it could interact with investigative reporting -- a reporter often cannot prove his statements without breaking the confidentiality of his sources.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      IANAL, but I don't think defamation law requires the person to gain anything. And in fact, there is a tort of trade libel/commercial disparagement, which is specifically about harm that comes from making knowingly false claims about products or services.
ww520 10y ago
An artist should be free to affirm or deny authorship of an art object whether he actually created it or not. The buyers assume substantial risk when buying unauthenticated artworks.

by biztos 10y ago

ww520 10y ago

An artist should be free to affirm or deny authorship of an art object whether he actually created it or not. The buyers assume substantially risk when buying unauthenticated artworks.

lallysingh 10y ago

What's interesting here is how the art isn't valued on its own artistic merits, but by its authorship. The artist's ability to control the value of a work by testimony is weird, but only because the underlying work's value is weird.

biztos 10y ago
It's been that way for a long time, though authorship and merits were (and arguably still are) very intermingled. It started with the simple fact that really good artists were those that made really good art, and once somebody had a reputation it would be both to the artist's benefit and the collector's to have that front and center: for the artist, as advertisement to attract buyers, and for the collector to brag about. I think the things that are very different now (i.e. since about the 80's) are: 1. Much, much more money is involved. 2. In many cases there is a huge gap between what insiders would consider the "underlying work's value" and what average people would find inspiring. 3. Media, obviously, and the Internet. (And of course even insiders can differ on #2: there are plenty of cases where the market says Yes but the academics say No. The market works hard to "correct" this in its favor.) Here's a great article on a great artist whose name recognition was a big part of his career in the 1500's, for instance: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieronymus-bosch/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieron...
alanh 10y ago
Welcome to art! The only difference between Fountain and the, ah, similar works on display in the art museum men’s room is an official nod by DuChamp.
Waterluvian 10y ago
It's kind of McLuhanesque. The artist is on display, not the art.
jeffwass 10y ago
Many collectibles are like that. Eg : Jimmy Hendrix's first guitar as a child would auction for quite a lot of money. But the same model and condition guitar instead owned by some random guy in Omaha would be worthless.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  I feel like this analogy isn't quite right. I would compare the guitar to a paintbrush. Both are tools which, in the right hands, can make beautiful things. So the value comes from the pairing of the tool to the wielder, and I would expect an artist's paintbrush to be valuable when tied to a specific artist just like Hendrix's guitar, and both mostly worthless otherwise. But the art itself should have value mostly independently, and I think the analogue to that would be the music. If someone else produced exactly the same music as Hendrix, I think it should be almost as valuable.
  - jeffwass 10y ago
    Would you pay the same amount to see a famous band play a concert vs a very good cover band?
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      If the concert was purely music and the very good cover band played the music just as well, then sure. Concerts are about more than just the music though. They are often about the stage presence, visual affects, and the nostalgia, in addition to the music. That being said, if this cover band had just as good a show as the original band, and somehow the same amount of nostalgia (i.e. they've been covering the original band's songs since the start and have always been just as good in concert), then again I would say yes. I don't think that's likely though. I mean, if you boil down what you are paying for to its essence, and provide an alternative with exactly the same quality in that essence, then you should be willing to pay the same. It's almost by-definition.

pessimizer 10y ago

Then it's a perverse market where people have ceased to sell objects, and are now just trading financial instruments. I support the right of the author to disclaim the authorship of any work at any time, despite any evidence to the contrary. He should be able to choose whether he wants his name used as a vehicle in a financial transaction. Not whether it will be, because if some insurance company or law firm wants to back it as a work by him, it's entirely up to them. He should not be forced to endorse that transaction, and if their valuation relies on that enforcement, their valuation should be dependent on his consent. The opposite has always been true. I can endorse that painting as an original pessimizer, without caveat. That doesn't imply that I own the image in terms of copyright, any more than R.Mutt endorsing a urinal as his own work, or Jeff Koons claiming various arrangements of vacuum cleaners as his own work gives them any power over any patents covering the design of the object.

icebraining 10y ago
Not forcing the author to endorse is fine, but in this case - assuming he did paint it - he actually lied. I have sympathy for the particular role that is authorship of art, but if it was something else like a car or a house, and the previous seller publicly and falsely claimed there was something wrong with it, losing you a sale, is that not an harm? If the author sells his works in the open market, why should he then have privileges above other sellers?
- robryk 10y ago
  Do you think that there should be a blanket prohibition against causing harm to other people by making false statements, even if the person making the false statement doesn't gain anything by doing that? This would be a stronger prohibition against libel than (IIUC) is present in US. I also don't see how it could interact with investigative reporting -- a reporter often cannot prove his statements without breaking the confidentiality of his sources.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    IANAL, but I don't think defamation law requires the person to gain anything. And in fact, there is a tort of trade libel/commercial disparagement, which is specifically about harm that comes from making knowingly false claims about products or services.

ww520 10y ago

An artist should be free to affirm or deny authorship of an art object whether he actually created it or not. The buyers assume substantial risk when buying unauthenticated artworks.