Can an art museum show your art even if it isn't finished?
One saving grace: The Art Newspaper reports that the judge ordered the museum to post a sign with the work stating, “An unfinished project that does not carry out the artist’s original intent”.
What do you think? Email me your opinions to: Not Your Art.
Have any questions on art? Something you would like to talk about?Email me!
Wow, this case raised my hackles.
The whole thing started when Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (Mass MoCA) began working with Swiss Artist Christoph Büchel to create an exhibit that he called, Training Ground for Democracy, a village based on the training villages the US Army uses to prepare new soldiers for battle situations. The museum displayed parts of a huge showing , even though Christoph Büchel was unable to finish it because he could no longer afford the costs associated with the display.
The artist took them to court citing the 1990 Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) to prove that the museum was breaking the law by distorting the work without his permission.
The judge, Michael A. Ponsor, ruled that since the museum bought and put together much of the display, at its own expense, and since Büchel worked with the museum in an “organic collaboration”, the museum had every right to display the art. Huh? So, since the museum helped, the artist has no say over what happens to the final product? Umm...am I missing something.
This makes me wonder if Büchel had a contract that stated the museum had total control over all art produced. If not, I don't understand the ruling. I could see making the artist pay back the museum for the money they put into the work, but Büchel should be able to tell them what to do with it.
